Leading from the Skipped Generation

Xers must pivot to thrive. 

I remember it like it was yesterday, even though it was 20 years ago. I was in a room with hundreds of colleagues and our leaders (Boomers) were talking about the intentional steps they planned to take to begin to include the next generation in leadership. That was exciting and I wondered how that might impact me. Near the end of the meeting, they even had the next generation stand to add some ceremony to the whole ordeal; the boomer with the mic said, “All of you who are 34 and younger, please stand.” There I sat; I was 37. The Boomers were generally looking to the Millennials (the generation of their children) as the next generation. Generation X was skipped, at least the oldest Xers.

It is a thing. Google “Generation X Skipped” and some 11 million entries will result. It has been the focus of research, books, articles, and such for years now. For example, some speculate that we will skip Generation X when voting for President; when we are finished electing Boomers (and older) we will jump right to a Millennials. (I think we have a good shot at an Xer in 2024, based on my list, but if we don’t elect an Xer in 2024, we might skip right to a Millennial in the future.)

Of course, this is not universally true… but it does seem to be generally true. I am not qualified to speak in terms other than generalities. What follows is merely my observations and proposals. I have not done the research or read all the important articles.  

Today’s 60 and 70 somethings are usually not handing things off to us 50 somethings… preferring, rather, the 30 and 40 somethings. That does not give me heartburn. Like I said, it is not universally true. Some of that is merely how population trends work; there is a reason Xers are called Generation X. I’m not a victim… it is just a general observation.

My main point is that us Xers, after working for Boomers for decades, now may find ourselves working for Millennials. Boomers are different from Millennials… often a lot different. I have found myself in conversations recently with Xers navigating these waters, often with difficulty. Here are a few observations worth considering.

Soft Skills are Way More Important to Millennials

Boomers were generally, often narrowly, concerned with outputs. In the words of the contemporary sage, “Get ‘er done.” There were metrics and less complex measures of success.

Millennials are concerned with more comprehensive outcomes including the journey, relationships, and culture. They are concerned with justice too in most every form, including environmental justice and racial justice.

Boomers did not bring their feelings to work. If they did, they were embarrassed and apologized for it. Xers bring their whole selves to work and expect to balance it all.

For Xers to thrive we need to intentionally embrace comprehensive outcomes and value justice.

If we do not bring our feelings to work, we must, at least, value when others do.

Flexibility, Uncertainty, and Even Ambiguity are Embraced by Millennials

Millennials are post-modern. Boomers are modern. And Xers are somewhere in the middle, perhaps post-modern on the inside, but accustomed to working for moderns which has forced us to be modern on the outside.  

For Boomers, there is one right way, or at least one best way. For post-moderns, there are all sorts of right ways with equal value. Xers, having worked for Boomers all these years, are accustomed to striving for the one right or best way, or at least spinning things so that Boomers will agree that it is the right way. Millennials find claims that there is one right way, or efforts to find the one right way, irritating… perhaps even offensive.

Millennials (post-moderns) value paradoxes and ideological tension. They don’t need all the answers, are glad to be flexible, happy to adjust as we go along, and operate in the fog without difficulty.

Boomers plan their work and work their plan; they prefer a waterfall approach to planning… a ready-aim-fire approach to work in which they stick to the plan if at all possible. Millennials are more flexible, planning as they go along, welcoming change along the way (more of an agile approach to planning).

For Xers to thrive, we need to let our inner post-moderns out of the closet. We need to stop insisting that we have the one right answer, or that there even is one right answer.

Communication styles need to change. Xers, perhaps regressing to a plan-the-work-and-work-the-plan approach, often bring their questions to Millennial leaders and it is perceived to be an interrogation or critique. We Xers should be careful to not attack or box-in Millennials with our communication.

Leadership Dynamics May Be Under Stress

Millennials are sometimes not sure how to lead Xers. Xers are often not sure how to follow Millennials.

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I think it has something to do with how Xers are perceived to be more like Boomers in the workplace. Again, having been trained by Boomers, us Xers have learned Boomer behavior. We may appear to be stuck, unwilling, or even unable, to change.

For Xers to thrive, we need to shake off the Boomer clothes. We need to demonstrate that we can change and are in glad to champion organizational change.

It may even be that Xers need to be self-leaders, to discern the times and workplace relationships and lead ourselves in change to better adapt to workplaces led by, and dominated by, Millennials.

Communication styles are key here too. Our Boomer bosses liked memos and agendas; we moved them to email and started to get them moving toward virtual meeting spaces. We Xers must pivot to text and Slack, continue to embrace virtual meeting spaces, and thrive in shorter, but more frequent, bursts of communication.

 

Am I on to something here? I would love to hear your perspectives and feedback.   

Throw a Flag

Having devoted a big chunk of my adult life to serving academics, I've been around a lot of academics (and pre-academics... even pseudo-academics). I don’t think of myself as an academic... more of a para-academic. But I enjoy the sport... a lot.

Often times academic discussions might be characterized as experimental speech. Sometimes there may be explicit rules, such as “what is said here stays here.” Often, in academic contexts, the rules are merely implied, allowing participants to float ideas for the community to debate. The productive tension found in a robust community results in better, more sound ideas that may then serve as foundations for action or further thought.

I’ve found a handy tool suited for this sort of tension-filled, robust debate or experimental speech. Empower people to throw a flag. We sometimes get so focused on the ideas that we disregard the people. A highly productive team should self-police and throw a flag when necessary.

So I tell colleagues: If you find me committing a foul, please throw a flag (I've been known to commit unnecessary roughness, pass interference, and such, during exuberant, academic debate).

Sometimes people throw a flag; there are those more tuned-in to feelings and perceived attacks and those valued members throw a flag… for themselves, but often on behalf of others. Throwing a flag gives the team a moment to refocus, and perhaps the speaker to clarify, or apologize. Just knowing that there are those empowered to throw a flag gives people freedom to speak, to float ideas and advocate for their positions. The presence of such a guard rail usually results in more productive discussion.

Better Meetings

Someone recently asked me for tips on having productive meetings. For many, it is worth thinking about, and tuning up, our approach to meetings from time to time since we spend so much time in meetings. If we can squeeze a bit more productivity out of our time in meetings, it can really pay off.

Here’s some simple approaches that have been helpful for me for both 1-on-1 meetings and team meetings:

Have an Agenda

The best way to know that we are all on the same page is to have a page. Having an agenda doesn’t have to be a barrier to the sometimes-productive free flow and chasing down rabbit trails that happens in meetings, it merely gives people a sense of what we expect to cover.

For many, seeing what is on the agenda allows people to be at ease since there shouldn’t be any surprises. For others it helps them focus on the item at hand since they know that items that may be important to them are on the docket.

Have Some Categories

I have found it really handy to have a standard rubric for agenda.

For agenda that seemed to routinely have more items on the list than time would allow; I’d use these categories (in this order):

1. Communication: Quick “heads up” items that folks in the meeting would benefit from knowing (not a circle brag… but the sort of things that might be in our silos that others ought to know). These items do not require deliberation or decisions.
2. Strategy: These tend to be more big-picture and systemic items, the kinds of things that once settled will continue to payoff over time since a system is setup.
3. Tactics: These are the one-off kinds of things that need to be discussed or solved.

Prioritizing an agenda according to categories helps keep the most important work on the front burner. It also incentivizes people to reframe what might be a tactical item as a strategic item, which could result in solving high-payoff systemic issues rather than dealing with similar recurring tactical issues.

There are all sorts of rubrics that could be used, here are a few others I’ve used:

• Follow up (old business), Decisions, New Projects 
• Discussion, Deliberations, Decisions

Share Access to the Agenda

Meeting participants should have access to the agenda as it is coming together. If the circumstances are suitable, I like to let people add their own items directly. I’ve used various file-sharing tools; my favorite these days are in the Google-Suite (Google Docs works well for meeting agendas, and Google Drive makes sharing easy). Use hyperlinks on your agenda to connect to supporting documents.

Sharing access gives people ownership, and allows them to be prepared to make the most of the meeting time.

Archive Agenda

I have found it really handy to archive agenda. While not minutes being able to go back and see an old agenda is handy.

Here’s how I do it. I set up a shared folder for each regular meeting. I call the agenda file “agenda” and just update that for each meeting; thus participants can easily find the agenda for the next meeting. Once the meeting is over, I save a copy (snapshot) of the meeting in an archive folder and then update the agenda file for the next meeting.

Respect the Clock

I tend to have the clock determine the length, start, and stop of the meeting rather than the agenda. People know that when I’m leading a meeting we are going to start and end on time, that we’ll have an agenda, and if we don’t manage to cover everything, whatever we don’t cover can wait until next time (because I’ve prioritized the agenda).

Be Sure to Connect

This is one that I’m still working at. It is easy for me to be so agenda-driven that I forget that an important part of the meeting is to connect with people. Since we often are working together in short bursts of electronic communication (text, emails, and such) meetings give us the interpersonal context and foundation for ongoing work. Five minutes or so of chitchat is an important part of most meetings.

Consider a Consent Agenda

A consent agenda is a handy tool for many meetings. Keep a list of consent items, linked to supporting documents whenever possible, for which the participants are responsible. Give participants the opportunity to pull anything off the consent agenda that needs discussion or deliberation, and then consider everything left on the consent agenda as understood and approved.

Have any feedback? Are there helpful approaches to meetings that you would like to share? Leave a comment below. 

Beware: The Word Processing Department

It is hard to imagine that there is such a thing as a Word Processing Department today.

When I was an IT Director many moons ago, I found a sign like this (full disclosure, this is a reproduction… but I wanted one for myself). It went back to a day when my predecessor supervised the Word Processing Department. It was 30+ years ago and they discovered word processing software (a Data General product called CEO that ran on their MV 4000) and the HP LaserJet printer. They had one of the first LaserJets; it apparently cost around $5,000 and I was recently told “it was worth every penny.” Since they were sharing the one LaserJet printer at the College among 30ish administrative employees, they consolidated their resources in the Word Processing Department.

When there were letters to be distributed to donors, prospective students, alumni, students or other big lists, they looked to the Word Processing Department to format, mail-merge, and print. It is hard to imagine a day when it took a third-party with special skills and gear to produce a letter, a day when folk would schedule a walk between buildings to get to the one shared laser printer on campus.

At some point, before I arrived on the scene, the Word Processing Department became obsolete. People gained expertise with the software, and the software got way better. The gear got cheaper. And people invented new ways to exploit the technology. Eventually the day came when people did not need the Word Processing Department any longer.

I imagine that there was a season of frustration that preceded the demise of the Word Processing Department.

• Fellow employees served by the Word Processing Department (internal customers) likely did not always agree with the priorities and schedule. I suspect that internal customers wanted faster turnaround, and I suspect that there were some who considered their work the most vital, and thus should always be bumped to the beginning of the queue. 
• I suspect that the folks in the Word Processing Department were frustrated too. It could be that folks would seldom work according to procedure, not getting work to them on time or in the proper form. 
• There were likely rogue units in the organization who did not play according to the rules and found ways to work around the Word Processing Department, maybe even getting their own unauthorized gear.

In this specific case, I don’t know how it all shook out… whether the Word Processing Department died slowly, clinging to the perceived value of centralized resources (and control) or they were glad to distribute the tools widely as soon as possible.

Like I said, with Microsoft Word on my iPhone and three printers at home, it is hard to conceive of a Word Processing Department these days. But I suspect there is often something like the Word Processing Department in a lot of organizations.

These days, in part of my work, I’m seeing something along these lines when it comes to Web. When it comes to Web, organizations easily see the outward-facing value and develop their Web presence. When the Web was getting started it was common for the IT Department to be the first to manage things, not merely providing infrastructure, but also designing the site and developing content (it is on computers after all, so it must be an IT thing). Before long that gets frustrating for the organization and management of the Web (still mostly outward facing) moves to a unit more aligned with the marketing functions of the organization.

Then the organization realizes that even though the website may be designed to be outward facing, the internal customers use the site a lot… so much so that it may seem like the internal customers are among the most important customers (they are the customers with faces, the colleagues we bump into in the break room). So meeting the demands of the internal customers becomes a priority, all the while the internal customers invent new ways to use the technology. It is great for efficiency… but may not be as great for effectiveness as folk turn inward, neglecting the vital outward-facing work.

Eventually we realize that there isn’t anything all that mystical about the technology and the tools are distributed. It could be as simple as a bifurcation, splitting between internet and intranet, or it could be distributed among several outward-facing and inward-facing strategies.

I’m also seeing a similar sort of thing happen with video. A marketing department develops expertise in producing outward-facing video, and then the organization determines that the same tools could be powerful for internal communication.

I am very much in favor of powerful and efficient internal communication. And I am in favor of collaboration and cross-pollination in such ways in which, for example, a marketing department would serve as a resource to help more inward-facing initiatives ramp up.

But my concern is that it easy to lose focus, allowing powerful internal voices to draw marketing departments away from their main thing. The perceived efficiencies gained by centralizing resources and control are not worth the price of neglecting, or even diluting, outward-facing work.

Do you have any Word Processing Departments in your organization?

• Units where resources are centralized, controlled and rationed (even though they are really not all that scarce any longer)? 
• Areas where internal customers are competing with external customers, pulling time, talent, and treasure inward that ought to stay focused outward? 
• Policies and procedures that seem to generate a lot of friction (energy that generates heat but no motion) that could be elevated by simply distributing technology or resources? 

Churn from Playing Office Politics

Another driver of churn: playing office politics. The HBR IdeaCast featured a good entry on the subject recently. Both the audio and the transcript are available here: http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/08/office-politics-for-the-pros/

Pushing the Churn Metaphor

I had a lot of positive feedback on my post on churn. One of the emails reminded me that I gave little consideration to the more conventional dictionary definitions of the word. I was using the word the way I have often heard it… more along the lines of business slang.

So… allow me to push the metaphor just a bit more.

   churn, noun – a vessel that agitates and separates

The most common use of the word is when it is a noun, describing a device… usually a butter churn. There was a time not all that long ago when a butter churn was a common household appliance. If you had a cow (or even a goat I suppose), you probably had a butter churn.

The metaphor still works when thinking about churn in terms of business/organization slang. A butter churn is an agitator (now… I want to be really careful about saying anything that might be misconstrued as a negative stance on butter… because I LOVE butter). In a butter churn, the agitation separates the watery stuff from the oily stuff.

Organizational churn separates as well. It isolates people, creates factions, and often results in defensiveness. Unlike a butter churn that productively separates the desirable stuff from the undesirable stuff, organizational churn usually just unproductively separates.

   churn, verb – to stir or agitate violently

This verb form usually describes the movement of a liquid, or at least something that is moving like liquid (leaves blowing in the wind might be described as churning). Churn is different than flow. There might be violence in a flow (whitewater), but there is positive energy. Churn generally is violent stirring or agitation without anything positive or productive.

I don’t mind a bit of whitewater when it is associated with productive flow in an organization (truth be told, I’m often exhilarated by a bit of organizational whitewater and have some skills navigating whitewater). Skilled leaders can tell the difference between whitewater and churn, and can confidently navigate whitewater, assuring those in the organization that everyone will make it to the other side and it will be worth it.

   churn, verb – excessive turnover by a financial broker of a client’s holdings in order to generate commissions

This may be the definition that most closely parallels some of what I was getting at in the previous post. Unscrupulous financial brokers will churn their client’s accounts merely to create activity, regardless if there is any productivity, because the financial broker benefits from the transactions.

We often have churn makers in our organizations; they will likely not earn a commission because of the organizational churn, but they think they acquire some other capital in creating churn. When we identify such churners, we need to rehabilitate them, redirect them, or in some cases move them out of our organization.


Can you think of any other definitions I’ve missed? I’m always glad for your feedback.

Churn

Churn: that part of organizational work that consumes resources but produces little benefit. It is organizational friction, lots of activity with little productivity, lots of heat but little light. Every organization has it. I’ve observed it in small and large organizations, mom-and-pops and the world’s largest businesses, the most profitable companies and non-profits, the hallowed halls of academia and the holy ground of churches. Churn exists everywhere; it is part of the price of doing business. 

While churn can occupy large parts of our days, it seems that it is seldom about the main thing. Churn doesn’t often swirl around strategic issues, but rather surrounds our tactics. It is what makes that task that ought to take 20 minutes consume 2 hours, or  even 2 days.

There is no use in trying to entirely eradicate churn, nor should we obsess on it. Churn is part of the price whenever people are working together, and it is worth it since the benefits of building an organization (working together) outweigh every alternative (is there really an alternative?). 

We can’t eliminate churn, but we can reduce it. I’m sure I’ve created more than my fair share of churn, but I’ve had some success in reducing it as well, and I’ve seen resources that might have otherwise  been burned up by churn redirected into productive work. We accomplish more, take less of a toll on our people, and have more fun doing it when we reduce churn. 

Here are some of the strategies I’ve used to successfully reduce churn.

Organizational Discipline 

Work The Manuals

A lot of churn is simply a result of people not knowing what to do. Organizations may have missed keeping up with our emerging cultures approach to information. There was a day when we focused on acquiring knowledge; now our focus is on access to knowledge. Students are less concerned with knowing the facts than being able to access the facts. If our organizations rely on merely what people can cram into their heads, we are inviting churn. 

The best way to make sure that we’re all on the same page is to have a page. And the best page, of course, isn’t on paper but rather in electronic form, indexed and accessible at the desktop or on a handheld device. The manuals should be considered a living document, easy to edit and expand. Make it an incremental process. There’s no need for an exhaustive manual in the beginning; take it step by step. And once something is manualized, always drive people back to the manual to get them in the habit of looking to the manual first. 

Work The Org Chart 

Churn is minimized when (1) communication networks are open and fluid and (2) decision-making structures are understood, simple, and locked down.  (See my brief article on Networks and Structures here>>>)

Ambiguous organizational structures result in churn. I’ve observed some of the most churn when people work for (or at least perceive that they work for) many superiors; trying to keep all the bosses happy inevitably results in churn. When people on the inside of a decision making structure are not sure how they fit, they end up spending far too much time and energy looking around (staying out of trouble) instead of focusing on what is ahead (accomplishing the goal). 

That is true for folks outside of the decision-making structures as well. When it is not clear who has the authority, resources, or perspective to move things forward, people are easily lost in a game of hot potato as they and their issue are dumped off from one person to another. (See my brief article on No Hand Backs here>>>) 

The best org charts are built from a bottom-up perspective. Rather than answering the question “which positions should work for this boss to best resource this boss,” we should ask the question “which leader would best resource this position?” 

Work The Communication Networks 

We shouldn’t merely assume that everybody knows everything; we should champion the cause of open communication. Whenever possible we shouldn’t waste any energy on controlling information (that easily happens when we confuse organizational structures with communication networks); let every interested party in on the communication networks. Create a culture in which people can know and chime in on anything they want, a culture that welcomes open communication but does not confuse the decision making process (a culture that understands that while every perspective and opinion is valid, it may or may not ultimately impact every decision). 

Utilize both push and pull strategies for open organizational communication. It is not enough to have open-door policies that require people to ask (pull); we need to push information out. Furthermore, we need to archive that information so that it can be easily searched and referenced in the future. 

Open communication reduces churn not only because people know what is going on; it also is key in building trust.  

Personal Discipline 

Don’t Create Problems to Solve 

It seems that most every organization has someone who creates (or at least draws attention to) problems that only they can solve (or at least think they can solve). These are the ones who routinely make mountains out of mole hills, usually because they think they are uniquely suited to summit the mountain. They want the attention and sense of self-worth that comes from solving important problems, so they create important problems that they can publicly solve… all the while scooping up their colleagues in a whirlwind of churn. To reduce churn we need to resist being that kind of person, and we need to identify those who do this and redirect their energy. 

Don’t Short-Circuit The System For Expediency 

Bosses need to be especially vigilant in exercising this disciple. It is too easy to take matters into our own hands and just handle things ourselves. Even when we are right, we are wrong when we short-circuit the organizational structure for expediency (unless there is truly an emergency). It creates churn by both (1) sending folk scurrying in response and (2) disempowering folk for future decisions. I’m not saying that we need to stand idly by, hoping that the systems will work; we simply need to expend the little bit of energy to work the system. (What may seem like a little bit of churn for leaders can result in relieving a lot of churn for those deeper in the organization.) 

Leadership Discipline

Delegate

Build a solid organizational structure and stick to it. If it doesn’t work, fix it until it does. And then work the system by delegating not only responsibility but authority and resources as well. Trust the decision makers closest to the situation, thus reducing the churn of always running up and down the chain of command. 

Don’t Underestimate The Impact Of Churn 

For a lot of people, the strongest root of stress is a feeling of powerlessness. That powerlessness often manifests itself as churn… and many leaders are oblivious to it. It is easy to be blind to the churn that occurs deeper in the system (whether we have any hand in causing it or not). Leaders can go a long way toward increasing workplace satisfaction (thus boosting productivity) by being churn busters… not only doing what they can personally to reduce churn, but building systems that minimize churn.

 

Go On Vacation

I’m getting ready to head out on vacation Friday. Since we’ll be in Canada, I’m looking forward to being unplugged for a week. While I’ll probably fire up an internet connection in our condo, I won’t pay for data roaming, so I won’t be checking my email and such several times an hour throughout the day like usual.

I love my iPhone. I’ve been a smartphone user from their inception; Palms and Blackberries were great, but the iPhone is the best. There is certainly a bit of a tethering that comes with these great tools… but I think it is more than mere rationalization when I say that I can make the most of my evenings and weekends by knowing what is going on through my iPhone and knowing that I can be reached if someone needs me. But I also know that I’ll get the most out of this week of vacation by being unplugged. I get about the business of truly relaxing, faster and better, when I am untethered from my email.

Since I know that I’ll be mostly unplugged next week, I’m working harder than usual to tie up loose ends and letting folk know that I really do not want to be bothered unless there is truly an emergency. I probably ought to always work this hard to prepare for vacation. It could be that I’ve just gotten a little lazy due to the convenience of tools like the iPhone… but it could be something deeper, including:

Inflated Self Importance – Sometimes I get the feeling that folk purposefully allow emergencies to pop up that they are uniquely suited to fix. They remind themselves, and all those around them, that they really are important because only they can solve these kinds of emergencies. I’ve occasionally allowed vacations to be interrupted by emergencies; in every case, when I’ve looked back, I’ve realized that it really didn’t qualify as an emergency. While I may have had a tiny rush knowing that I was just that important to have to take that call, write that email, or pick up that FedEx… it has never really been worth it. I suppose that the President of the United States really must be on call with all the trappings (staff, Air Force One, and all), but seriously… I’m just not that big of a deal… not even close.

Personal Insecurity – What if one were to be really gone and nobody noticed? Sometimes I wonder if I keep myself in the middle of things when I should be on vacation just to be sure that I really am in the middle of things.

Insecurity of Staff – It seems that some folk can’t go on vacation because their coworkers, colleagues, and staff are paralyzed without them. Sometimes folk can’t function (not enough perspective, authority, knowledge, etc.) and other times they won’t function because they won’t risk making a mistake, fearing that the vacationing one will come back and blow a gasket.

Disorganization – Finally, sometimes it is just plain old lack of organization. We can’t really go on vacation because we never sufficiently button things up. The "emergencies" that we allow to crowd in our vacation could simply be result of our own lack of work and organization.

We have vacation policies in place, not just because we must, but because it is good for business. People need to take a break, a sabbath to wind down and be rejuvenated. As CFO, I see that vacation liability as an actual expense on our budgets, a pretty big expense, and I think it is worth every penny. When I don’t really go on vacation, in a very real way I’m ripping off the company; since they are really paying for vacation, I owe it to them to give them the best vacation I can for their money.

Choose and Act

Would I rather have Sarah Palin?

I listen to Denis Miller’s radio show; he occasionally says something like, “Well, I know that Sarah Palin couldn’t be a Jeopardy champ, but I’d rather have her in the Oval Office than our current president.” He usually goes on to explain that while Palin likely has a lower IQ than Obama, Miller would rather have her at the helm… that she is smart enough. I agree.

I agree because I know that high IQ doesn’t necessarily translate into the ability to lead. Leadership doesn’t necessarily require the ability to generate the most brilliant answer; leadership has much more to do with selecting a brilliant answer and acting on it. That usually has more to do with issues of character and perspective than mere intelligence. You don’t have to always generate the smartest answer (if you’re responsible for a lot, you’ll likely rarely have the expertise anyway)… you just have to be able to choose a smart answer and then act on it.

Emergency!

It seems like when I look back on some of my mistakes, I see that the mistake was at least partially due to me wrongly identifying an emergency. I’m generally pretty good at handling emergencies. I can usually size up a situation pretty well, determine a solution, order a response within our means, and do it all without getting carried away with emotion. Colleagues have told me that they appreciate my ability to lead in crisis situations.

When I error, it isn’t usually because I don’t identify a true emergency as an emergency; the error in this regard usually comes when I treat a non-emergency like an emergency. When I look back on times like these, it is clear that I would have likely handled things better if I hadn’t escalated things to emergency status.

I watched one of these unfold several weeks ago. Somebody did something that they probably shouldn’t have, and the authority went into full emergency mode. While there may certainly be emergency situations that result from bad behavior, ordering the punishment or disciplinary procedure is rarely an emergency. In this case, the authority made a non-emergency an emergency and insisted on dealing with the issue and the punishment under emergency conditions. It resulted in an overreaction and bruising some important relationships. Had the authority realized that this wasn’t even close to an emergency situation, I’m confident there would have been a better outcome for everyone involved. Don’t make a non-emergency an emergency.

I’ve also noticed that we tend to like to escalate situations to emergency status when we are confident that we have the solution. It is fun to solve problems… to ride in on the white horse and save the day. When folk fan the spark of a little issue into a flame of something like an emergency, just so they can be the hero by alleviating the problem, it is really weak leadership. Don’t allow things to become and emergency just so you can have the thrill of saving the day, and certainly don't trump up an emergency for your own satisfaction.

Stock Pot of Water

I’ve been thinking of a leadership metaphor; it involves a stock pot and a wooden spoon. The steel pot is filled with water. It needs to be emptied. And the only tool we have is the wooden spoon.

I’m a simple guy with a bias toward action, so my inclination is to grab the spoon and get to work, one spoonful at a time, scooping the water out of the pot. It will take some effort, won’t be particularly spectacular, but the job seems clear, the resources limited, and we’re wasting time as long as we aren’t draining the pot. As long as we stick with it, the job will be completed.

While this all seems so very simple, there are alternative leadership approaches.

Study It
There are those that would want to do some figurin’ before getting underway. Even though the work seems simple, they want to know more before getting underway. Determine that each spoonful, adjusting for spillage, averages to be about 94% of a tablespoon… determine that there is 2.7 liters of water in the stock pot… do the math… adjust for evaporation… factor in breaks… you get the picture.

Document It
A slight twist on the “study it” approach is the “document it” approach by which you simply write up the findings of the “study it” approach and put it on your shelf, bound nicely in a three-ring binder. The satisfaction of filing the report replaces the satisfaction of finishing the job.

Rationalize It
If this really needs to be done then there ought to be a better way. Don’t they know that we need more resources than this wooden spoon? If they were serious about getting this work done, they would have given me better tools and more staff. I’m not doing anything until they make this easier.

Boil It
I have a better idea… a more spectacular idea… an idea that will be far less work and will be seen by all as brilliant. All I need to do is light the wooden spoon on fire, set up the stock pot over the fire, and the water will boil, turn to steam, and “presto.” Of course the fire from the spoon barely warmed the water, let alone brought it to a boil. The fire was spectacular, and it was an amusing idea, but we still have a pot full of water and now we don’t even have the spoon.

Can you think of others?

Agreement

A couple of recent conversations clarified a vital question: what does it really mean to be a member of a team? A defining characteristic that has emerged and been helpful in our conversations is agreement.

It might be helpful to first be a bit more specific about what we mean when we say team, since team is one of those words we throw around with few boundaries. For the purposes of this discussion, I am meaning a work team that:

• Operates with a specific charter and agenda,


• Is comprised of members who have specific roles and the ability to contribute as a team member, and


• Has the authority and resources to meet the demands of the agenda.

In work teams like these, the rule should be agreement.

Mere democracy is not agreement. If a group operates according to “majority rule,” whether it is a small committee or a large country, it is not a team. That isn’t a bad thing at all, just a different “thing” than a team. There are all sorts of circumstances where “majority rule” is the best solution, it simply isn’t a team.

The rule of agreement takes into account that team members posses varying perspectives as well as differing amounts of influence. This is an important distinction from a democratic process in which every vote has the same value in every decision. Members of a team should acknowledge that each team member brings different things to the table. Each has a unique perspective, and some perspectives are better suited for various tasks and decisions than others. Some may have various levels of authority and responsibility that impact how agreement may be reached. While it may seem that more influential/powerful members of the team are less agreeable, it could be that their responsibilities require them to be more deliberate in a process toward agreement.

Blind obedience or unswerving allegiance is not agreement. A productive team should not allow for members who are simply “yes men.” It is often the most loyal thing one can do to help members of a team avoid a mistake, or insist on making a good idea a great success. On the other hand, those who only think of their role in terms of being a contrarian or antagonist are not productive members of a team.

Agreement should be neither political or protectionist. Reaching agreement should not be a matter of trading votes (“I’ll support you this time if you support me next time”). It should also not be a matter of giving in to simply protect a position, role, or job. The best team members often approach their work as being “self employed,” not so desperate to protect their job that they give in to anything that might threaten their position.

When agreement is not possible there are at least a couple of potential conclusions. It could be that the work at hand is not suitable for the team, or any team. Or it could be that there needs to be a change in the membership of the team. If a team is intent on operating with agreement, then there may be times that call for difficult decisions.

One of the markers that indicates that a work group has become a real team is when the members consider each other trusted colleagues that “have your back.”

These are just some ramblings of things I’m thinking about in this regard. I expect to do some more reading, thinking, and writing along these lines in the coming weeks. In addition to unpacking some of what I’ve written above, other aspects that I hope to give some attention include:

• Leading a team


• Team work under time constraints or emergency conditions


• Dealing with members who are not meeting the demands of the team


• Moving forward as a team after a difficult process of coming to agreement


• Taking things off the teams agenda when the task or decision calls for another approach


• Joining a team… breaking in when you’re new

I'm happy to have your feedback!

Seeing Change

One of the best tools in a leader’s toolbox is perspective. Leadership often comes with the privilege of being able to see the organization from more broad perspectives. While likely unfamiliar with important frontline details, leaders should be equipped with perspectives that include a wide range of aspects, as well as a view over time and a sense about the future.

Listening to Tim Keller recently (a talk on change that you can hear by using this link), I heard him say that growth and change cannot be seen, but only measured. While it may seem like we can literally watch our kids grow, for example, we really only know that they’ve grown by measurement and comparison over time. Likewise, an isolated snapshot of our organization alone cannot tell the story of growth, change and progress.

The idea that growth and change cannot be seen, but only measured, is an important leadership principle.

It is easy for us in any organization to go about our work with the misconception that we are not moving the ball forward. Are we making a difference today? Are today’s tasks doing anything to impact the big picture?

Leaders need to be continually about the work of sharing perspective. More than just telling people what it looks like from leadership’s point of view, leaders need to make opportunities to bring folk to points of broad perspective and help them see. Opportunities to share perspective take all sorts of shapes, including:

• Reminding people of the past through storytelling and interviews of historical figures
• Keeping track of meaningful metrics and reporting on progress clearly and regularly
• Explaining how different parts of an organization are interrelated and symbiotic
• Illustrating how sacrifices today are intended to produce tomorrow’s successes
• Competently demonstrating an ability to see, synthesize, and interpret the broad perspective in ways that build confidence and trust throughout the organization

As a leader, it is easy for me to forget that I have the benefit of a unique perspective; not everyone sees what I see. It is both a matter of position and ability, vantage point and equipment, sightlines and skill. Good leaders remember that they have unique perspective and share it well.

Networks and Structures

I recently heard Ed Catmull, president of Pixar, reflect on a September 2008 article he wrote for the Harvard Business Review about fostering collective creativity. One of the key quotes from the interview went something like this, “we need people at Pixar to recognize that we are highly organized, but the organization structure and the communication structure are two different things.” I downloaded the article; here’s how he stated it in print: “Everyone must have the freedom to communicate with anyone. This means recognizing that the decision-making hierarchy and communication structure in organizations are two different things.”

I think this is something that I’ve always understood, but I know I will do well to better adopt and propagate this key concept. Organization structures and communication networks need to both be leveraged to their maximum potential in collective creativity and decision making.

The skilled leader will keep both the structures and the networks in harmonious tension. It is easy to err by failing on either side.

In my experience, we don’t need to do anything to create the communication networks; people talk. Our task is really to better acknowledge the networks and leverage them to their maximum potential; we can do more to enable the networks. Managers err when we build a culture that causes the networks to go underground, failing to acknowledge and encourage open communication. The extremes, with awful consequences, are those that attempt to forbid or punish open communication.

The opposite error is to fail to acknowledge the organization structure for decision making. We commonly forget that an open communication network does not negate what Catmull calls a “decision-making hierarchy.” Short circuiting, or even the perception of short circuiting, an organization structure generally results in chaos that includes poor decision making, bruised relationships, and damaged communication networks.

For a while now, we have adopted a vernacular for three stages of decision making:

• discussion,
• deliberation, and
• decision.

I think it is helpful to think of these ideas in a simple matrix:

Collective creativity and sound decision making generally is best served by open discussion that may or may not involve the organizational structure. This is the early stage in the process characterized by brainstorming, floating of ideas, and what I often call swirl.

Deliberation ought to involve the networks and must consider the structure. This is the stage when operable plans come together. Productive deliberation should reflect the work of networks, and consider the structure in such a way that it results in a proposal that is actionable by the structure.

Decision, then, should be well informed by the networks via the previous stages, but entrusted to the organizational structure. The best decisions will include a feedback loop that demonstrates the value of the networks, especially when there is respectful disagreement.

If only it were this simple. Models like these are easily thrown by distrust and insecurity. Those in the communication networks may not be able to trust the organizational structure, even when open communication is enabled and thoroughly considered. Those in decision-making hierarchies may be so insecure that open communication is threatening, discouraged or disregarded. Then there are the added complications that might include legal constraints, confidentiality issues, and the various competing goals and perspectives of all involved. Nevertheless, sometimes a simple model like this helps, even in such complexities.
.

Can I Get an Amen?

I was talking with friends a few days ago about the use of various media technologies in our church worship services. Several of us saw news coverage on how Mars Hill Church encourages twittering during services. They are providing another way for people to reflect on their worship experience, live, to an audience that includes friends, church leadership, and even extends far beyond the walls of the sanctuary. In most churches, worshipers are routinely told to turn off phones; at #MHC they are encouraging folk to turn them on and use them.

We talked about how it might be cool if people could use a mobile device to talk to us during the sermon. Twittering is cool, but not everyone twitters (especially at my church), and it would take a little effort to set up a system to view twitters from the pulpit.

So I published my mobile number in the Sunday morning bulletin this morning and proposed an experiment.

I’ve always been a fairly avid, early adopter of technology. When I was my sons’ age, the first home computers were hitting the market. I started to program on TRS-80s, Apple IIs, and Commodore 64s. I’ve been hooked ever since.

I get a little edgy when I’m not connected. My iPhone is always on and with me. I monitor my email constantly as well as Facebook, voice mail, and text messages (and, yes, I'm paying attention to Twitter again @dtneary). I pride myself in being pretty easy to get a hold of, by just about any means. Many have noticed that I’m generally not still very long before I take a glance at the screen on my iPhone.

Earlier this week, Laurie got on my case a bit for fussing with my iPhone while listening to a speaker; she thought I wasn’t paying attention. Truth is, I was really paying attention. While listening to the guy deliver his talk, I was:

• Looking up scripture references
• Skimming an article that the guy had on a website
• Looking at his recently released book on Amazon

Folk who attend my church are connected too. Looking up things on their mobile devices, even occasionally bringing a laptop… nobody is freaked out by appropriate use of technology, even in our “traditional” church. As long as the gear isn’t distracting, it is welcomed.

So… with all of that said, here’s the experiment. I thought it might be cool if there was a way people could communicate with me during the sermon. What if folk were able to say “good point” or “you’re losing me” while I’m talking?

Some, of course, are happy to just shout out stuff like that… but for those who might want to try a more sophisticated approach, I invited them to send me a text.

They did, and I was able to read the feedback, in real time on my iPhone, without it being a distraction. Most were variations on “hey, this is cool, I’m texting the pastor while he’s talking,” but some were insightful, and helped me know that I was landing the points I was trying to make.

The response I received from people after the service was all enthusiastically positive. Even for those who didn’t take advantage of the technology, the idea that they could seemed to be meaningful.

I think I will keep encouraging this sort of thing, at least for the few weeks ahead. Stay tuned and I’ll give readers an update on whether we find this to be a meaningful practice, or just a gimmick.

You can hear how I set it up with our congregation this morning at http://www.cedarpark.org/thechapel/services

You Can’t Steer a Parked Truck

One of my guiding maxims has been, “you can’t steer a parked truck.”

The picture that comes to mind is one of me and my brother on Old 29. When Randy and I were growing up, our Dad (Tom) served as a volunteer firefighter. So, from time to time, we had the enormous privilege of hanging out at the fire station. Most of the equipment was off limits, of course, but we were occasionally allowed on Old 29… a restored, antique fire engine that was used for parades and community events. (There’s a picture posted of Engine 29 at http://southhavenfire.com/Apparatus.htm)

We could spend hours bouncing on the black leather seats and cranking on the large, wooden steering wheel as we raced to imaginary emergencies. In our minds we were Johnny Gage and Roy DeSoto aboard Squad 51; lives were at peril and relied on our swift arrival. It was great fun!

The cranking on the steering wheel had no real impact, but only aided our imaginations. No matter how hard we tugged, our efforts didn’t move the truck an inch. Furthermore, these childhood “driving” experiences caused me to wonder, “Just how strong will I have to become to drive a truck like this?” Try as I might, I couldn’t get the truck tires to swivel. Only later would I realize that in order to have any hope of turning the wheels, the truck need to first start moving.

I’ve translated this little maxim into a bias towards action. Planning is vitally important, but it takes movement to get things done. Although there is a certain amount of gratification of “bouncing on the seat” and imagining how the plans and resources at my disposal might accomplish a goal, the engine needs to be started and the wheels need to start rolling before we can actually begin to steer into any accomplishment.

Today I’m reminded that God can’t steer the parked truck of my life either. Sure, He speaks to me and molds me in times of still quietness. But in order for Him to accomplish much through me, I need to be moving. I’ve have especially found that I need to be moving in order for Him to accomplish the things He has planned for me to do that I don’t yet know anything about.

For example, I took a day-long road trip across our State last month with one good plan and goal in mind. Looking in my rearview mirror, it now appears that the trip accomplished at least three good things… none directly associated with my original plan (which I still think will be accomplished as well). I would have rather stayed in the office that day, and probably could have made some progress towards my original goal by making a few phone calls. But it appears that God needed the truck of my life to roll across the state so that He could steer me into opportunities that I was not yet aware.

I think that it is natural for us to, especially when in doubt, choose stasis; rather than risk failing with an incomplete plan, we sit still far too long. Let’s face it; our plans are always incomplete because we simply can’t account for every eventuality. So let’s adopt a bias toward action and remember that we, and even God, can’t steer a parked truck.

Keep Your Ideas to Yourself

I podcast the HBR Ideacast; it is one of those podcasts that I load on my iPhone, but often times it takes a while for me to get to the individual episodes. I left this particular recording on the bottom of the pile because the title seemed so very ridiculous: Keep Your Ideas to Yourself. Why in the world, as a leader, would I keep my ideas to myself? Isn’t that precisely my job… to be adding value with my brilliant ideas?

The point of the podcast is this. There are many times when adding our ideas has a diminishing return. The author makes the point that there is both inspiration and perspiration in every initiative. There is both the excitement of the project leader (I often refer to the one who has their hair on fire) and the core ideas. Sometimes we leaders add our ideas into the mix, possibly improving the core ideas by 5%, but all the while throwing a bucket of cold water on the “fire”, gutting the personal commitment it takes to make the project work.

Take a few minutes and listen to the podcast yourself at http://media.libsyn.com/media/hbsp2/HBR_IdeaCast_Episode_85-Keep_Your_Ideas.mp3

I think you’ll find useful ideas that work with direct reports, colleagues in teams, and even members of your family.

One final thought, the author, Dr. Marshall Goldsmith, quotes a friend who says, “Achievement is about me, leadership is about them.” In my estimation, this might very well point to the most common mistake of most, especially young, leaders; we often mistake achievement for leadership. We often are more wrapped up in achieving a rank, role, or post than actually leading people. We come to be served, rather than to serve (sound familiar?).

Rose or Cabbage?

Listening to talk radio yesterday, a caller, reflecting on the presidential election, rolled out the following quip:

It appears that we decided that, since a rose smells better than a head of cabbage, we figured it would make better soup.

I assumed that such homespun wisdom must have been derived from a popular colloquialism… but a Google search reveals no such saying, so I can only assume that this was original with the caller.

So… what is better? A rose or a head of cabbage? It all depends on the end sought, doesn’t it? If you’re heading to a dance, the rose will likely be more useful. If you’re heading to the kitchen to make dinner, the cabbage will provide more nourishment.

I’m more of a cabbage guy than a rose guy. I tend to overemphasize the substance of things and underestimate the importance of the sensory appeal. When I cast my vote, I focused almost entirely on ideas and ideology; it appears that a lot of people focused more on charisma and appeal.

I suppose that we need both. Not only for the leadership of our country, but for leadership in general.

One good question is which comes first? Is one more important than the other? Is one more easily acquired, or learned, than the other?

If you are a cabbage, can you hire or acquire rose-ness? If you are a rose, can you lead the cabbages?

I think the answer is yes. Leaders need to be keenly aware of both style and substance, and be vigilant to address their own shortcomings in these areas and the weaknesses in the organizations that they lead.

Parthenocarpic Leadership

In Colossians 1:10 we can see that God is pleased when we are “bearing fruit in every good work.” A recent study caused me to ask the question, “What is the point of fruit? (Other than to make delicious pies that go into my belly?)”

The point of fruit is that it contains seed, the reproductive power of an organism. The Gospel isn’t just an idea, or philosophy, or point in history… it is a living organism. It has in it the power of reproduction, the power of self propagation through its fruit.

So if the point of fruit is seed, and the point of seed is reproduction… it is plain to see that it pleases God for us to be about reproducing our hope, love, and faith through our fruit (through our good work).

Fruit…

Let me ask you this… what is the fanciest “kind” of fruit? What kinds of mutant fruit do we like the best?

Seedless!

We like to eat some seeds, but most fruit seeds we throw away. A friend served one of the best apple pies I’ve ever tasted a couple of nights ago; thankfully there were no apple seeds in it. She would have had an easier time preparing that pie if she had seedless apples (apparently there is such a thing, it is just not common; the technical term is parthenocarpic). While seedless apples are uncommon, seedless berries and watermelons are very common.

While we prize the mutant parthenocarpic plant that produces seedless fruit… I wonder what God thinks of seedless Christians, seedless ministries, and seedless leadership. I wonder if we sometimes make our “fruit” so tasty and appealing, focusing on the sweet flesh of it all, that we produce seedless fruit.

I’d have to say that I’ve observed, and even perpetrated, seedless Christianity. There are times when we are so wrapped up in the sweet, juicy indulgence of the flesh of the thing that we produce mutant, sterile, seedless fruit. Such fruit is certainly tasty, but it has no power to reproduce. If Christianity were allowed go “all seedless”, then, like any organism, it would become extinct within a generation.

We need to be sure that the fruit of our leadership has seed in it; our fruit (at least some or hopefully most of it) needs to contain the power of reproduction.

You can make him drink, but you have to lead a horse to water.

The old saying goes, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” It is a useful colloquialism when it comes to leadership. It reminds us that people are generally only going to do what they want to do… that you can present an opportunity for folk, but they won’t generally take the opportunity in front of them unless they want to.

But a boss can “make him drink.” Managers often have the authority to dictate… to simply make a decision and issue an edict, thus “making him drink.” These dictates, though, often have little lasting impact and may even instigate a backlash (overt or covert). To mangers who lead by dictate I say, “You can make him drink, but you have to lead a horse to water.”

Leaders lead. There are certainly times when there is danger, emergency, or limited opportunity in which a leader needs to invoke the authority embedded in a chain of command, but for most of us, most of the time, the work of leadership has very little to do with dictate. It is about determining, defining, and delivering a better future.

A dehydrated horse nearing death may need to have its head plunged into the trough for survival, but most horses need to be led to the water, shown the way so that they can enjoy the good water for a long happy life.