It Takes A Village

I had a chance to read several different articles recently that at least to me reinforced something I have always intuitively believed, collaboration is more powerful than individual excellence in an organizational setting.

In many of the presentations that I do I use the illustration of the Nigerian soccer team in the Olympics a few years back. The team was composed of a group of people who were committed to the game and committed to each other. There were no "superstars" that would be recognized internationally. The interesting thing is that this group of committed individuals went on to defeat the "best" teams in the world and win the gold medal.

I think many cultures, at least western ones love the concept of the hero or all star. The individual who will ensure victory. The interesting thing is that these are usually individual contributors. I differentiate these individual contributors, even "superstars" from leaders. I think it is two different skill sets.

Jeffrey Pfeffer of Stanford is one of my favorite organizational development "gurus". He has written a short article on BNET about so called "stars" in the financial industry and the practice of large players to recruit such "stars" and pay them fabulous sums of money. He decided to do some research on the ROI of such investments. He found they typically fell flat, the "stars" performance rarely approached their previous performance much less exceeded it. He points out similar correlations in professional sports. A great recent example is soccer star David Beckham. The LA franchise that acquired him has yet to see the benefits of the dollars they invested in winning matches. They have seen gate receipts go up because fans will pay to see him play.

Pfeffer points out that it would seem that environment and coaching play a huge role in performance. Having supportive colleagues, access to resources, and good management and coaching seem to matter quite a lot. I think Malcolm Gladwell makes a similar point in Outliers, people who excelled had great innate ability, but they also had access to resources and a highly supportive environment.

The other interview clip I saw on BNET included industry leaders including the VP of Innovation for Google. She was asked about the impact of the recession and other factors leading to innovation or the lack there of. Interestingly she posited that once again the key differential in high performing companies is the human capital and creating and nurturing an environment that allows them to contribute. Pretty interesting coming from a technology firm. She also pointed out that many great companies had their genesis in recessionary times, the people at the firms collectively rose to the challenge and innovated and over came the obstacles.

As a student and advocate of engagement I am a big believer in this model. Statistics show that organizations with high engagement increase per capita 21% higher than their peers and outperform their peers and competitors on every critical metric. The key is that this is collective performance and per capita. The approach is collaborative rather than reliant upon "superstars".

In my previous post Dr. Dolan of the University of Michigan talks about a key attribute of leadership being the creation of an environment that attracts talent and its development. The role of the leader is to attract and develop, not to "perform" tasks as an individual.

So where am I going with this? I am not suggesting that you discard efforts to hire the "best and the brightest", but rather than suggesting that you not rely on hiring somebody else's superstar to increase your organizational performance as an exclusive strategy. Creating engagement and raising the collective talents and performance of your organization would seem to be a much more effective long term strategy.

Leadership should be evaluated in terms of their ability to build and create strong teams and develop talent rather than on the basis of individual accomplishments and talents. Being an excellent "coach" is more valuable than being the best "player" for those we put in management and leadership roles.

Just something to think about....

Tell Me A Story......

For those of you that are on LinkedIn you know that I was working on a presentation for a group of executives on the topic of Web 2.0 or "social networking".

I had the opportunity to share my thoughts with the group yesterday, so now I am taking the opportunity to share my perspective with you and seek your perspective.

In short, social networking is about relationships and trust, not about technology!

I want to state for the record that I am certainly no tech whiz (I type with two fingers). I am no "hipster" as I am a 52 year old white guy.

The reason I say tell me a story is because I believe that social networking is going back to the future. Once upon a time there was no media, no newspapers, and very few books. In fact the vast part of the population was illiterate, and the controlling powers liked it that way.

We relied on an "oral" tradition. We passed along stories and legends from one person to another. We relied on relationships. I would submit that social networking is a return to that model, passing along information to each other.

As I have talked, written and blogged about the need for a new social contract I have consistently talked about three foundational concepts:

• Engagement is a far superior environment to any other in a business or organizational setting.
• The foundation of all meaningful organizational systems is relationships between people.
• Trust is the essential element of functional relationships and engagement.

The bottom line is you will never have engaged relationships with your employees, your customers, or your community without trust. Much of the "new" generations have lost trust in our current relationship infrastructure and models.

Management expert Gary Hamel indicates that among other things the "Facebook" generations embrace a number of new "principles" that you need to be aware of:

• Contribution counts for more than "credentials"
• Hierarchies are natural not prescribed.
• Power comes from sharing information not hoarding it.
• Opinions compound and are "peer" reviewed.
• Users can veto most policy decisions.

If you take a look at these things they represent pretty profound differences from how management and leadership is taught and practiced. To quote popular songwriter John Mayer (for those of you unfamiliar with his music he was the guy that "dumped" both Jennifer Anniston and Jessica Simpson, if neither of them is familiar to you then you live in a cave so it doesn't matter) "when they own the information they can twist it all they want".

And we do; the biggest concern about social networking I hear from members of the "greatest generation" and "boomers" is "how do I control what they say about me on blogs, etc?" the answer is you don't! You participate and contribute you don't control.

When I created my compliance to commitment model the third "pillar" is information. It is critical and the emerging generations have unprecedented access to it. Social networking is also based on the most powerful force in the universe (in my opinion), the power of relationships.

When you have heard me talk about the "new" engagement model you have seen the five levels described by BlessingWhite:

• Satisfaction
• Loyalty
• Recommendation
• Best Product/Practices
• Excitement and Pride

At the risk of being overly simplistic, I don't think you can create the higher levels without creating a relationship.

When you see how social networks describe those relationships they use words like "friend" and "connection". There is an implication of trust and shared experience.

For me when I write, blog, and speak it is always with that intent; to build and sustain relationships and trust. To inform, to share, and to solicit other viewpoints and perspectives.

So I will leave you with a couple of thoughts;

• Engagement is the most powerful tool that organizations have to increase productivity, profitability, and sustainability.
• Engagement is built on relationships and relationships are built on trust. Don't try to "sell" your idea, share a story and invite others to share theirs.
  

I am going to keep building "lighthouses" and telling "stories". I hope as I share them we will understand and join the "new" generations and build on trust and shared values. Commitment is better than compliance, period.

Turtle or Hare- Part Deaux

Last week I talked a little about organizations in this spiraling economy determining whether they wanted to be a "turtle"; retreating into their shell, or a hare seeking opportunity. I wanted to continue that theme a little bit.
The official "prognosticators" have grimly stated that our current economic situation is 1) likely to get worse before it gets better and 2) likely to last at least twelve moths. So what do we do with the time? Here are some of my suggestions:

• Plot your strategy. How many "overnight" successes have you met that spent years refining and executing their strategy whether personally or professionally. In my last position we took some time to reflect and refine our strategies and then launched a multi point strategy with excellent results. (see my case study- a New Paradigm for Credit Unions). Several competitors commented to me later- we thought you guys had given up- you were massing for D -day!
• Examine your team. Anybody else tired of hearing everybody parrot Jim Collins about getting the right people on the bus? You can't just talk about it, you have to do it! If organizations are cutting budgets or slashing product launches and cutting marketing expenses before looking at the performance metrics of your organization and assisting the bottom 10 -15% off the bus you aren't doing what you need to do!
• Look for "blue ocean". Are you proactively looking for new opportunities and new markets? Are their opportunities to bring your product or service into a new sector?
• Examine your systems. I agree with Collins; the enemy of great isn't bad or awful, it is "good" as in "good" enough. Do you have efficient systems in not only data management, but in business intelligence? Is the data being turned into meaningful action plans and being disseminated to the right people?
• Do you have clarity? Marcus Buckingham tells us the most important role of leadership is clarity. Clarity of purpose and vision. Richard Rumelt of UCLA tells us that the key role of management is to remove or minimize ambiguity. Employees need to understand their role in the organizations plan, especially at times like these.
• Do you have an engagement strategy? If you don't you are not alone, but here are some arguments why you should start now. In my article on "presenteeism" I shared with you that we lose $200 billion annually to productivity drain from people who are not fully engaged, are dealing with personal concerns, or just taking up space. In my series on Compliance to Commitment(TM) and engagement I shared the corollary- organizations with high engagement enjoy 21% higher per capita productivity rates, 60% lower turnover, and outperform their peer group averages by 100% on key financial metrics. Their employees see themselves as part of the solution and actively participate in creating solutions, not whining or abandoning ship.
• Are you playing as a team? When business get in trouble or experience tough times I typically see the executive team "huddle" in a conference room making all the decisions: what do we cut, who do we cut, what do we do? Here is a tip- employees at all levels support decisions that they participate in much more consistently than decisions that are imposed on them. I am not suggesting a vote, but giving employees an opportunity to participate in the how if not the what or at least informing them and getting their input conveys respect and value. If your management team and staff can't contribute to these kinds of decisions you might ask yourself why they are part of your team.

I remember hearing that Native Americans ate when food was plentiful and rested when the opportunity presented itself. I also read in Malcolm Gladwell's latest book the difference between a "rice" culture and a "wheat" culture. A rice culture is not seasonal, when you are not planting and harvesting you are preparing for the next growing season. In our "wheat culture" we spent the winter months inside - sounds a lot like "turtling" to me.

So I hope that I have given you somethings to consider. Comments always welcome.

The "Turtle" or the Hare

In hockey there is an interesting expression called "turtling". It generally means that a player curls up rather than fight when confronted by a member of the opposing team. It struck me that businesses are going to have to make some of those same decisions as we continue in this economy for what looks to be the foreseeable future.
There are some strategies that are available to businesses right now to "survive" this economy and in fact even position yourself.
I was reading an article about President Obama and it was commenting on leadership and strategy during "turn around" times that have some interesting implications for these times as well.

One of the first "weapons" you want to have in your arsenal in times like these is great leadership. I want to be clear about what represents great leadership in my mind and to me it comes down to a couple of key factors- the first being what Marcus Buckingham describes as clarity. Clarity is ensuring that everyone in the organization understands the mission and where they fit in. If you are the CEO or another C level person that is absolutely critical right now.
I believe this is also a time for executive courage that is demonstrated by being visible, available, and personally accountable. This is not a time to hunker down in your office or in a conference room with your executive team. That's turtling.

If you are a middle manager your role is to minimize ambiguity. As managers our primary role is to remove the complexity from situations and make it very clear what each employee's role is and how it contributes to the bigger picture. In times of stress that becomes even more important.

I believe this is an excellent opportunity for transparency. By transparency I don't mean an "open" book policy. especially if you haven't previously had one. What I do mean is showing people the respect they deserve by being honest with them about the situation and potential outcomes and actions. They are adults. They need to be led not parented.

I think this is a great opportunity for collaboration. Most of us like to believe that we hire and retain competent management staffs. If that is the case why do we exclude them from the decision making process? I can't tell you how many times I have been in situations where the executive team dictated the "solution" to an issue, without engaging the participation and input of the people managing the actual work processes.. I am not necessarily arguing for negotiation about targets, but I am proposing that you may dictate the "what", but give them an opportunity to participate in the how.

I am a great believer in cautious optimism. They need to believe that you believe that you will come though this a stronger organization. If you don't and you feel that the "end is near" then do the right thing and resign and leave the leadership to someone who is still committed!

I am also a believer in making the tough decisions. Many people don't like Jack Welch's tough performance matrixing model, but the reality is that everyone doesn't perform at the same level. High performing organizations know this and they evaluate their talent pool constantly. People who can't or won't perform at the expectations set by the organization are given an opportunity to find a better fit at another organization. Consistency is highly overrated in the absence of good performance management. Consistency means we treat everyone exactly the same, the problem with that is everyone doesn't perform the same way. Your processes should be consistent, the application should not be. There is nothing illegal about treating your best performers and your non-performers differently, or treating your best performers differently than your "average " performers. Before you do an "across the board pay cut" ask yourself if you have the right people in the life raft.

As you all know from my previous blogs, writings and rantings I am a big believer in engagement. I am going to go on record here and tell you that engaged organizations will not only weather the impact of this recession, they will emerge stronger!. You see they have their foundation of clarity, transparency, trust, and commitment already in place.

So in this case the hare is better. One of my favorite expressions is "when you are being run out of town get out front and make it look like a parade". Curling up and "turtling" is not going to get us through this recession, but the recession could cause us to take actions we have neglected and build a new foundation.

The Right Team

As President elect Obama goes through the next few weeks he will have both the opportunity and the responsibility to do something very few of us ever get a chance to do- individually select the members of his "executive team" or cabinet.

I have had the opportunity to serve as an executive with several different organizations. With the exception of my own business, I have never had the opportunity to assemble my own "team" with a blank slate to start with. That is not to say that I have not hired new team members or everyone that I "inherited" was not a good fit or a keeper, still the prospect of making each decision is an intriguing one.

My colleague, Joseph Skursky, specializes in helping his clients select the right people. He calls his model- "Hire hard- Manage easy". The intent is clear. Think about not only the "technical" aspects of what you want in your team mates, but their values, commitment, and other attributes.
Matt "Boom" Daniel talks about his experiences as a Marine Corp aviator, and the importance of having each others "six" or looking out for each other and how important that is especially in combat situations.

In my previous blogs, monologues, and presentations I have talked about some other things that I think are cogent to this discussion. Specifically I would include the role of a leader in providing clarity and eliminating ambiguity and the concept that leadership is a gift from those who freely elect to follow your direction and "join up" with you to achieve commonly understood and accepted goals. That is the essence of Compliance to Commitment.

Some of the most interesting dialogue around President Obama's selections is his past relationship with some of his key appointments. Whether they have personal animus or "like" each other or not. He seems to be approaching his selections in a very pragmatic way- the qualifications of the person to do the job, and their commitment to the vision.
Sounds like the way a good executive would make those key decisions.

Many people I have talked to indicated a key decision point for them in deciding who to vote for in the presidential election was Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin as his running mate. Some felt her so unqualified as to bring his judgement into question, others felt the decision was a concession to political constituencies whose values and positions they found unacceptable.
Do I think Senator McCain lost the election because of Governor Palin, no, but she was definitely a polarizing choice.

At the end of the day I hold leaders accountable for their choices of their "team". They either selected them, or chose to retain them. Either way the leader who complains about their "team" isn't much of a leader to me. Who is on our team is our responsibility.

Creating A Community

In my last "corporate" job I think one of the things that I was proudest of was the relationship we had with the communities that we served and the fact as as member based organization we represented a "community" of our own.

I was reading an article on BNET- which I highly recommend by the way, and there was an article describing a farming tribe in what we would probably describe as a third world country. They were describing a conversation that they had with an elder of the tribe and his intrigue or perhaps disdain is a better word, for our obsession with individualism. While I believe strongly in respect for the individual, the elder was concerned that our obsession with the individual could have negative consequences like politics, dissension, and strife. He pointed out that without community the individual is finished. As I have pointed out somewhat facetiously before - Simon and Garfunkle may be a rock or an island, but the rest of us need other people.

If you think about it organizations that have a strong sense of community or mission have very high performance cultures. That is the basis of my concept of Compliance to Commitment(TM).

We talk about that concept today in somewhat different terms when we talk about engagement. Mutual trust and respect, shared values, a clear vision that we all support. That sounds a lot like a community doesn't it?

As we look at the days ahead I think that employees and consumers will be looking for a sense of community as well. Our trust in many of our institutions has been deeply shaken. We are looking for something to believe in. I have seen a lot of posting on LinkedIn and other places about what management and leadership should be doing in this time to create some sense of security for their employees. Perhaps building a sense of community and trust is a good start.

In my previous organization we took the idea of community very seriously. We felt strongly that we had a purpose of serving both our members and the community. We encouraged our employees to get involved in a variety of activities and causes. The results were overwhelming. Our employees volunteered at over double the national average. It showed up in our business as well. Our members saw us as part of their community and were proud of their association with us. That was reflected in our business numbers.

For those of you that are running businesses you might want to ask yourself- Have I created a community in my organization? You might ask even further am I connecting with the community at large?

The latest research from BlessingWhite would tell you that the highest level of engagement is pride of association. It would appear that building a community isn't just good citizenship- it is good business!