No substitute for flying.

Along with a "paper less office," IT improvements were supposed to eliminate (okay, reduce) the need for most business travel. Why suffer through airports, cattle-car seating, taxis and hotels to meet someone? In the new, broadband, Web 2.0 paradigm, business travel was to be passe; instead just fire up the video conferencing set up and wham, travel to the next floor rather than the next city or country to hold your meeting.

Heck, it is (supposedly) easier than that! No need to move from your desk or cubicle: just boot Skype or ooVoo or some other VOIP program and there, right there on your computer screen, was the one you wanted to meet with. So close you could almost swear you were in the same room.

Almost. Well, not almost, more like never. At least internationally--maybe New York to Cleveland VOIP offers crystal clear picture and sound, but in my experience Western city to Chinese/Indian city does not. When the connection works you get jerky, time-lapse video, and the sound, well, it's okay of you like talking to people at the bottom of a well, with echo, echo, echo.

Instead of a face-to-face conversation where you use both verbal and facial clues to make the back and forth flow smoothly, in VOIP you are constantly stepping on the other person's sentence. Or reverting back to a simpler time and archaic jargon: over.

Much as I like seeing the other person my choice is the regular telephone ... or flying. The moral is that if the meeting is critical, and getting all points aired and mutual understanding achieved, either get access (at both ends) to some professional, expensive video conference set up ... or fly.

Managers don't work, workers work

Managers don't work: workers work and managers manage. Beyond semantic accuracy, this bromide is actually true.

How do you measure a manager's performance? You start with what a manager is tasked to do (international sales, video editing, accounts payable, whatever) then compare what is accomplished in the area with the objective or target the area should reach. Yes, there is more to it, but at the most basic level it is that simple: compare what is done with what should have been done.

The international sales manager does not visit every customer or close every deal, s/he manages sales staff who do these tasks. If staff achieve their goals then the manager achieves his/her goals; if staff do not achieve goals the manager does not meet his/her goals. The manager is responsible for international sales, true, but his/her performance (total sales) is the sum total of the performance of the staff s/he manages.

Staff are tools used by a manager.

One way to look management is that staff are tools the manager uses to achieve a goal. Don't like that? Not politically correct? Sigh. Fine, then how about this: managers work for their staff (not the other way around), providing staff with everything needed to achieve individual objectives ... which added up equal the manager's performance. I like them both, especially "staff are tools." People who brindle at that just do not understand tools, or tool culture (an argument for another post).

If you accept that managers work for staff then what work do managers need to do? What does "give staff what they need" mean? It means more than physical and financial resources: staff need more than a desk, chair, computer and budget. At minimum staff also need the right skills, clear objectives and sufficient time to accomplish them. They may also need encouragement, direction and continuous feedback. There is no cut-in-stone rule that "staff need X:" what each staff needs depends upon the situation.

One of the most useful (if not the most useful) principles I've found is "situational leadership" (who owns the concept is confusing: see here and here), the simple idea that how you lead a person depends upon the experience and confidence the person has in doing the specific task. An experienced person only needs the bare minimum, a goal to be achieved and a deadline to achieve it in; a true rookie would a heck of a lot more. Maybe a clear description of the task and what "done" looks like, clear instructions about how to do it and hand-holding along the way.

The experienced person would think getting what the rookie needs a waste of time, and it may affect performance; the rookie would be lost only getting what the experienced person needs, again affecting performance. The job as a manager (leader, supervisor, whatever) is to see where the person is along the experienced/confident continum in that specifi task and then to adjust leadership/management style accordingly.

I thought of this principle over and over as I worked through problems all dragon boat weekend. The top festival leadership had given the job of Site Manager (an difficlut and complicated job) to a true rookie, 21 years old with no relevant experience, then had disappeared. Of course the inevitable happened: things were not set up right, key materials were missing or in the wrong place. The chaos made two already-long days seem even longer.

I put the blame squarely on the people who selected the rookie then disappeared. The previous Site Manager was a greybeard with years of experience managing projects, including 10 years experience in the festival. Giving him the position then disapperaing made sense: he would get angry at micro-mangaging. The rookie, well, he needed to be micro-managed.

I've often seen this mistake, leadership filling a position on a organization chart with little or no regard to whether the "name" could do the job. It feels good to have the org chart filled, and, so they think, "hey, if the "name" doesn't perform then that is his/her fault. Nothing to do with us."

I am now waiting for the festival debrief. Knowing the personalities involved I expect blame to go to the rookie, at which time I will interrupt and ... heck, telling the nabobs that it was a failure of their leadership will make it an interesting meeting. Not the first (or likely the last) time I've let my loose-cannon loose.

This issue is critical to Dick and Acme. Dick is furiously building the company, hiring managers to hire managers to hire workers ... to fill the org chart. All fine--it must be done--but it must be done with an eye to what each manager needs to succeed, and that requires time to stop and learn more about each manager's experience and confidence in doing the specific tasks hired for.

It is both time consuming and a job that never really ends. Developing managerial talent is absolutely crucial for business growth (sustainable growth that is: it is always easy to grow fast by putting "names" in empty boxes, but this is growth that doesn't last). Often (always?) it is necessary to let a manager try and fail before you get a good grip on his/her useable experience and confidence level. Again that takes time.

To summarize this rather-rambling post, I've argued that:

1. managers are measured by comparing objectives to accomplishments
2. a manager's accomplishment is the sum total of his/her staff's accomplishments, thus
3. a manager's true job is helping his/her staff achieve their indivdual objectives (managers work for staff)
4. staff need more than physical and financial resources: they need a certain amount of direction and help
   
5. the amount of direction and help staff need depends upon experience and confidence in the specific task at hand, thus
   
6. managers must adjust management (leadership) style to match the needs of each employee doing each task

Phew. Developing managers and staff is a (or the) crucial aspect of Acme's growth, and one of Dick's most important jobs. The principles of managers working for staff (or speakers working for listeners) and of needing to adjust styles depending on who you are managing (or communicating with) will be examined again, and often. Each are keys to my personal beliefs in managing, communicating and, dare I say, life.

Life? Yup: I believe that the only real way to get what you want is to help the others around you get what they want. Another time.

And I will let you know what happens in the dragon boat debrief. All I know now is that I will be wearing my bullet proof underwear.

Bad Communication = Bad Results

Previously I have written that misunderstandings are the biggest Hidden Cost in international business. Actually they are biggest Hidden Cost in all business, and perhaps in life as well.

I shot another "Pop's Garage" video this morning. All about the larger lessons managers should learn, explained by problems I had yesterday with my Mom. Problems caused 100% because of poor communication leading to making bad assumptions.

Bad Communication = Bad Results

Who was at fault, who should be blamed? No one. Frequently no one is at fault, or both are.

Misunderstandings are so dangerous because no one knows there is a misunderstanding until the bad result caused by the misunderstanding happens. Think the Titanic: no one knew it would sink, until it did. And, as no one thought it could sink, no one questioned its sinkability. The same principles apply to communication.

There three things that can happen when you communicate. Only three. They are:

1. success: the audience clearly understands 100% of the speaker's message
2. uncertainty: the audience is unsure what the speaker's message is
3. misunderstanding: the audience thinks they clearly understand 100%, but what they understand is not what the speaker intended.

No. 2, uncertainty, is the most common outcome. No. 1, success, is the least common. And No. 3, misunderstanding, is the most dangerous.

In later posts I will flesh out more on communication in general and, in particular, ways managers and staff can ensure successful communication (as much as possible that is: successful communication is tough. Just ask my wife.).

Now it is off to town with my photos of parents' stuff, trying to put a value on things familiar and strange (including things I had no idea the function of until recently). Wish me luck.