Everyone is a customer

If you can only focus on one thing in your business, make it customer service. Not just to the paying customers--though treating them nice is a good thing--but to the internal customers as well. Who are the "internal customers?" Everyone. Every employee, driver to Director, is a customer.



Customer service is the key performance indicator. It shows (among other things) whether your company processes are running efficiently and links each job to the paying customer. Good things to know.

Tom Peters says:

we urge participants to make the level of customer satisfaction the primary basis for incentive compensation and annual performance evaluation for virtually every person at every level in every function throughout the organization. We also urge every organizational unit in every function to develop key quality measures. Progress should be posted on charts in every work space, and a quantitative goal report should be the first item of business at every staff meeting, regardless of topic.

The video explains how and why each person in the company is a customer, and a supplier. And a worker too, dang it. Each job has three phases: receive input, do work on the input then send the output to someone else. You are a customer when you receive and a supplier when you send, and a worker in between.

Start With The End

Building anything with software is hard, often frustrating, or is for me anyway. As it (program, website, whatever) does not exist and in the end is just zeros and ones well organized, it (the software project) can move, change, shift, endlessly.

Call it feature creep, defined by searchCIO.com as:

a tendency for product or project requirements to increase during development beyond those originally foreseen, leading to features that weren't originally planned and resulting risk to product quality or schedule. Feature creep may be driven by a client's growing "wish list" or by developers themselves as they see opportunity for improving the product.

Every time, I repeat, every time I worked with software developers, on client project teams I led or projects of my own, I suffered from, fought and, truth be told, caused feature creep. The ability to add this or tweak that is just too dang tempting to pass up.

What brings this on? The new website for this blog! What will it contain? Look like? How will video be treated? Photos? Templates? Webinars? What features will it have? Lots of unknowns for just this little project. How to decide the site design writ large then (the more important) how to control the process?

Start with strong leadership, Dick and the senior IT team he's assembled. Yet neither will be involved daily on such a small project, so the question remains: how to keep the project on the rails? Define the end before you start the job.

Received a document yesterday, a website development model, the "this is what we expect website projects to prepare before starting coding, and how we expect ."

We humans do what our managers (spouses, officials) pay attention to, what they reward us for doing and punish us for not doing. A necessary inital step though is measurement, for how else would the manager know what we've done/not done?

"What gets measured gets done," five simple words (from Tom Peters ... I think) that I have repeated ad nauseum (or at least ad headache) to clients. Yet before measuring one must know what the goal or end or objective is. Vastly simplified (yet still correct) the steps are:

Set Objective (the desired end)
Decide how/where/when/what to measure
Explain objectives and metrics to responsible person(s)
Measure
Analyze
Adjust
Repeat

This document goes a long way to achieving the software objective/specifications; it explains in detail what the site should look like, colors, fonts, layouts, and what features it should have, and the steps to follow to alter the specs. Once all parties sign off on it Dick and Acme now have a way to measure what gets done.

This is a kindergarten class in performance management, but hey, we all started in kindergarten. And heck, Robert Fulghum thinks kindergarten lessons are all one really needs to know. Maybe, but I still plan lots more on measurement (a squishy target I admit, but still one my future actions can be measured against).

Teaching is helping others surpass you

Nothing is more gratifying to a teacher than seeing students learn, to understand then use lessons taught to their benefit. True for managers teaching staff, professors teaching students and fathers teaching daughters. Yet one day the teacher must be prepared for the student becoming the master. Like what happened to me this morning.

Some background. I've talked writing and communication to my daughter since she was old enough to listen (and too small to escape). "Every day with you is a lesson," she recently told me. Somewhat chagrined, I asked her if she wanted me to stop. "No. No way," she answered, than with a little pause, "Well, maybe when my friends are around." I said I would (try).

Katya has talked about being on the school Yearbook Committee since she entered middle school (Grades 6-8), and now in Grade 8 she qualifies. Eager (something she must get from her Mom) she was first to put her name on the list, first to get the application form (this is Grade 8?) and hopes this morning to be first to submit a filled-in application form. If points were given for eagerness ...

Anyway, she showed me the form over breakfast, asking for my help. A firm believer in bullet points, I sketched some weasel sentence for her as way to introduce bullets, then went to shower. About 30 minutes later I saw the filled out form, read it and ... WOW! Here it is (click to expand):


This comes from a 12-year old? "Wonderful! Better than I could do," I told her. She demurred quite convincingly (another learned skill?) but I could tell she was pleased.

If you believe in progress the goal of teaching is helping students surpass your abilities. I must be a good teacher then.

So, if one day my writing improves, it could be my daughter ghosting for me. Now if only I could teach her to mow the lawn.

Wishful Thinking = Good Leaders?

Does Acme need Dick? Why should Dick be the leader? Dick is multi-cultural, well-educated, a highly-experienced manager. Not many of us compare to his qualifications; most of us don't have nearly such an impressive CV. A touch cerebral at times, an overpowering intelligence, I wager many would have trouble relating to Dick. Why not choose someone else, someone we can more easily relate to perhaps.

Maybe a small town mayor who likes to fish, hunt and play basketball. A hockey mom say, who struggles to balance family life and career. A good, god-fearin' woman, tough but with lipstick.

Okay, Acme is a corporation, not a democracy, and until it goes public Dick rules by force majeur, overwhelming force: while too cultured to put it this way, he would say to dissenters, "It's my way or the highway." But the principle is identical: what do I/you/we want in a leader?

As an investor or shareholder (hypothetically speaking) I want the top job to go to someone who has both relevant experience and a proven track record in this specific field, in other words, is qualified to get the job done. Someone like Dick.

Do such "qualifications" guarantee Dick will get the job done? Nope. No way. Decisons based on analyzing qualifications are not necessarily right, but are more frequently right. And there's the rub.

As I tell my logic students, logic is all about probability, not certainty. If you want certainty go to church. Logical analysis writ large can only make conclusions more likely right, can increase the odds of being right. No small feat that, for, as gamblers know, win 51% of time and you'll be rich.

This is in no way an argument against Governor Palin: only by actually assuming and carrying out the job of VP (or P) would we know if she could do the job. My point is not against the person, it is against the process. Oh yes, and against hypocricsy, but I'll get to that.

Okay, I live in small town (Sooke, pop. 9,000 give or take). We need a new Fire Chief. As this decision could have a direct bearing on whether my house burns down or not I am somewhat interested in who we select. While I hope we choose someone who has good communication skills and can "relate" to the community at large, this is not highest, or even high, on my list. I want someone who has shown s/he likely can do the job.

I want us to choose someone with relevant fire-fighting experience, someone who has shown they can motivate and manage a team of firefighters. I would turn down an accountant with extensive accounts receivable experience, no matter how big a team of accountants s/he led. The demands on each position, fire chief and accounting manager, are just too different.

Could the accountant be a great fire chief? Certainly, is it possible, just not likely. Not something you'd like to bet your mortgage on. Would you let a dentist perform brain surgery on your child? No? Why not? They both are medical professionals and, by my extensive experience with "specialists," I'd wager dentists are easier for most people to relate to than brain surgeons. I'm just not sure the dentist drill is the right tool for brain operations, and that's the point.

The Republicans chose the wrong tool for the VP job.

Even a true GOP sycophant can't say Palin's scant executive experience makes her "qualified" for the demands of the modern VP position (let alone qualified for the Big Chair itself). Certainly I see no way to argue that Palin's name was the result of a long, detailed analysis of job needs and qualified possible candidates. She might do a good job, but you would not want to bet your country on it ... unless you had to.

McCain chose Palin for reasons other than her qualifications for likely VP success: he chose her because he had to, had to shake up the polls, had to secure and energize the GOP base. Since the surprise choice he and the GOP polls have done back flips trying to find reasons to prove the already-decided result. The reasons (comparing needs with qualifications) did not drive the result, the result (we choose her as the candidate) drove the almost-desperate search for reasons.

Out of the many possibile fallacies, I think this is best described as wishful thinking, that:

1. I (McCain, Republicans) stand to gain from believing P.
2. Hence, I (McCain, Republicans) should, prudentially, believe P.

Now I can hope all I want to that the dentist will operate successfully on my child's brain tumor, and, as I will benefit from believing it, I of course will try my best to believe it. But don't you think I'd have a better chance believing if it was brain surgeon, not a dentist? And that if I could choose, I'd choose the dentist for cavities, not cranium.

I've racked my cranium and can't think of an area outside of politics (and faith) where we happily indulge in wishful thinking. We insist on an experienced fire chief, we (or Americans, maybe not Canucks) would sue the dentist as soon a drill touched scalp. The only time we let the unqualified do something is when we have no better choice.

Says something about the state of the GOP, both that they had to do something special to get back into the race and that Palin was the best special they could find.

Next (?) time I'll broaden the point to the anti-expert bias of the Republicans in particular, and Western society in general. Best said by Nietzsche himself,

Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive.

In defense of the barely-qualified-for-VP Palin the GOP used an anti-expert, anti-qualifications argument, going so far as the quintessentially-cosmopolitan Giuliani saying questions about Palin stemmed from Democrats thinking her town was not "cosmopolitan" enough.

Can't you just see dressed-in-drag Rudi (the video with the Donald is priceless) settling down in Wassalia, in moose fur perhaps. With lipstick.

Now that is cosmopolitan.

Fine, back to business. I hope I've made the point (long winded as usual: sigh) that we select people for position based on their suitability for carrying out the duties of that position, of their likelihood of being successful in the specific postion. Like much in life, decsions are situational, i.e., based on the specifics of the situation at hand. One size does not fit all.

As an investor/shareholder (hypothetical remember) in Acme I care very much that we have Dick in charge, and that Dick selects new hires based on the merits, that is, on their suitability for the job, not the cut of their jib or preference in fur. I want Acme to make me money.

I would hope that Republicans want their Prez and V-Prez to make them safe, rich and healthy. At least that is what I want in a leader. And as Prime Minister Harper just dissolved Canada's parliament this morning, I will get a chance to vote for leader on October 14.

Oh joy. Just for a minute I wish one of the contenders wore lipstick. I'd settle for a sense of humor.

Ideology and Pains From The "Gut"

The worst thing to be in a Political Science department is apolitical: ideologues on both sides understand each other, and even grant grudging respect, but neither understand "neutrals," nor do they trust them. How can you trust someone when you don't know what s/he will do?

Being fiercely apolitical likely had more to do with my standing among professors and classmates than anything else (though my "Success Without College" T-shirt probably came close). I always sat by myself in seminar rooms, and no discussion was complete until everyone turned and looked at me, waiting for ... heresy, at least to one side.

It is a complicated and often confusing world we must make sense of, and I understand the comfort one can get from a set of rules and principles that simplifies and explains everything. Order from chaos, truth instead of uncertainty, answers not questions, it is like putting on warm socks: all-enveloping comfort. What's not to like?

Nothing, as long as you don't mind being a lemming, occasionally following your idea off the cliff.

Allowing anything, idea or person, to do your thinking for you is a losing strategy. Comforting, at least until you hit the valley floor. Every time a person gets wedded to an idea or way of looking the world, and shapes reality to fit that idea or perception, s/he is guilty of abdicating personal responsibility for ... life? Results? Making the world better?

I raise this subject now because of the US election reality show. I'm a Canuck so can't vote, but as I see the US when I look out the window (across the Strait of Juna de Fuca) I feel I can have an opinion. And my opinion is, are the Republicans nuts?

I'm not a Democrat, just a democrat. While I easily quote fluff like the Anarcist's creed, that "The change of rulers is the joy of fools," I believe my vote counts, and that it is my duty to make it an informed vote.

One of the most useful ideas about leadership comes from philosopher Peter Koestenbaum, specifically his Leadership Diamond (also here and here; used in sports as well) explained in his book, Leadership: The Inner Side Of Greatness. It is a book John McCain should read.

I will explore the Leadership Diamond in much more details later: for now just a quick summary and one excerpt. The concept behind the diamond is that there are four critical aspects (called "strategies") to achieving leadership greatness: vision, courage, ethics and reality. The excerpt is about the latter, reality, is that:

A realistic leader always responds to the facts, for realism means to have no illusions ... Realism means that you are competent, that you are in command of the hard facts of the business. Realism ... is a commitment to obtain extensive information and maintain a stance of aseptic objectivity. [It] stands for detachment, research, facts and calculations.

There, the problems of the Bush years explained in one paragraph: the Bushies read the words then did the opposite. Too much going by the "gut," too much "knowing" and not enough objectivity. And don't get me started on performance. "Good job Brownie" sums it up.

America is in a mess. Income inequality is at a level not seen since the 20s (here, here and here) and the middle class is farther way from the Leave It To Beaver fantasy family than ever (even in Alaska). Ozzie and Harriet simply would not recognize America now. Something has to be done.

I watched damn near the entire Republican convention (I should get out more), and heard damn few arguments based on "detachment, research, facts and calculations." Reforming the senate and congress are laudatory (and needed) goals, but ending earmarks and pork barrel projects hardly will help those struggling in the 20th income percentile.

Would Obama be a good president? Who knows? There certainly are valid questions about his experience, or lack thereof. Would McCain be a good president? Again who knows? There certainly are valid questions about his temperament and decision making. (I will leave alone the point that he has equal or less "executive experience" than Obama.)

One thing I always look for in a leader (client, friend, spouse) is someone who thinks their way through an issue, who is open to facts and dissenting opinions, who chooses an action only after deciding doing it is the best current choice. I run from people who say they "know" the answer, "know" the "right" thing to do. People who "know" give me the heebee jeebees. I look for people who think, not know.

Here the conventions did answer one thing: Obama thinks and McCain knows. Just like Bush II, and we all know how that has turned out. Has there ever been a group so poorly managed as the US has been for the past 7+ years?

As this is a business blog, the Business Dictionary defines ideology as

A system of ideas that explains and lends legitimacy to actions and beliefs of a social, religious, political, or corporate entity.

To this I add beliefs in plans, strategies and tactics. Few things in business hurt more than falling in love with your (or your boss's) idea, and closing your eyes to any datum that contradicts your preferred, pre-chosen reality.

Certainly an entrepreneur (like Dick) has to have an all-encompassing idea, yet believing in your idea when others doubt you is different than closing your eyes to facts. The two Steves had an idea, a personal computer, and believed in it even when all the "experts" scoffed. As Apple grew the idea didn't change because it didn't have to: the market was ready for a personal computer.

I am not sure the market is ready for a Pit Bull with or without lipstick. Does anyone seriously think that the anti-science teaching of creationism will help the US compete with the schools in India and China pumping out legions of engineers?

Does anyone seriously think that making decisions based on gut instinct is what America needs? I mean, it didn't work for Coca-Cola and the New Coke. I think the stakes are a tad higher here.

Focussing on process gives me cold fries.

How does a company ask for creativity and initiative from employees while at the same time ask them to follow business process and SOPs? Does not the latter contradict the former?

My wife and I discussed that point yesterday driving home from the fair (talking on topics like this may be the reason why no one wants to drive with us) but to no conclusion. My fault: I just couldn't think clearly. One too many times on the Hurricane perhaps?

Last night I started a new book, Harvard Business Review on Entrepreneurship (I should probably get out more), and there, on page 27, were the words (the answer) that I wanted:

Telling empolyees how to do their jobs ... can stifle initiative. Companies that require frontline employees to act quickly and resourcefully might decide to focus more on outcomes than on behavior, using control systems that set performance targets for employees, compare results against objectives, and provide appropriate incentives.

Focus on result, not process, that is the key. It is where all training should start, at the end. Employees must understand 100% what the desired result is (and why), and only then be trained on the current process that achieves the result.

Regarding creativity and initiative, the key word is current, the key concept being that changes to the current process are allowed as long as the desired result is achieved, as long as customers (internal and external) are happy with the result. The "desired result" becomes the boundaries within which change is allowed.

It sounds easy, but isn't. Here is an example I scribbled on a ripped brown paper bag while sitting outside a MacDonald's in Hsin Chu ("new bamboo," literally) in Taiwan 15 years ago. (I have the brown paper scrap in front of me. Not only should I get out more, I should throw out more.)

MacDonald's served more than hamburgers in China, it also served systems (I think it changed China more any political movement, but that is a story for another day). Staff were always well trained: to do the complicated cooking, supplying, monitoring, filling, requesting ballet, staff had to be well trained!

My turn. I ordered my meal, double cheese burger, medium fries and ice tea. The young counter girl understood (I ordered in Mandarin after all) and began to pick and serve my meal. Ice tea on tray: check. Fries on tray: check. Burger on tray: whoops, not ready yet. I saw all this and told her I wanted my fries and burger "together," going so far to explain that I did not my fries to cool down while they sat on the tray waiting for their burger partner.

No way. There was no way she was going to do that! Why? Because she had been trainied to pick and place meal items as they were available, period. Fries were available, so pick and place now; burger not available so wait.

Not wanting cold fries--I could see the burger was still minutes away from ready--I tried again to explain the result I wanted, to a blank face (the true great wall of China, the Chinese mask). I eventually talked to the shift supervisor--I really like hot fries!--who, grudgingly, put my now near-cold fries under the warming lights, basically to help them stay at that nice near-cold temperature. I digress.

The problem, repeated all over Asia, is that staff are trainined in process, not result. Often extraordinarily good at following complicated "how to" procedures, yet unable to alter the process even a little bit if such is needed to satisfy a unique customer request.

The MacDonald's problem (it still happens) is mistaking process for result: staff are only trainined in process, whereas the true goal of the process is not that all steps are slavishly followed but that the right result is achieved. In my cold fries example, the desried result is a satisfied customer, munching happily on hot fries. To achieve that result the young employee had to have been allowed to be creative and to show initiative, to pick and place my ice tea immediately (thanks: it was hot!) but to wait until burger was ready to pick and place fries.

That only happens when training begins with students understanding the desired end result, and then trained to achieve that, not simply to follow the process rules.

Back to Dick and Acme. He and I have discussed setting measureable SOPs, then training new hires to follow such. All well and good, but not enough. Along with the "do these steps" training must be effort to explain the desired end result, and that the current process is just the best way Acme has so far to achieve it.

If this is so bloody obvious--it should be obvious--why don't companies do it? Because of the difficulty in measuring end results, especially subjective, "customer happy" results. It normally, almost always, is easier to measure adherence to procedure, far easier.

Sigh. I know this from experience. Back in the day I struggled (and succeeded, often anyway) to measure customer end-result satisfaction. I hope my next book, Douglas Hubbard's, How To Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business, will give me more insights into this difficult but critical step.

Oh yes, MacDonald's and cold fries. I still like hot fries but have given up trying to get the counter person to change their process. Instead I now look to see which burgers are being wrapped and I order them, thus getting hot fries and a hot burger. Marvelous.

Do Something ... even if it is wrong

As a callow youth, 19 or so, I worked electrical construction (think poles and power lines, not Glen Campbell's "Whichita Lineman"), the lowly driver-groundman. My foreman used to tell me,

Do something, even if it is wrong, do something.

Huh? I wondered what he meant, really meant. Did he want me to make mistakes, want me to get in trouble? Was he setting me up?

He wasn't. He believed that the only true way you learn things is by trying, by doing. He believed that you never really learned much if all you did was wait to be told what to do. It took me a few years to realize that I believed it too.

I also believe there are four indispensable things needed to build a company: an idea, enough money to implement (start to implement) it, a system or process and people who can do the required tasks. If you have a good idea, enough money, a good system/process and talented people you have a chance: take any away and you don't. Period.

Not many things in life are more Darwinian than building a business: no one outside the company cares if it lives and plenty want it to die. Only the strong survive.

I can't help Dick with the money, and, at least initially, can not help much on the idea. (Besides I don't think he needs help in these areas anyway.) I can offer a lot of theory about SOPs and business processes, and metrics and such, all good stuff, but believe the best I can offer is manager/staff development.

Oh, and dealing with the "gulp" every entrepreneur gets when s/he lets him/self realize just how enormous the task is. Dealing with it without whiskey too.

So expect many more development posts with process/system posts thrown in. And more videos from Greg's office. I hope to improve lighting, focus and sound. But I refuse to wear a wig.

Pop's Garage: Mistakes Are Good ... Sometimes

No one likes making mistakes. But managers make a mistake if they don't see staff mistakes as an opportunity, not a problem.

There are two broad types of mistakes, those made out of ignorance and those made for any other reason (laziness, lack of attention, attitude, whatever). The second type of mistake is bad, the first type isn't. Below I talk about the "good" mistakes, those out of ignorance.

The holy grail of training is learning from experience, to learn by doing. All good, but what is left out is that "learn by experience" actually means "learn from making mistakes." Okay, not always--it is very important that we learn from our successes (which we don't do often enough, a point continued later). But the truth is that most of the time we learn how to do something correctly by first doing it wrong. By making a mistake.

The rule I live by is, The First Mistake Is Free. No one should get in trouble for a mistake made out of ignorance. In fact managers should treat such "first" mistakes by staff as a positive. Why? Simple: because now the manager knows exactly what staff need to learn.

A huge part of a training budget is wasted in two (only?) ways: by training people who already know the stuff, and by training people in skills they don't need to do their job. One of the most critical jobs for managers, HR and trainers is to identify who needs what training.

Looking at mistakes made is perhaps the clearest way to answer the "who needs what training" question. If John makes a mistake then John's manager knows what training John needs. Making this even better is that the manager now knows that John can do the task. Nothing is better than certainty, or more elusive.

(When I led business process improvement/reengineering projects one of the first things I did was to survey staff and customers to find out where the mistakes were: the survey results were always my starting point.)

To complete the circle, treating mistakes as a negative, getting angry and/or punishing staff for "first mistakes," is one of the worst things managers can do. Staff will not only try to hide their mistakes--which always leads to a bad result--they will stop trying new things, stop showing initiative. The latter is death to staff development.

It is not always easy to smile when staff make a critical "first mistake." Yet smile a manager must, saving the grimace, foul language and physical reaction (punching a wall was my favorite) for when no one else is around.

Once again I retrun to the principle that training staff and developing staff into managers requires the ability to accept the inevitable mistakes as a necessary part of the process. Doing otherwise is a true mistake.

Being Selfish To Find Time To Think

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "Use time wisely, they are not making any more." A subject touched on in an earlier post, how Dick deals with the pressures on his time will go a long way to determining how successful he and Acme are.

A recent conversation between Barak Obama and (British Liberal leader) David Cameron sums up the point well, that:

Mr. Cameron: You should be on the beach. You need a break. Well, you need to be able to keep your head together.

Mr. Obama: You’ve got to refresh yourself.

Mr. Cameron: Do you have a break at all?

Mr. Obama: I have not. I am going to take a week in August. But I agree with you that somebody, somebody who had worked in the White House who — not Clinton himself, but somebody who had been close to the process — said that should we be successful, that actually the most important thing you need to do is to have big chunks of time during the day when all you’re doing is thinking. And the biggest mistake that a lot of these folks make is just feeling as if you have to be ...

Mr. Cameron: These guys just chalk your diary up.

Mr. Obama: Right. ... In 15 minute increments and ...

Mr. Cameron: We call it the dentist waiting room. You have to scrap that because you’ve got to have time.

Mr. Obama: And, well, and you start making mistakes or you lose the big picture. Or you lose a sense of, I think you lose a feel ...

Mr. Cameron: Your feeling. And that is exactly what politics is all about. The judgment you bring to make decisions.

Mr. Obama: That’s exactly right. And the truth is that we’ve got a bunch of smart people, I think, who know 10 times more than we do about the specifics of the topics. And so if what you’re trying to do is micromanage and solve everything then you end up being a dilettante, but you have to have enough knowledge to make good judgments about the choices that are presented to you.

Okay, maybe putting Dick in such lofty company isn't fair ... to Dick. He is, after all, a business person, a creator of services, products and jobs, not simply a generator of words, positions and headlines. But the principle is the same: if not careful Dick can find himself consumed by the daily management minutiae.

Dick's job (any entrepreneur's job) is to do what managers can not do: offer a vision, set strategy and see how all parts of the company and environment fit together. Do the Big Thinking. And to do that requires time: quality time, alone time, reflective time.

But how? In a Blackberry, connected-24/7-world, how can Dick escape? How can I, in one post, say that Dick's key job is hiring and training and developing managers, a very time consuming process, then argue that Dick needs to find time to do nothing but think? The cute answer is that I can make contradictory arguments because all I do is offer advice: I don't have to take it.

The real answer is that there is no contradiction: Dick needs to do both, and other tasks as well. How? Well, cloning himself, even though a father-through-passport of Dolly the cloned sheep, won't work ... fast enough anyway. Dick has to learn to manage time, not let time manage him.

Linda Stone makes an interesting distinction, that we should manage our attention, not just our time. Rather than slaving ourselves to a never-ending list of jobs to do, Stone argues that we must create chunks of time where digital, analog and human inputs are blocked, time where we can focus attention on few but key things.

Sounds a lot like the money-making Time Management mantra, of seeing the difference between "urgent" and "important," then ensuring you spend time on the latter each day. Sounds good, as all platitudes do, but the question of how to do it remains.

The web today abounds with personal-productivity resources: sites like Lifehacker, blogs like 43folders and gurus like David Allen (not in any way a definitive list). All good, but all suffer IMHO from the same fault every time management system has: somewhere, somehow, the person must actually "do" the steps, and that requires being selfish.

Personal productivity, "getting your head together," requires two necessary qualities: ability to say No and willingness to focus on personal needs instead of the never-ending wave of requests from others.

Neither are easy. In future posts I will look closer at some of the most popular personal productivity sites and methods (I'd like to call them fads, but ...). In the end however, the most important step is allowing yourself to be unavailable.

Years ago, when cell phones were just becoming popular (yes, I am that old: I also recall when computers were not personal, but that is another story) I asked a senior Western executive of a Chinese high tech firm why he refused to carry a cell phone. "Because if they can find me to ask what they should do they always will, and so they will never learn to do it themselves."

Great advice. I've repeated it for years to explain why I didn't carry a cell phone. Inside the advice is a greater truth though, that being selfish and finding time for yourself inevitably means allowing subordinates/peers to make mistakes. If you are not there and instead off somewhere alone thinking Big Thoughts, well you can't stop them from doing the wrong things, from making mistakes.

And thus the great bugaboo of developing managers, allowing managers to make mistakes, rears its head here as well.

I know from personal experience, in life as well as work, that allowing someone to make a mistake that you know you can prevent is incredibly difficult to do. But if I want my daughter to ride a bike by herself I have to take off the training wheels and let her ride around the corner without me. Same is true in managers. Getting time for yourself means taking off their training wheels and letting them steer by themselves.

Gulp. We'll talk more about this later as well.

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.

Pop's Garage - Finishing Projects

Phew! Hot times at the parent's old house. The temperature was high too.

Today's post is about finishing projects, or the last steps before the ending. I call it preventing the three Cs, conflcit, confusion and chaos.

For years I led performance improvement-type projects (quality management, reengineering, performance management, balanced scorecard), the kinds of projects that cause big changes in how business operations are run (new SOPs) and/or how performance is measured (affecting salary increases and promotions). Implementing the project team's plans often caused conflict and chaos, or at least confusion, amoung affected employees. But that is not what I care about, now anyway.

Today I care about preventing conflict inside the team itself.

Projects go through phases. One of the most dangerous project phases is near the end of the preparation, just prior to implementation (or presentation to the powers that be). After geting past the initial confusion at project start teams settle into a routine, almost a boring, "we are doing this to achieve that mentality. Nothing dangerous there.

One day though, all the datum has been collected, the possibilities brainstormed and implementation plans made, almost. It is the almost part that triggers the problems.

By now the team has been together for a while, and routine datum collecting and idea bouncing has shifted to data analyzing and idea hardening. It is a confusing time, bringing everything together. Not just that choices must be made (making some winners and most losers) but that project ennui is at a peak, "won't this damn project ever end?" a common feeling.

Now is when frustrations built up over time are no longer are quite-so-easy to dismiss. Tempers fray, words are said and arguments take place. When implementation starts team members have other, "new" things to think about and do, but in the dog days just before implementing there are only old jobs to do and old ideas to discuss. Again. And again.

Now is when the team leader truly earns his/her salary. Why? Because if team members have a frustration level of X, leader's frustration ix X+10. Or +100. The easiest thing to do is to give in and when team members offer up frustration to answer them with frustration +10. The urge to lash out, to say things you've thought and felt for months, is string, a seductive siren calling you to, paraphrasing Nancy Regan, just let go.

Don't! Now is when project managers need to be calm. If you are calm they will be, or might. If you show you are frenzied, harried and frustrated, they will be too. No fun, for anyone.

To SOP or not to SOP

Enter an old (to me anyway) argument: should you treat employees like factory machines, making them follow detailed SOPs (standard operating procedures, or rules), or should you treat them like people and let them find their own ways to get the required results? My answer? Both.

Okay, let's start with the company. What does the company require to succeed? Results. For now let's forget the macro, "pick right strategy/business model/product or service mix" issues. That to me is a given: without the right macro choices no level of achievement matters. High achievement in a failed strategy still equals failure.

But the twain is not true: poor achievement in a perfect strategy also equals failure. Certainly there is more to success than making the right macro choices. The company still needs to perform, to achieve, to succeed.

Fine. Now, achievement, or, even better, the "work" of a company can be divided (loosely) into repetitive and creative tasks. The former are akin to production line steps, including the entire list of bureaucratic, file this, make three copies of that, tasks, as well as areas like shipping, finance and, well, production. Repetitive tasks make up the bulk of "work" done; using Pareto and the ever-useful 80:20 rule, maybe 80% of the "work" is repetitive.

The remaining 20% of the "work" requires some level of choice, some amount of creativity. While the job description may not change--write marketing plan--the innards of the task, the data, the resources, the urgency for examples, change each time it is done. Moreover, while each type of task can be described in the same language ("add column A to column B" and "analyze market situation"), plainly the non-repetitive tasks need more people-input than just following the task description. I can make a machine or a program (or a chimp) add A to B, but neither could analyze the market situation (no matter how many chess grandmasters the program beats).

A company needs excellent results in both types of jobs to succeed. Okay, but what does this mean to Dick and Acme? Where should Dick be expending his effort?

In a startup phase I think the answer is clearly training staff to do the repetitive tasks perfectly every time. The creativity inputs should come from Dick and his senior managers, the core of the startup. That means that Dick and his key managers should be listing each final result needed in each business area then working backwards to the initial inputs, flowcharting each step in the bsuiness process. (Once I get off Blogger I will show examples of flowcharts and process descriptions.) Creating SOPs, helping staff understand and follow the SOPs, then measuring two things: are staff following the SOPs and, if so, are the SOPs achieving the right results?

This "start with SOPs" is especially true in a cross-culture environment (continued anon).

Ah, about now is when the politically-correct beseech me to mend my ways, to treat people like people, not machines. "How can people grow if you don't let them try things on their own? If you won't let them make mistakes?"

Well, quite frankly I am not sure allowing people to choose whether or not to add Column A to B is good or wise policy. Most jobs require SOPs because they are repetitive and that the SOP will achieve the required result, every time. Effectiveness and efficiency, the twin Es of quality, depend upon this "achieve ... every time" outcome.

Yet I still feel there is place for creativity, even in repetitive, SOP'ed jobs. I contend there are two times when people are naturally creative: when facing a crisis and when following the SOP guarantees achieving good results and a bonus is offered for new ideas. Let's hope Acme is not facing crisis yet (though many would argue that the statup phase itself is just one long crisis: I digress).

So, what about non-crises creativity? It requires two inputs: People can not be worried about achieving the right result, making the SOP a security blanket; and people must be rewarded for new ideas that increase either of the twin Es. Built in is the rule that nothing can be tried that will hurt achieving required results.

What ends up is a policy that allows people the time to think of new ways (as good results are guaranteed by following the old) and motivation to think (because of the reward). How it works in real life is Mr. A or Ms. B has a new idea; a real-life test is carried out on a simulated case; if that works more tests are done; if they work out then the SOP is re-written and Mr. A and Ms. retire on their bonus reward. (I can dream can't I?)

The above is a long-winded (sorry: I was channeling Charles Dickens this morning) analysis of how Dick should go about building the company during the start of the startup phase. Crucial to success is that Dick can depend on staff achieving X results every time for the 80% of the tasks that are repetitive. Once that is done great things can happen; without that all that happens is Dick takes more and more aspirin every day.

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.