The unconventional wisdoms: helping people succussed and long-term teams

Photo by John Spooner

One of my favourite subjects here in this blog has been conventional wisdoms. Those things that mangers usually believe in, but that have been proven wrong and ineffective. Over the life of this blog I have mentioned some of them, mostly relating to the management of people and teams. That is why it made me so happy to read Bob Sutton’s post: “What are the Dumbest Practices Used By U.S. Companies?“. It’s nice to have smarter and more experienced people reinforce your ideas from time to time.

I recommend reading the post and the comments which offer many mistaken conventional wisdoms. With so many of them out there, I sometimes wonder how the business world works at all. But I wanted to focus my attention to two of these practices that are mentioned in the original post, and add a few thoughts of my own. This is the first one:

2. Dysfunctional Internal Competition.  This is a big theme in The Knowing-Doing Gap and Morten’s Hansen’s masterpiece Collaboration.  If you dig into the problems in the banks and a lot of other companies, they actually punish people who help others succeed, both via the reward systems and who gets the most prestige.  This seems to persist even though the evidence against such assumptions and systems are so clear.

I must admit that I have never seen this problem described like this. But it makes a lot of sense. As I advocate in this blog, following Markus Buckingham preaching, is that the most important thing a manger could do is help other people succussed. And if organizations are built in a way that hinders the ability of managers to do this, that actually incentivizes them not to do what there are supposed to do, there is no wonder why so many people feel out of place in their workplace and why so many people do not reach their full potential and quote “a bad manager” as their number one reason for leaving their jobs. It is about time to not only make sure that we as managers engage in helping other people excel, but also to ensure that there are systems in the places we work for are set to support that function.

This is the second practice Sutton complains about:

3. Breaking-up Teams Constantly.  American companies often seem to love moving people around constantly, breaking-up teams, giving people new experiences, and so on.  Certainly, there is a time for fresh blood, but if you read J. Richard Hackman’s Leading Teams you will see that the weight of the evidence is that breaking up teams less often rather than more often is linked to all sorts of effectiveness indicators.  Also, see this post about the Miracle on the Hudson where I discuss this literature.

Again, I never thought of this problem in the way described here but it makes perfect sense when you think about it from a strengths perspective. An effective team, among other things, is a team where every member is attuned with his strengths; where synergies are created from the diverse opinions and talents. And it takes time to create this synergy, because people are so different. But it is their differences that creates strength and allows them to perform excellently. I think everyone who has worked in a team felt it. The difference between the beginning of the life of the team and the end of it, when each team member has learned his teammates’ traits and knows how to work in tune with them. So, maybe we need to think about long-term teams and about ways in which we sustain them.

Two challenges laid down for managers of organizations… will you take them upon yourself?

Elad

Iconoclast

Photo by Ilan Sharif

I just finished reading a very interesting book called “Iconoclast” (read more about the term iconoclasm), by Gregory Berns. The book describes what is unique about people who do things that others say can’t be done. By using case studies of remarkable people from all fields of society, sports to business, science and space flight  to human rights, and combining it with new research about the way the brain works, Berns makes a compelling argument about what makes these people so unique. This basic theory is that iconoclast can be distinguished by three traits: a perceptual system that allows him to see differently from other people, the ability to conquer fear of the unknown and social intelligence to sell ideas to other people.

As usual, a few thought about this book:

1. I think tis books amplifies two messages I deal a lot with here in this blog. The first one is the importance of the comparative advantage and use of the uniqueness of strengths. As it turns out, even those people who have one of the traits of an iconoclast don’t hold all three of them. This means, that they need to corporate. They need to find someone who can complete what they lack in order to do things that can’t be done. This means that one of the most important things you can do is concentrate on your strengths and find someone else to take care of your weaknesses.

2. The second one is the importance of leadership. I already mentioned that I strongly believe that the most important role of a leader is, as Markus Buckingham describes it, to create a clear picture of the future. Because most people are afraid of the future and afraid of the unknown. The people who succussed in doing things that other thought were impossible, were not deterred by the uncertainty the future holds. They managed to overcome their fear. As a leader, your role is to help people do just that. To complete the picture, check out item number one. Maybe your ability to as a leader to make the future less frightening will be just what others need in order to bring their iconoclast ability of perception to reality.

3. One of the biggest problems iconoclast face is the ability to persuade others of their ideas. We all know this. Great inventions and discoveries take a long time to come about, many times because the guy who thought about them just has to wait for the entire current community to die or leave. In the book, Berns says that an iconoclast has two options. Either try to persuade the early adopters, which means you have to find the right way to reach them, or make your idea more compatible with present ideas. This is a known trick in presentations – if you are having a hard time explaining something new, use something old. If any of you ever saw the TV show “Numbers” you recognize the great use of everyday concepts to explain complicated mathematical ideas. This is just the same. It is what the authors of “Made to stick” call: the curse of knowledge. Your own knowledge does not allow you to see how other people who don’t know what you know think. When you are presenting something, think what your audience already knows and use that concept to explain yours.

4. Finally, reading about so many people who took the current reality and just smashed it, is inspiring. These people disregarded what everybody said and changed most of our lives. Each and every one of you can do that every day. It is simple. Just like Tim Berners Lee says in his TED talk: it is time for you to become the sort of person who just does things which will be good if everybody else did them.

5. Even if you don’t do anything ground breaking, the ride a good enough reason.

Elad

What managers should do – a few thoughts about practical wisdom

 I have to admit that after seeing so many recommendations about it around the web I was really eager to see Barry Schwartz’s talk at TED. They say that high expectations beget disappointment. Well, this maybe a good example of an expectation. This is one of the most inspiring and appealing speeches I have seen.

The speech contains so many themes that are worthy of a discussion that I can develop a whole blog around them. However, I will only elaborate on one of them and let you think of the rest. Listening to Barry talk about the fact that some janitors describe their jobs differently than the formal job description that entails a only a list of what he must clean, by talking about the way they interact with people, reminded me what Markus Buckingham talks about in “First, breaking all the rules” about how great manager treat their employees. If I try to summarise both of their ideas and incorporate my own it will sound something like this:

• 1. Find the right people – people have different talents. Many times, in order to be great at a job – yes, even that of a janitor – you need more than the basic skills for actually doing the job. In this case, a janitor in a hospital needs empathy. How many hiring for janitors include that in their list of demands? But it is true in many other jobs. There is always the extra passion or talent that transforms good employees to great ones. Find a candidate with such a passion or talent and your chances of hiring a great employee increases.
• 2. Let them to the job – people work differently. They produce the same outcomes differently. Don’t interfere. Don’t make up rules. Maybe, as Barry says, don’t even create incentives (I am not sure I totally agree with that one). Don’t try to make them do the job the way you would have done it. Give them the intellectual and mental space to work it on their own. Provide support and training but don’t create rules about the specific job. If phase one was done correctly, they will find the way to produce the outcomes you required.
• 3. Actively look for results – this seems like an obvious stage, but it is not. And when I talk about results, I don’t mean only if the job is done, but how is it done; what is the joy the employee derives from doing it; what are the ripple effects of his work. You can’t do that by looking only on the products. You have to talk to the employee. You have to walk around in his area. You have to assess his work from different perspectives.
• 4. Replace or retain – if someone is not fit for the job, if the only results you see at level three are the “formal” ones, than it is wiser to let go. Off course, this should not be done lightly and not before you are absolutely sure that there is no match. But it is better to lead an employee to directions where he can produce those results. Where he can put his “practical wisdom” that Barry talks about in his speech for good use. Because as I said in point one, each of us has different “practical wisdom” or talent. On the other hand, those who do create result should be recognized. Or as Barry calls it: “celebrate moral exemplars“. This is the guy you want to spend most of your time with. This is the guy, you want to learn and frame step one according to. This is the one you should try to do everything to retain, because these are the people who truly excel and drive your organization forward.

Elad