Decision Height

The typical precision instrument approach, as done thousands of times per day throughout the U.S. and elsewhere, requires the pilot to follow just two instruments in the cockpit: the course deviation indicator (CDI) and the altimeter.    The pilot uses the CDI to keep the aircraft on course, both horizontally and vertically.   The altimeter doesn't provide guidance, but does provide something else that may not be obvious: the point at which a decision must be made.

Most such approaches require the pilot to have the runway environment in sight when they are 200 feet above the ground.   The procedure, therefore, is to look out the window when the altimeter says you are 200 feet above the ground.   If you see the runway, you can continue on and land.   If not, you must execute a missed approach procedure which involves applying power and climbing to avoid the ground.

The key item here is that, like in many projects, there is a point at which a decision must be made.    Successful leaders will have identified the parameters which factor into the decision ahead of time - things like cost, progress to date, risk assessments, and so on - so that the actual decision can be made on a purely objective basis.    When such parameters are not defined, making a go/no-go decision on a project can be a long and drawn out process as emotional or subjective factors are taken into account.   To be sure, there may well be a point in the project where such subjectivity is allowable and perhaps even desirable, but not at a critical decision point.

Another pitfall is that the decision is deferred simply because the decision may be too difficult to make. This indecisiveness can lead to cost overruns, increasing project scope, or additional effort expended on a technically insurmountable issue resulting in lost productivity.

Just as with the pilot guiding his aircraft full of passengers to a safe landing in foggy conditions, leaders need to be aware of their position and be ready to make correct decisions at the correct time based on objective information.   Failure to do so won't help a project, and at worst can lead to a rather sudden and disastrous result.

What kind of decisions do you need to make for your project?    Do you have the metrics in place to objectively make those decisions?

This Word Describes Great Leaders - Does It Describe You?

Among the several attributes that many great leaders share, there is one which is not at first obvious. It is described by a word which does not immediately bring to mind visions of strength, power, or prestige but it is responsible for the apparent strength, influence, and respect many great leaders possess.

The ability to mentor, or help others around them become better at what they do, is a wonderful result of this characteristic in a leader.    Each of us learns and develops in different ways at different rates; some people learn "fast and wide" while others learn "slow and deep".   The ideal leader knows this, and helps team members develop without exerting undue pressure while still helping each individual grow at their own pace.   Their teams become highly effective, and they gain the strength to develop amazing things in short amounts of time.

The ability to recognize inopportune moments and delay or pause until the right moment presents itself is another embodiment of the characteristic described by this word.    Some would have you believe that in order to be successful, you must act with lightning speed, striking at opportunities as they present themselves.   Great leaders know and live the adage that "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast" by executing correctly at the right time.     This allows them to influence those around them, providing the right input or wisdom at just the right time.

The ability to listen well to others, and to consider alternatives thoughtfully, embodies the characteristic described by this word.     Listening well involves silencing that inner voice and its associated biases long enough to not only hear but to understand what others are saying.   It allows the leader  to concentrate on what is being said, instead of thinking about what to say next.    To be heard is perhaps one of the most basic needs of any team member, and a leader that listens well earns great respect from all his team members.

This word describes an attitude which becomes increasingly more valuable as it becomes increasingly rare.  It is a word which is easy to say but so very hard to embody at the times when it is needed most, which is why only the best leaders who consistently practice it are able to do it well.   The word?

Patience.

The best teachers, managers, and co-workers have come across in my career demonstrate patience in a consistent manner.     It is easy to do well occasionally, but hard to do routinely.   Does it describe you?

Do You "Wind Your Watch"? You Should...

A grizzled old airline captain named Joe was called into the chief pilot's office one day and told that he needed to go in for a flight review in the airline's newly installed computerized simulator.    This would serve as his six month check ride as well as allow the airline to evaluate the usefulness of the simulator and its instructors, as Joe was one of the most experienced pilots on the line and had an excellent safety record.

At the appointed time, Joe showed up and after a bit of paperwork was escorted to the simulator.   He "flew" the routine procedures first, and then proceeded to practice the emergency procedures.    The simulator instructors caused all manner of problems for Joe - an engine would quit, instruments would stop functioning, the landing gear would not come down, and so on - in order to test Joe's ability to handle emergency situations safely.  

At the end of the session Joe received near perfect marks.   In fact, the only criticism the young instructors had of the veteran pilot was that whenever an emergency occurred, Joe wouldn't spring into action right away - he would instead wind his watch for a moment.   The instructors felt that this was an odd practice, since the emergency at hand was clearly far more critical than almost anything else.   When they mentioned this to Joe, his response was simply, "Son, I've never accidentally killed anyone while winding my watch and considering the situation at hand."

---

In the often hurried pace of today's business world, leaders are presented new information and asked to make decisions or take actions almost immediately.   Few situations, however, are actually so critical as to truly require immediate action.    Taking a moment to consider not just the most obvious option, but additional alternatives as well, is the mark of a true professional.   Indeed, compounding a dire situation with a bad choice because the person in charge felt that doing something - anything - right now only leads to more emergencies.     Such a process will feed on itself, in what could be referred to as a negative feedback loop.

The next time you find yourself in a situation which seems like immediate action is needed, stop for a moment and "wind your watch" while you mentally take a step back and consider your next steps.   You might find the situation not quite so dire, and find that there is an elegant solution just waiting for you to step back and see it.

I've heard it said that it takes a jerk to have a knee-jerk reaction, and I've found that folks who are thoughtful about their actions are much more pleasant to work with in addition to being better leaders.   What do you think?

The Essential Interview Question

It's interview season, and we've been interviewing for several positions over the last few weeks.   Although the course of the conversation with the candidate always varies some, there is one question I like to ask at least twice, in two slightly different ways.  

"Tell me about the last time a customer or coworker was mad at you - how did you handle the situation?"

Getting along with your coworkers is at least as important as the job function - even if you do your job perfectly, there is a net productivity loss if no one else in the office can stand to work with you.   As such, you might think that discovering how a candidate might work with others would be a good idea and you'd be right.   Oddly enough, however, many prospective employers don't think to ask questions along these lines or if they do, they are questions which are guaranteed to get "the right answer".

  

Compare the question above with ones which I've heard many times: "How do you handle conflict?", or "How well do you work with others?"    No candidate would answer these questions with "Not very well" (if they did, you'd thank them for their time and send them on their way).   Instead, they answer with what they think you want to hear.    Answers such as, "I would approach the individual directly" or "I would try to learn the best way to work with that individual" are common - and largely theoretical.       When I am interviewing a candidate, a warning flag is the candidates use of the phrase "I would".   Of course I am interested in what the candidate would do, but knowing what they did do is likely to be far more indicative of their behavior.

A candidate who says they haven't had anyone mad at them is a question because it may mean they are either disingenuous (everyone has someone mad at them at one time or another) or that they have no strong opinions.    The former is obviously a problem, while the latter may prove troublesome if the position involves any decision making or leadership responsibilities.  Of course, an answer such as "Why sure - it happens all the time" is deserving of further investigation as well.

The best answer I have heard was a situation in which the individual took responsibility for the situation, then worked to resolve it directly with the individual.    This demonstrated responsibility (taking ownership) and humility (willing to admit they were wrong).    The individual was hired, and has been a strong performer on the team.

The answer to this question can be very enlightening, as we have seen, and there is another individual whom you should pose this question to at least occasionally: yourself.   How do you handle conflict with your coworkers?

You May Be Right (and I'm not crazy)

Have you ever been in a discussion or meeting where the goal was to choose between two or three alternatives?    Especially in a setting populated by exceptionally bright and talented individuals, these kinds of meetings can become very ... spirited.    Exceptionally bright and talented individuals are frequently also very passionate and aren't afraid to call other ideas unworkable, impractical, or perhaps even just plain old stupid (As an engineering-type, I'd point out we are seldom known for our people skills).

If you find yourself in one of these types of discussions, you may discover an impasse which seems to be difficult if not impossible to overcome.   Each party will likely have very sound and very specific reasons why their particular approach is far superior to any of the others.    You may believe that your approach is in fact the best one based on the knowledge of the situation you possess.    What to do?  Try saying something like:

"You may be right, but I'd like to know why you think that".

Seriously.

I have found that saying these words, sincerely, does several important things:

o   It affirms that you respect the other individuals and their points of view

When a discussion becomes heated, it becomes easier to see the other people in the group as opponents.     This attitude is contagious; admitting that the other's idea may be better defuses this and helps turn the focus back to the ideas and not the people.

o   It opens communications (and your mind)

The individual receiving the above message will likely be happy to explain why they think the way they do.    Rarely, in a group of competent people, does a dumb idea get put forth and championed by a team member. As a result, asking the above question likely will provide you with some insight or information that you didn't have previously.   The reverse is also true - the other participants will be more open to listening and learning about your perspective.

o   It allows people to be heard in a receptive environment

One of the most frustrating things for members of a team is to not be heard, to be marginalized, or perhaps even be ignored.    By inviting input and commentary in this way, you avoid those dangers and instead facilitate teamwork.    Even if a particular idea is later rejected, the individual and the team will remember and appreciate the fact they had input people actually listened to and considered.

Being able to have a passionate discussion is  the mark of a team staffed with good talent; being able to draw people into the conversation and bring the team together without resentment or bitterness after the decision has been made is the mark of a great leader.  

I wish I had learned this at the start of my career; it would have made some time periods much less stressful.    But perhaps you think this approach is flawed in some way.   You may be right, but I'd like to know why you think that...

Your Favorite Band Sucks

My friend Bob has a long standing policy of no politics allowed in his shop.   He has this policy because such discussions almost inevitably degrade into a scene of two one-way conversations occurring simultaneously, with each participant left feeling that the other is a close-minded idiot who simply can't be bothered with reason.  

I'm not sure I completely agree (Bob and I have had many good discussions, even though we are on polar opposites of the political wheel) but I do understand.    Numerous topics like politics, religion, music, and more tend to bring out the emotional side of our personalities, especially when we feel passionate about the topic.   There can be plenty of upsides to an honest and frank exchange of ideas, and such discussions can be very rewarding in the right context and appropriate place.    One place where such discussions are rarely, if ever, appropriate however, is the office.

Consider a manager or leader discussing his politics with his subordinates - those who don't agree with his political views will tend to be silent and avoid the potential confrontation that has no benefit for them.   Beyond the immediate discussion, such an occasion may have longer term ramifications which are detrimental to the team if such topics are frequently brought up.   

Another example might be the coworker who evangelizes his faith throughout the office during the workday.    If you happen to have the same belief system, you might not mind - if you have a different belief, on the other hand, you probably do.   Either way, you might be inclined to wonder why he is not doing his job.   This one is a two-fer - not only can it be a divisive topic, but it can also build resentment towards the individual who is preaching instead of doing his work.   (Full disclosure: if you want to know more about Jesus, ask me about it over lunch or after work).

A former coworker used to wear a shirt with "Your Favorite Band Sucks" emblazoned on the front.   I've always thought such was a great synopsis for discussions about divisive topics - while they might be fine outside the office, they do little to promote teamwork, trust, or inspire our coworkers to do great things.

Expertise vs. Authority

In an otherwise entirely forgettable movie, "Battle: Los Angeles" features a subplot which juxtaposes a grizzled Marine sergeant and a green Lieutenant.   Not exactly original stuff, but rather a recurring element across many genres of films and theatre:  expertise vs. authority.   The same plot plays out in the business world as well, pitting subject matter experts against business managers.   Most of the time, the plot isn't nearly as interesting as those conjured up by Hollywood.   Every so often, however, an authority figure believes he or she is also an expert, which can lead to problems if not dealt with quickly and carefully.

Most often, this issue arises when a subject matter expert is promoted or moved into a management position.  Although the titular change occurs almost immediately, learned behaviors die hard and as a result the newly minted manager continues to try to be the expert.   While it may be possible to continue such a "dual citizenship" role for a short period of time, one of two things will eventually happen :

• The manager spends too much time being technical, resulting in poor management and/or leadership
• The manager spends too much time being managerial, resulting in a decaying technical expertise that becomes a drain on the larger group of experts and a poor reflection of his leadership skills.

The key is that the individual, as well as his charges, need to recognize the changing roles and work to accommodate the changing positions.    An expert that moves into management makes room for younger experts to grow and hone their skills, and a manager who recognizes and demonstrates that it's all about the team's success and not his own will have incredibly devoted followers.  

One of my favorite bloggers, Jeff Haden, writes :

"Whatever we are today is largely due to the words and actions of other people. Most of those words or actions were, at the time, small and seemingly inconsequential."

A newly minted manager (or an old salty one, for that matter) operating in this mindset has opportunities to positively influence his team  each and every day.   Looking back, I can think of several managers who had small comments, observations, and insights which at the time seemed small and perhaps even trivial but have had a large impact on me.    The insights they shared with me helped to clarify several aspects of my career and helped me to develop a focus on what it was I wanted to do (which, ultimately, isn't to move into traditional management by the way - I much prefer technical leadership).   I'm not sure a manager who proclaims himself to be the foremost expert would have the same impact.

Understanding the different roles that expertise and authority play within a team, either business or military, serves to grow both the authority figure as well as the technical experts.   Failure to do so generally leads to, well, failure.  

What role do you see yourself in today?   What about tomorrow?

The Real Deal

An opportunity to see management in action isn't uncommon at many (dare I say most?) organizations.   Reams have been written about various practices and methodologies for managing a project to completion; indeed, with the increasing number of people adding "PMP" after their name, one might get the idea that the project management profession is on par with the medical or PhD communities in terms of stature and status.     In contrast, seeing someone demonstrate real leadership is uncommon enough to warrant stopping for a moment and marveling at the effect it has on those around them.   This is probably the best way to identify real leaders, for real leadership rarely decorates itself with titles, prefixes, or suffixes.

I recently had the opportunity to observe one such example of leadership along with both the immediate and delayed effects.   A co-worker who is leading the design of an internal system was asked to summarize the progress for a larger group which included the organization's leadership team.   This particular individual is working with several other people to realize the system and has been a key driver behind the design.     While this might have been the perfect opportunity to describe his efforts on the project, he chose not to do so - most people over five years old aren't foolish enough to stand up and proclaim "I made this" to a larger group of people who know better.   He could have spoken blandly about the facts of where the project was at, problems they had encountered, as well as the next steps they would take.   In fact, he did describe their progress and challenges - but he went further.    One of the other people working on the same system happened to be in the room, and he took the opportunity to praise her work on the project in front of everyone.   It wasn't just a generic "she did a good job on this" comment - it was specific, concise, and sincere.

The immediate effect was that she smiled broadly and then quickly tried, unsuccessfully, to return to a straight face.   I'm not sure how many people in the room noticed it, and the longer term effect was probably even less noticeable to the rest of the organization.   To someone who happens to work in close spatial proximity to the team, however, the effect has been wonderful to watch.   This team works to support the goal and each other, and exudes a positive, "can-do" attitude that is infectious.     Such behavior inspires others and is something that is not widely taught or easily learned.

It was a small but impressive display of a specific quality of leadership; so much so that I couldn't help but tell the individual how neat it was that he'd compliment and encourage his teammate like that so publicly.   His response was essentially that praise is what gets passed onto his team; criticism is what he reserves for himself.      His response was not an example of management-by-PMP or leadership-by-numbers; it was the real deal.  

It was Leadership.

Have you had the opportunity to observe leadership in action?   What did it look like?

Curiosity

Curious...
A couple of years ago, during my annual performance review with my manager, we were discussing some of the different things I liked and disliked about the working environment. One of things I noted was that I was perplexed as to why a segment of the engineering staff always wanted to be sent to training to learn new technologies while the other staff did NOT want to be sent to training. Both groups wanted to learn the technology in question (Javascript) but some felt that it was better to go to a formal class while others wanted to learn on their own.


Wash, Rinse, Repeat
The thing that stuck out in my mind was not the differences in learning styles (both are valid) but rather that the majority of folks who wanted to be sent to the class seemed to be missing a natural curiosity about the topic. Curiosity is something that I value highly in others around me; it is what drives them to ask questions and thus drives me to ask other questions. The answers often raise other questions, which leads into a neat cycle of learning. Curiosity leads to questions, questions lead to answers, answers lead to knowledge, and knowledge leads to curiosity.

An Example
Last year, my curiosity led me to an interesting place. Normally content in the technology / software / hardware areas, I stumbled across a reference to an article in the Harvard Business Review. As I read the article (it happened to be about a specific approach to innovation), I became interested in learning more about related topics such as R&D strategies, budgeting and scheduling when the task is not clearly defined, and more. The cycle of curiosity had taken me in an entirely new direction, and I have benefited from the knowledge gained in both my personal and professional lives.

Nurture It
Although I think I was a naturally curious person previously, that experience demonstrated to me the importance of curiosity. I think it is important to find the answer to some question each day. Many people make a point of walking or running on a regular basis to keep their body in shape. Learning is exercise for the mind, and as such I don't think it is important if the knowledge gained from the answer is immediately useful or not - the benefit is the mental exercise. It's almost a bonus that in doing this, you know more than you did previously. Even better, there is virtually no downside - no one ever threw their back out by reading a book (except my friend Bill, but I digress...).

So what have you learned recently?

Collaboration

A few years back, my wife was lamenting the state of our yard - it was clearly not one of the "super lawns" that exist in our neighborhood.    While I preferred to think of it as preserving a bit of Minnesota prairie, she did not agree with the greenish-brown color so off to the store I went to get some fertilizer.    After a nice walk around the yard with the spreader, I was sure things would go green - and they did.   Except where I spilled a bit too much.   That dead, brown spot served as a reminder about too much of a good thing for two years.

I've come to think of collaboration like fertilizer.   Without it, things become stale and don't grow nearly as fast as they could.   At the same time, too much can be harmful.   Today, it seems like many organizations have gone to extremes in encouraging collaboration and as a result have ended up with "extreme collaboration".     If a little collaboration is good, a lot of collaboration must be better, right?

Well, maybe not so much.   While collaboration is an excellent way for cross functional teams to work towards common goals at the start, it can limit productivity and progress if not applied carefully throughout the remainder of the project.    The documentation team could probably move more quickly without the marketing folks suggesting different wording for each chapter of the user guide, for example.   The entire engineering team probably doesn't need to be part of the design group's working sessions - they just need the results.      Forcing collaboration in this case leads to paralysis - everyone needs to know and be involved in everything.   Unfortunately, few individuals possess the vast array of skills to be effective in such a role - creative design, user experience, software development, product commercialization, and other such areas each are highly specialized.    Coordinating the efforts between these various areas is a perfect application of collaboration across functional teams.   Coordinating the efforts within a specific group is best left to those within that group.

Like fertilizer, collaboration is a wonderful thing that can improve growth, provide a better end result, and improve the overall conditions when applied properly.    And like fertilizer, too much can have an effect opposite of what is desired.

What do you think?  Have you ever burned a hole in your lawn?

Red vs Blue

Water Cooler Talk
I was talking with some co-workers today who were lamenting the current state of management at our employer.    These wise individuals have (correctly) identified two distinct management styles within our organization.   For ease of reference, I'll refer to these two groups as the "red" team and the "blue" team.

Red: Managers who know that without their help, the engineering staff would sit dumb, deaf, and mute all day long

Blue:  Managers who support and encourage the engineering rank and file by actively engaging them and giving them the leeway needed to shine

These individuals rattled off the group associations for various managers.   Unfortunately, the red team's membership was larger (non-zero)  than it should be (zero).    How did things get this way, and what can be done about it?

The Cause

My perception is that the issue stems primarily (though not completely) from a lack of trust.   All the managers have been made directly accountable for their groups success or failure and so want to do everything possible to ensure success by tackling as much as possible themselves.   Unfortunately, this is perceived as the managers not having any trust that the engineering staff has the knowledge and experience to make the correct decision.    Regrettably, this perception of distrust is magnified by the fact that with few exceptions, the managers do not possess a software engineering background and lack "street cred".    Finally, when the manager has made a bad call, rarely have they taken responsibility for it - instead, it was a "group decision".   Such actions only serve to exacerbate the issue.

The Cure

I think the solution to this problem is relatively simple, if difficult to actually do:  communication.   Open and honest communication works wonders to build relationships and therefore trust.   Comparing the styles of managers between each camp reveals several small but significant differences:

• Formal (largely one-way) status meetings vs. Frequent, short one-on-one conversations
• Lack of responsiveness via email, IM vs. Nearly instant responsiveness
• Only visits your cube when something is wrong vs. Offers to discuss it in his office.
• "I think ..." vs. "What do you think..."
• "That's not right!" vs. "You might be right, but tell me why you think that way."

The red styles have the effect of shutting down communication from the engineering staff, which then give the managers the impression that the engineering staff doesn't want to engage - reinforcing their belief that they must be the drivers to succeed.   The blue styles, on the other hand, encourage the staff to try more, do more, and become more.      All of these are communications related.    What would happen if the red team started adopting the blue team's communications styles?   What effect would that have on the relationship between them and their subordinates?   What effect might that have on employee engagement and productivity?

The Conclusion

Just as a ship making a small change in course can have a large effect on the final destination, making a few small changes in communications can have a large effect on the relationship between  management and staff.    Good organizations recognize this, while others eventually wither away.

I am fortunate to have a manager solidly playing for the blue team.   How about you?