Insights of Peter Drucker

Today's post is a direct quote from Peter Drucker.

Success always obsoletes the very behavior that achieved it. It always creates new realities. It always creates, above all, its own and different problems. Only the fairy story ends, "They lived happily ever after."

It is not easy for the management of a successful company to ask, "What is our business?" Everybody in the company then thinks that the answer is so obvious as not to deserve discussion. It is never popular to argue with success, never popular to rock the boat.

The ancient Greeks knew that the penalty for the hubris of success is severe. The management that does not ask "What is our business?" when the company is successful is, in effect, smug, lazy, and arrogant. It will not be long before success will turn into failure."

Measure Twice...Cut Once

The old carpentry addage, Measure Twice, Cut Once is something I was painfully reminded of a couple of years ago when I did some remodeling on my home. I replaced all of the baseboards, carpet, a couple of doors and door frames, stair banisters (I didn't do these...way beyond my skill, but I did sand and finish them), and painted. On more than one occasion I found myself scrapping a large piece of baseboard because I cut in haste. It only takes a couple of mistakes before you learn that the time it takes to measure twice is much less than the time and expense it takes to purchase new baseboard at Home Depot. Measure twice, cut once; such a simple concept, regularly ignored in today's society of speed and efficiency.

This week I was again taught a lesson in the art of Measure Twice, Cut Once. Unfortunately, the company I work for had to terminate some people's employment this week. Our process consisted of reviewing every department member's performance in a variety of work accountabilities. Parts of the review were quantitative, some qualitative, some historical. Like good carpenters, we measured twice in hopes to cut once. We went about the process of gathering this information from various sources. It was comforting to see 100% consistency and agreement in the information we gathered and in the tough decisions that were made among these employees' managers. We used this information to look at each team member and determine who was not a fit moving forward. Each manager "measured" their people and the information was compiled to determine who would be let go. It was a very difficult process, as it is anytime you make decisions that affect people's lives.

Like carpentry, the work of terminating people's employment is labor intensive, fraught with slivers, cuts and bruises, and at times the danger of real injury. In the end you hope the work you have put in will yield a finished "product" that exceeds your expectations, expense, and pain. Also like carpentry, if you don't do regular repairs, and the occasional remodel, your house can get rundown and lose a tremendous amount of value. It is difficult to ever really feel "good" about decisions such as these. I do feel good decisions were made, and that our company will be better off in the long-run. We determined that if we didn't affect 5 people's lives, it could eventually affect everyone's lives. My hope is that these tough decisions will send a clear message that we need people who are committed, intelligent, and who can grow and stay relevant. We have a great workforce, and I want it to continue to positively progress.

My well wishes to those who lost their jobs this week. I hope they all find the perfect jobs and that they will all be wildly successful.

Candor...can it be too honest???

Candor is an interesting word. It conjures reactions both good and bad. Randomly ask people what they think of the word candor and perhaps you'll get a few of the following responses:

• It is overly rude. People shouldn't be that honest all the time.
• It helps you know exactly where you stand.
• It's okay as long as there is trust with the other person.
• It feels unnatural to give and receive.
• Scary.
• Tough, but necessary.

As a manager I sometimes struggle with candor, and how "candid" to be. Recently I found myself in a meeting (volunteer organization outside of work) where a proposal was offered that felt like a conflict of interest to me. I was somewhat new to the group, largely unfamiliar with the group dynamics, and not familiar with some of the people. When the proposal was laid out on the table I confidentially wrote a note to the leader of the group asking to discuss my concerns offline. We had a nice discussion and it turns out there were others feeling the same as me.

I wondered afterward why I didn't simply address the issue straight on? Or, for that matter, why nobody else did either. Many of the responses above certainly played into my decision. I also didn't want to be the "bad guy", and wasn't sure how the dynamics of the group were handled. There was also the issue that the person involved was a long-time member of the group and sometimes has the reputation of "running the show" even though they have no more influence than anyone else on the board.

If I had the chance to go back and do it again I would candidly address the issue with the group. I would do so professionally, respectfully, and with the intent of turning the discussion into an exploration of how to arrive at the best outcome for all involved. But I would make my concerns known openly and honestly right from the beginning. By waiting to be candid, I did nothing more than waste time; my time, and the time of others, many of whom had that same "offline" conversation with the leader.

In Jack Welch's book Winning: The Answers he states; "once you become a manager, it is your obligation to let everyone who works for you know exactly where they stand. That's how you build the best team - and win." In Winning, he specifically attributes candor to performance evaluations. Really, who does it benefit to withhold candor in a work setting? Nobody! The issues, both good and bad must be addressed head-on, for real, sustainable change to take place (easier said than done...I know).

I believe there are some ingredients that must be present in order for true candor to be successful.

1. Candor must be truth. Know your facts. Know what the end goal is. Don't bluff. Don't make up information. Don't hold back "bad" information.
   
2. Listen. The other person might have additional information or insights that you don't know about, or that might shed new light to the situation.
   
3. Mutual trust. This one is debatable as candor can be given without trust. But, I believe that in order for candor to work well, there needs to be at least some trust established between the involved parties. We're most open to, and with, those we trust.
   
4. Never use candor with the intention to malign or tear down.
5. Approach all "candor moments" with a mutual desire to improve (people, processes, team, division, company, etc.)

Candor is tough, but I believe that once used, it becomes easier. As it becomes easier, others just might try implementing it in their daily routine also. In conclusion, Jack Welch states; "Once you dispense with mixed messages and phony performance reviews, a team never fails to become faster, more creative, and more energetic." I like the sound of that...

Strong Mission & Concrete Values

I read "Winning" by Jack Welch a year or so ago. The first section of the book talks about 4 things:

1) Mission & Values
2) Candor
3) Differentiation
4) Voice & Dignity

I plan to address all four areas in some degree or another, but for now I want to address "Mission & Values" The company I work for has been in business for a number of years. There is no mission statement, vision, values, or anything else modern businesses today espouse as their "guiding oracles". This is okay with me, as I don't necessarily believe a mission statement makes a business successful. I do, however, believe that a company and its employees need to know where they are going, and clearly understand the plans for how they will arrive at their destination (goals). Absent this information, people tend to lack vision, and work on what they feel is most important, not what actually might be most important and vital to the overall success of the company.

Experts often provide conflicting insights regarding the merits of mission statements. Some believe in them, others don't. Some say that in order to make the mission statement effective there has to be participation and buy-in from all levels of the organization. This would suggest assembling a cross-functional team and crafting the mission with broad employee representation from all levels. Jack Welch states in his book;

"Setting the mission is top management's responsibility. A mission cannot, and must not, be delegated to anyone except the people ultimately held accountable for it. In fact, a mission is the defining moment for a company's leadership."

Jack Welch makes clear that he believes the mission is the responsibility of leadership. Do his statements mean that he believes broad representation is not necessary, or even desired? I'm not sure. So what is the best format for building a mission statement? I don't know...and therein lies the problem.

About a year ago I was tasked to head up a team to "create the company's mission, vision, & values". I actually thought it would be a fun project to work on. I had previously worked for FranklinCovey, and so I had been inculcated into the "lore of mission statements" to some degree. I did some research, assembled some articles and other reference materials for the senior leadership team and went about trying to get the project underway.

Each time I attempted to garner enthusiasm and guidance from the leadership team (of which I am a part) for the project I was met with lukewarm (at best) indifference. Participation generally revolved around them wanting me to bring back the recommendations of the cross-functional team. I was able to get more than enough people to express interest in being on the team, which consisted of newer employees, well-tenured employees, and some in-between. I have no doubt that the team would have done an exceptional job at crafting a mission statement. A mission statement employees could have rallied around, something some could have at least used as a guidepost, and something that some could have memorized, and spouted off at the drop of a hat just for the illusion. After all, it is difficult to get everyone engaged in the vision of the vision...

So what's the problem? Leadership! Until the leadership of the company collectively feels that a mission/vision/values project is important, it won't be. It must start at top and cascade throughout the company. I simply lost the will to drive the project after feeling there was no support from my peers on the leadership team. Perhaps that is my short-coming for not pushing the project harder, or for not pinning them down. Perhaps I simply did not do a good enough job helping them understand the company needed their guidance and support first.

I've been thinking about that mission statement project of late, wondering what would happen if I proceeded with the original team, and simply completed the project without my the other members of the leadership team. After all, many political careers, initiatives, and business ideas start at the "grass roots" level. I wonder how it would turn out if I assembled the team, created something great, and allowed the team to push the accountability UP instead of having it flow down??? Could the mission, vision, and values provide the value coming from this team? Or could it possibly provide more credibility and value coming from this team? It is worth consideration. And I just might re-assemble that team to see what nuggets of gold can be sifted.

Human Interaction

Leave it to an "HR guy" to write his first blog on "human interaction" in the workplace. I know, I know, the proverbial "soft HR topic". Some observations:

1. There is…some dysfunction in the place where I work.
2. Much of the dysfunction stems from the following things:

• Lack of time?...let's say lack of taking the time to fully understand what others face.
• Lack of ability to confront the issues honestly, without defensiveness.
• Lack of accountability.
• Lack of human level interaction.

Time we'll address at another "time". Honesty, I'm not quite ready to tackle that one on my first post either. Accountability could be a treatise so let’s hold on that one as well.

Let's focus on human level interaction. Our employees work in different "quadrants" of the building, and for the most part, have little interaction with other departments aside from a monthly meeting, and the occasional other drive-by, or meeting encounter. This monthly meeting takes the form of managers providing as little information as possible so they "don't have to spend time with these people". Meanwhile, the employees complain about never receiving any pertinent information. Then, assumptions appear, assumptions about others; their motives, what resources they get versus what we get, who is really the most important department, are we a software company or a customer service company. It is all very comical, yet sad. I try not to get personally embroiled in this mess, but occasionally I do get singed by standing too close to the fire. I have many occasions that I get to speak with employees about the situation...and that I welcome even though I often feel like I am a great sounding board, but often cannot make the influence I would like (more on that later).

Socrates points out that one has to talk to people in terms of their own experience, that is, using carpenters metaphors when speaking to a carpenter, or accounting with an accountant. Recently, I had the chance to spend some quality work time with one of the software developers. Like many developers, he is bright, ambitious, and "gets it" when it comes to business. I appreciated the insights he gave me into some of the challenges he and his team face with the development process, and some of the cultural issues they face. I appreciated his candor. We discussed a number of issues that pertain to our business. We both want our company to be successful. We both have many ideas, not always conforming to the cultural norms of the company. Most of all, we're both just people who want to be able to suggest and implement good ideas, better understand how our co-workers function, think, and to better be able to leverage the business in positive ways. Sometimes you can learn much more from a casual conversation by listening and asking questions than you can from the plethora of meetings we face each day. I hope to be able to expand on my experience with others in a casual, real setting. That's where the good stuff in business really is...and the good ideas also, the ideas that sometimes turn into the “next big thing”.

Well, that’s my first post ever…I enjoyed this self-therapy.