Since the Tories named John Baird as their new Environment Minister, the environment issue has taken off. In two short months, we’ve been visited in a flourish by Al Gore and Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank. Both are passionate, as is David Suzuki and many other scientists, about the dangers of global warming. They have ignited a firestorm of interest.
In the midst of this whirlwind, how has Baird held up as a “newbie” leader and manager? I’ll use the three most important early actions of new managers described by Linda Hill of Harvard University (see my January 7, 2007 blog).
First, how has John Baird demonstrated character, that is, the intention to do the right thing?
He has kept a really low profile and deferred to his boss, Prime Minister Stephen Harper. But worse, he made a faux pas by implying that Al Gore had praised the Tory government about its environment actions. During the Question Period of the House of Commons in early February, Baird said:
“I can quote someone speaking about Canada’s environmental role in the world, ‘Canada is once again providing leadership in the world, fighting above its weight class and showing moral authority to the rest of the world. That’s what Canada is known for.’ Do you know who said that yesterday, Mr. Speaker? Al Gore.”
Whoops! It was taken out of context (Gore was referring more to general support across parties and regions in Canada, not the Tories’ policies, per se). It earned a quick rebuke from Gore. For a newbie, it’s dangerous to get a swelled head too fast. Humility works better when you are tentatively a new member of the global warming issue team.
How has Baird demonstrated competence, knowing how to do the right thing?
The only message I’ve noticed from both Baird and Harper is that it’s impossible for Canada to meet the Kyoto Accord agreements for carbon dioxide emissions. While that appears to be true, they speak little of making an effort nevertheless. Instead, they worry about the cost to the economy in the short term with no underlying data rationale and fail to raise the moral consequences of inaction. They choose also to make light of a serious agreement that, in principle, has merit at the least to focus attention on a global priority.
The scientist in me says that the right thing is to accept we’ve got a problem and to get on with showing leadership through action. No excuses or foot dragging.
How has Baird demonstrated influence or the ability to deliver and execute the right thing?
Baird is nowhere to be seen. Rather than build on all the hard work to date by many people from multiple disciplines and governments, Baird and company are intent on their own “homegrown” plan. It’s not smart to not leverage others’ smart thinking. It’s not smart not to balance the long term with the short term. It’s not smart to be slow and have no or few quick wins.
Put another way, John Baird has been drowned out by the chorus of concerns from people with more credibility. His boss has garnered more attention by deftly insinuating the Conservatives into the “green” agenda. However, he and his party are still on the defensive and in catch up mode. Ordinary Canadians are much farther along the action curve than the Federal Tories.
In summary, John Baird has had a tough couple of months as a new leader and manager. Coming out of the starting gate, he has either stumbled or kept himself at arm’s length from the action. He tried to hitch a ride with Gore and others who long ago earned respect for their role in raising awareness on the environment. He wasn’t allowed on the horse. His boss has largely been the face of the environment. Baird has been in the background.
John might do better by asking his boss for a revised mentoring plan that included him.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Igniting the Fire of Purpose
He’s only 16 years and brimming with the fire of purpose. In reading his story, Luke sounds like and acts like an old soul. Working in his parents’ restaurant in Kingston, Ontario, he’s pursuing a culinary calling making “homemade” food for the lucky locals and visitors to the city.
A follower of the “Slow Food Movement”, he asks customers not to rush the chef as “our foods are handcrafted as they were hundreds of years ago in villages scattered throughout Italy and France”. He experiments continuously, avidly reads cookbooks, gets absorbed in the minutiae of the culinary arts and lovingly presents each plate for patrons as if it was a piece of art. He dreams big of greenhouses, a beehive, an olive grove and other things that will make a completely sustainable restaurant. In short, he’s possessed like an artist by a calling.
Imagine if each of us in organizations were inspired like Luke? We would not have to pay attention to benchmarking as we would set our own. We would not as leaders have to manage as much because those around us would be pulling us forward. The energy would be palpable. Excitement and fun would be in the air. Creativity would abound because we’d be feeding off each others’ ideas as we pursued our laser focus on quality and innovation.
Social scientists generally agree that humans are naturally goal-driven. We get satisfaction from accomplishing things. Our human history is replete with stories like Luke’s, some recorded in books and articles, many only known locally.
Central to each is the person and persons being driven by a force greater than them alone. They want to engage in work that is meaningful. David Bornstein in How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas explains that individuals have a strong desire to apply their talents in ways that bring security, recognition and meaning. Nikos Mourkogiannis in Purpose: The Starting Point of Great Companies refers to the phenomenon as the primary source of achievement, a game of champions, a function of character and crucial to the success of enterprises.
Yet we struggle to ignite and inspire people in organizations with purpose and meaning. Based on the constant outpouring of satisfaction surveys, the evidence points to the desire often being present for employees but it is frequently squashed by the working environment.
The latest annual survey results from Sirota Survey Intelligence, a workplace attitude pollster in Purchase N.Y., underscores that people want meaning in their work. They will rise to the occasion if they are treated with respect, dealt with equitably, and feel connected to the organization on a work and personal level. Unfortunately, the 64,304 employees surveyed of whom 8,000 were Canadian indicate that the sense of excitement and anticipation on these expectations plummets from 70 to 54 per cent after one year of service. The degree of satisfaction does not easily go back up. In the organizations that intentionally work on developing consistent leadership and management policies and practices, the satisfaction level is 75 per cent after one year. This applies for older employees (55 and older) as well as those aged 25 to 34. Considerable research highlights the correlation between satisfaction and productivity; thus, this is a serious business matter for all organizations.
Take Toyota. It’s rising to the top in the car industry, surpassing GM and Ford. Today, Ford reported a never before in its history loss of more than $12 B while Toyota is thriving. In 2006, GM and Ford terminated 46,000 North America employees and will be closing 26 plants in North America over the next 5 years. Toyota has never closed a plant. It’s opening them instead. Much can be attributed to its culture of continuous improvement as described in The Toyota Way and more recently in the December 2006 Fast Company, No satisfaction at Toyota (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/111/open_no-satisfaction.html).
At Toyota the mantra is three fold: “making cars, making cars better and teaching everyone how to make cars better”. The perpetual focus on asking questions of the existing processes followed by constant tweaking has led to outstanding growth and quality. This cannot be achieved without inspired employees.
Inspiration happens one employee at a time. For Luke, his parents provide the support and the tools for continuous improvement. He’s got the natural drive to excel in the culinary business. Luke is fortunate.
Others have succeeded despite enormous obstacles. That’s the norm too often. Who knows what more they could have achieved if the environment had been a little more benign?
In many ways, this is an old story. Our natural predispositions are ignited or not at the intersection of our circumstances and desire. Aware and determined leaders always have the opportunity to make that intersection one that turns little acorns into trees.
A follower of the “Slow Food Movement”, he asks customers not to rush the chef as “our foods are handcrafted as they were hundreds of years ago in villages scattered throughout Italy and France”. He experiments continuously, avidly reads cookbooks, gets absorbed in the minutiae of the culinary arts and lovingly presents each plate for patrons as if it was a piece of art. He dreams big of greenhouses, a beehive, an olive grove and other things that will make a completely sustainable restaurant. In short, he’s possessed like an artist by a calling.
Imagine if each of us in organizations were inspired like Luke? We would not have to pay attention to benchmarking as we would set our own. We would not as leaders have to manage as much because those around us would be pulling us forward. The energy would be palpable. Excitement and fun would be in the air. Creativity would abound because we’d be feeding off each others’ ideas as we pursued our laser focus on quality and innovation.
Social scientists generally agree that humans are naturally goal-driven. We get satisfaction from accomplishing things. Our human history is replete with stories like Luke’s, some recorded in books and articles, many only known locally.
Central to each is the person and persons being driven by a force greater than them alone. They want to engage in work that is meaningful. David Bornstein in How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas explains that individuals have a strong desire to apply their talents in ways that bring security, recognition and meaning. Nikos Mourkogiannis in Purpose: The Starting Point of Great Companies refers to the phenomenon as the primary source of achievement, a game of champions, a function of character and crucial to the success of enterprises.
Yet we struggle to ignite and inspire people in organizations with purpose and meaning. Based on the constant outpouring of satisfaction surveys, the evidence points to the desire often being present for employees but it is frequently squashed by the working environment.
The latest annual survey results from Sirota Survey Intelligence, a workplace attitude pollster in Purchase N.Y., underscores that people want meaning in their work. They will rise to the occasion if they are treated with respect, dealt with equitably, and feel connected to the organization on a work and personal level. Unfortunately, the 64,304 employees surveyed of whom 8,000 were Canadian indicate that the sense of excitement and anticipation on these expectations plummets from 70 to 54 per cent after one year of service. The degree of satisfaction does not easily go back up. In the organizations that intentionally work on developing consistent leadership and management policies and practices, the satisfaction level is 75 per cent after one year. This applies for older employees (55 and older) as well as those aged 25 to 34. Considerable research highlights the correlation between satisfaction and productivity; thus, this is a serious business matter for all organizations.
Take Toyota. It’s rising to the top in the car industry, surpassing GM and Ford. Today, Ford reported a never before in its history loss of more than $12 B while Toyota is thriving. In 2006, GM and Ford terminated 46,000 North America employees and will be closing 26 plants in North America over the next 5 years. Toyota has never closed a plant. It’s opening them instead. Much can be attributed to its culture of continuous improvement as described in The Toyota Way and more recently in the December 2006 Fast Company, No satisfaction at Toyota (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/111/open_no-satisfaction.html).
At Toyota the mantra is three fold: “making cars, making cars better and teaching everyone how to make cars better”. The perpetual focus on asking questions of the existing processes followed by constant tweaking has led to outstanding growth and quality. This cannot be achieved without inspired employees.
Inspiration happens one employee at a time. For Luke, his parents provide the support and the tools for continuous improvement. He’s got the natural drive to excel in the culinary business. Luke is fortunate.
Others have succeeded despite enormous obstacles. That’s the norm too often. Who knows what more they could have achieved if the environment had been a little more benign?
In many ways, this is an old story. Our natural predispositions are ignited or not at the intersection of our circumstances and desire. Aware and determined leaders always have the opportunity to make that intersection one that turns little acorns into trees.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Baird's Perilous Learning Curve
Canada’s new Federal Environment Minister reminds me of a bright-eyed, brand new manager who is about to get some hard lessons. Despite being Harper’s trusted lieutenant, he’ll need more than the Prime Minister’s support to succeed in the environment portfolio. This is going to require authentic, adaptive leadership. Aside from John Baird’s potential as a leader on the environment, he’s starting from minus zero.
Many people already “smell a rat”. The Federal Conservatives about face on the environment file appears to be one of political expediency. They have finally woken up to which way the wind is blowing on the environment. Accordingly, they are adjusting their tone and tune. A new face (Baird) is one of the first chess moves. Can he do it?
I don’t know enough about Baird’s track record to use history as a predictor of the future. Fleetingly, I’ve seen him in a smattering of question periods while he was an MPP and now an MP. Certainly he came across as keen, enthusiastic and committed to getting things done. Not surprisingly, he’s been firm on the Conservative’s agenda on many matters. This portfolio may cause him to question his values and beliefs. Is he up to the task?
Let’s look at what he really has to do to succeed, according to Linda Hill’s research on becoming a new boss (January 2007, Harvard Business Review, www.HBR.org ).
Demonstrate character: the intention to do the right thing
This is the crucial line in the sand for any leader-manager. It is the foundation for earning people’s respect and trust. It means negotiating an action plan in an environment full of interdependent relationships. A mind set of “I know best” and “we must be efficient” won’t fly. This complex subject is driven by non-partisan values, the prevailing scientific evidence, the long view and no guarantee of an immediate return on investment.
Baird will have to establish credibility with a web of stakeholders, many of whom will be wary of his intentions. It will not be enough to work with his closest advisors who likely do not have enough diversity in knowledge as a team. Baird must reach out to those with whom he does not agree. He will have to convince them that he is more than a marketing front man.
Demonstrate competence: knowing how to do the right thing
Ah, this will be quite challenging. Baird’s boss has given the impression that he is decidedly unconvinced the environment is in need of his firm decision making to avert disaster for future generations. Harper’s messages often come across as “we can have our cake and eat it too”.
We all know that any body of knowledge is always a work in progress. Thus, questioning the findings, at least in scientific circles, is a de facto standard for debate and discussion. However, there comes a time when the “negotiated truths” converge. As it stands, the voices are getting louder and more anxious. In 2001, 100 Nobel Prize winners from around the globe, including our own John Polanyi, raised the alarm. They continue to do so today. The urgency of the situation now demands collective political leadership. It’s time to stop quibbling.
How is Baird going to convince voters who are alarmed about the environment (as many and recent polls suggest) that he knows what he is talking about? His immediate work group has not demonstrated its grasp of the reality. If leaders show they are not convinced by a consensus that has solid evidence behind it and that they are sincere in managing risk for future generations, why would anyone believe they are competent?
Demonstrate influence: the ability to deliver and execute the right thing
My guess is that Baird will deliver. Will the product be the right one, though? Is he going to suffer a “Rona” fate ultimately?
The quality of the product will depend on the quality of the decision making process Baird uses. If he’s already made up his mind and he’s intending on marketing what he wants to stakeholders, he’s setting himself up for failure. This complex file requires creative and open dialogue, not just from the top but from across parties, jurisdictions and knowledge domains and from practitioners.
With a product in hand comprised of “common ground” among competing interests, the leadership litmus test for Baird is next---setting the policy framework to make sensible and effective action possible among the various players.
Let’s hope Baird learns well on the job such that he will not be a “promotion mistake”. Much will depend on his ability to manage “up” as well as “down”. As time is of the essence, his success will benefit all of us.
Many people already “smell a rat”. The Federal Conservatives about face on the environment file appears to be one of political expediency. They have finally woken up to which way the wind is blowing on the environment. Accordingly, they are adjusting their tone and tune. A new face (Baird) is one of the first chess moves. Can he do it?
I don’t know enough about Baird’s track record to use history as a predictor of the future. Fleetingly, I’ve seen him in a smattering of question periods while he was an MPP and now an MP. Certainly he came across as keen, enthusiastic and committed to getting things done. Not surprisingly, he’s been firm on the Conservative’s agenda on many matters. This portfolio may cause him to question his values and beliefs. Is he up to the task?
Let’s look at what he really has to do to succeed, according to Linda Hill’s research on becoming a new boss (January 2007, Harvard Business Review, www.HBR.org ).
Demonstrate character: the intention to do the right thing
This is the crucial line in the sand for any leader-manager. It is the foundation for earning people’s respect and trust. It means negotiating an action plan in an environment full of interdependent relationships. A mind set of “I know best” and “we must be efficient” won’t fly. This complex subject is driven by non-partisan values, the prevailing scientific evidence, the long view and no guarantee of an immediate return on investment.
Baird will have to establish credibility with a web of stakeholders, many of whom will be wary of his intentions. It will not be enough to work with his closest advisors who likely do not have enough diversity in knowledge as a team. Baird must reach out to those with whom he does not agree. He will have to convince them that he is more than a marketing front man.
Demonstrate competence: knowing how to do the right thing
Ah, this will be quite challenging. Baird’s boss has given the impression that he is decidedly unconvinced the environment is in need of his firm decision making to avert disaster for future generations. Harper’s messages often come across as “we can have our cake and eat it too”.
We all know that any body of knowledge is always a work in progress. Thus, questioning the findings, at least in scientific circles, is a de facto standard for debate and discussion. However, there comes a time when the “negotiated truths” converge. As it stands, the voices are getting louder and more anxious. In 2001, 100 Nobel Prize winners from around the globe, including our own John Polanyi, raised the alarm. They continue to do so today. The urgency of the situation now demands collective political leadership. It’s time to stop quibbling.
How is Baird going to convince voters who are alarmed about the environment (as many and recent polls suggest) that he knows what he is talking about? His immediate work group has not demonstrated its grasp of the reality. If leaders show they are not convinced by a consensus that has solid evidence behind it and that they are sincere in managing risk for future generations, why would anyone believe they are competent?
Demonstrate influence: the ability to deliver and execute the right thing
My guess is that Baird will deliver. Will the product be the right one, though? Is he going to suffer a “Rona” fate ultimately?
The quality of the product will depend on the quality of the decision making process Baird uses. If he’s already made up his mind and he’s intending on marketing what he wants to stakeholders, he’s setting himself up for failure. This complex file requires creative and open dialogue, not just from the top but from across parties, jurisdictions and knowledge domains and from practitioners.
With a product in hand comprised of “common ground” among competing interests, the leadership litmus test for Baird is next---setting the policy framework to make sensible and effective action possible among the various players.
Let’s hope Baird learns well on the job such that he will not be a “promotion mistake”. Much will depend on his ability to manage “up” as well as “down”. As time is of the essence, his success will benefit all of us.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
She's So Bad
I understood instantly what my daughter meant. The person to whom she was referring was really good at her chosen vocation. It’s a comment not lightly given. We admire it when we see it. Such talent! Conventional wisdom though stops us from seeing virtuosity as a possibility for many. After all, isn’t being outstanding at something usually the result of a natural gift? Current evidence points to a rosier possibility. There is a growing consensus among cognitive psychologists that “bad” is not confined to the few.
Here’s the rub: there’s no free lunch. High level performance in a particular field (or domain) requires a lot of hard work—endless hours of practice and experience. It takes at least ten years on average of daily, focused practice to attain a certain level of mastery.
It’s not just rote practice, however, that distinguishes the good from the great. It’s deliberate practice---gradual improvement of performance during extended experience. It is attained by setting explicit goals (performance outcomes) just beyond one’s level of competence, practicing the new, desired level over and over again (learning strategies), getting feedback on the results (from self and others), adjusting the learning plan and repeating the cycle again.
Ultimately, the journey to becoming a master and retaining mastery lies in deep learning. Reliable concepts and solution procedures for a wide range of situations are literally quickly at the finger tips of the masters. We’ve seen this with Tiger Woods who is adept at recovering from any and all dilemmas on the golf course. Despite his stellar and astonishing performance, commentators often mention that he’s never satisfied, always wanting to get better. Tiger’s a consummate learner self-propelled and surrounded by coaches who are themselves masters—both of these conditions are essential as it is difficult to see oneself clearly.
You might be thinking that this is fine and dandy but it does not apply to leadership. Or, put another way: how can this be relevant to such a diverse field as leadership? True, there’s a vast amount of knowledge and skills to tackle. At the same time, we are each a human laboratory in which we’re doing very well in some areas and not so well in others. That narrows the skill areas on which to apply hard work.
To get better, the first step is to identify which of the many leadership or management skills need our attention. The choice is based on feedback from others, our own self-knowledge from what works/doesn’t work in daily practice and information about best practices. The next step is to go into overdrive on deliberately practicing selected skills---performance goals and learning strategies that stretch us a little, repetitive practice and so on.
In your role as a leader-manager, you can encourage this same notion of deliberate practice to those whom your coach and mentor. It’s a more sophisticated twist on “performance management”. The idea is applicable to both hard and soft areas of practice provided a process is in place for frequent follow up---annual or twice a year sessions just won’t cut it.
Why is mastery worth pursuing in leadership? We know when leadership is lacking and it’s often not pretty. It’s costly and wasteful when leadership has failed or is muddling along. As we are confronted with more complexity, uncertainty, instability and conflicts in values, the pursuit of superior achievement in leadership looks better than the options. If high performance is truly available to the many, it makes sense to head in that direction. The result could astound us.
Hope is like a road in the country.
There wasn’t ever a road.
But when many people walk on it,
the road comes into existence.
--Lin Yutang
Here’s the rub: there’s no free lunch. High level performance in a particular field (or domain) requires a lot of hard work—endless hours of practice and experience. It takes at least ten years on average of daily, focused practice to attain a certain level of mastery.
It’s not just rote practice, however, that distinguishes the good from the great. It’s deliberate practice---gradual improvement of performance during extended experience. It is attained by setting explicit goals (performance outcomes) just beyond one’s level of competence, practicing the new, desired level over and over again (learning strategies), getting feedback on the results (from self and others), adjusting the learning plan and repeating the cycle again.
Ultimately, the journey to becoming a master and retaining mastery lies in deep learning. Reliable concepts and solution procedures for a wide range of situations are literally quickly at the finger tips of the masters. We’ve seen this with Tiger Woods who is adept at recovering from any and all dilemmas on the golf course. Despite his stellar and astonishing performance, commentators often mention that he’s never satisfied, always wanting to get better. Tiger’s a consummate learner self-propelled and surrounded by coaches who are themselves masters—both of these conditions are essential as it is difficult to see oneself clearly.
You might be thinking that this is fine and dandy but it does not apply to leadership. Or, put another way: how can this be relevant to such a diverse field as leadership? True, there’s a vast amount of knowledge and skills to tackle. At the same time, we are each a human laboratory in which we’re doing very well in some areas and not so well in others. That narrows the skill areas on which to apply hard work.
To get better, the first step is to identify which of the many leadership or management skills need our attention. The choice is based on feedback from others, our own self-knowledge from what works/doesn’t work in daily practice and information about best practices. The next step is to go into overdrive on deliberately practicing selected skills---performance goals and learning strategies that stretch us a little, repetitive practice and so on.
In your role as a leader-manager, you can encourage this same notion of deliberate practice to those whom your coach and mentor. It’s a more sophisticated twist on “performance management”. The idea is applicable to both hard and soft areas of practice provided a process is in place for frequent follow up---annual or twice a year sessions just won’t cut it.
Why is mastery worth pursuing in leadership? We know when leadership is lacking and it’s often not pretty. It’s costly and wasteful when leadership has failed or is muddling along. As we are confronted with more complexity, uncertainty, instability and conflicts in values, the pursuit of superior achievement in leadership looks better than the options. If high performance is truly available to the many, it makes sense to head in that direction. The result could astound us.
Hope is like a road in the country.
There wasn’t ever a road.
But when many people walk on it,
the road comes into existence.
--Lin Yutang
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Power Distance Enlightens Managing
As the population becomes more diverse, the challenge for everyone in working together productively skyrockets. There are so many factors interacting, it’s hard for leaders and managers to see clearly let alone get results that stick. Blindness to the subtleties is not an option when engagement is the new desired norm and disengagement of too many a persistent reality.
Power distance is one way to better understand the underlying subtleties of today’s working and learning environments. It refers to the extent to which the less powerful members of an organization or institution expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. For example, does an employee (or student) value a dependent or interdependent relationship with a manager or teacher? What does the manager/teacher value? It’s all relative though as the style of the person in the authority position (learned from cultural background and working experiences) affects what the employee or learner perceives and values.
Let’s look at this more closely. According to researchers from the Netherlands, Gerte Hofstede and Gerte Jan Hofstede (Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind), there are three dimensions of power and authority that reflect employees’ views:
>the frequency with which they are afraid to disagree with their managers (very frequently to very seldom)
>their perception of a manager’s actual decision making style (for example, autocratic, majority vote, consultative)
>their preferences for a manager’s decision making style
Apparently, there is a close relationship between the reality employees perceive and the reality desired. If employees are not afraid to speak up and their bosses are generally not autocratic or paternalistic, the employees prefer a consultative approach. If employees seem less inclined to disagree with their managers and the latter are autocratic or paternalistic, employees express a preference for bosses who decide autocratically or paternalistically.
So which comes first, the cart or the horse? The working environment as experienced through the style of the leaders (those who manage as different from individual contributors and front line personnel) matters.
This begs the question: how does a leader-manager know where he or she sits on the power-authority scale? Without such knowledge, and given that employees tend to mirror what they are experiencing, the manager is left in a blind leading the blind situation.
The findings from countries provide a useful starting point. The different national cultures in which people grow up affect the mind set around power distance. Based on Gerte and Gerte’s research on IBM employees in 74 countries, most Asian, Eastern European and Latin American countries have high power distance values (higher acceptance of inequality between managers and direct reports). There are lower values for German-speaking countries (Austria, Switzerland and Germany), Israel, Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland), the United States, Great Britain and its former colonies (Canada, New Zealand, Ireland and Australia) and the Netherlands (but not for Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium). These findings can be used as a general rule of thumb to know where you are as a manager in relation to the people who report to you.
Rather than accept them at face value, better to use the idea of power distance as a framework for discussion. As a manager, ask how your direct reports view power distance (chance to disagree with you, your style, what they prefer) and negotiate a relationship that fits the issues to be resolved.
Keep in mind that there are sub-cultures within every grouping. For example, generation influences the desire for equality too. Demographers are quick to remind us how the Echo generation---those born between 1975 and 1990--- as a whole have a very casual attitude toward supervisors. That implies a narrow power distance perspective which could potentially conflict with some members of other generations who have a more formal attitude toward their bosses. Thus, this needs to be tested and taken into consideration by a manager in calibrating expectations.
Making our mental software----how we think, feel and behave---more conscious is a critical skill of effective leader-managers. None of us can ever figure out accurately where a person comes from on power distance or on values. It is a constant challenge to know ourselves, the virtues with the vices. We can, however, engage in fruitful discussions to table the different views and find areas of commonality.
Enlightenment about self and others increases the odds that the right decisions facing any group or team will emerge despite the formidable complexities of the problems to be solved. Leaders who strive to understand how power distance is helping or hindering creative discussions in their workplaces will see a little more clearly.
Power distance is one way to better understand the underlying subtleties of today’s working and learning environments. It refers to the extent to which the less powerful members of an organization or institution expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. For example, does an employee (or student) value a dependent or interdependent relationship with a manager or teacher? What does the manager/teacher value? It’s all relative though as the style of the person in the authority position (learned from cultural background and working experiences) affects what the employee or learner perceives and values.
Let’s look at this more closely. According to researchers from the Netherlands, Gerte Hofstede and Gerte Jan Hofstede (Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind), there are three dimensions of power and authority that reflect employees’ views:
>the frequency with which they are afraid to disagree with their managers (very frequently to very seldom)
>their perception of a manager’s actual decision making style (for example, autocratic, majority vote, consultative)
>their preferences for a manager’s decision making style
Apparently, there is a close relationship between the reality employees perceive and the reality desired. If employees are not afraid to speak up and their bosses are generally not autocratic or paternalistic, the employees prefer a consultative approach. If employees seem less inclined to disagree with their managers and the latter are autocratic or paternalistic, employees express a preference for bosses who decide autocratically or paternalistically.
So which comes first, the cart or the horse? The working environment as experienced through the style of the leaders (those who manage as different from individual contributors and front line personnel) matters.
This begs the question: how does a leader-manager know where he or she sits on the power-authority scale? Without such knowledge, and given that employees tend to mirror what they are experiencing, the manager is left in a blind leading the blind situation.
The findings from countries provide a useful starting point. The different national cultures in which people grow up affect the mind set around power distance. Based on Gerte and Gerte’s research on IBM employees in 74 countries, most Asian, Eastern European and Latin American countries have high power distance values (higher acceptance of inequality between managers and direct reports). There are lower values for German-speaking countries (Austria, Switzerland and Germany), Israel, Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland), the United States, Great Britain and its former colonies (Canada, New Zealand, Ireland and Australia) and the Netherlands (but not for Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium). These findings can be used as a general rule of thumb to know where you are as a manager in relation to the people who report to you.
Rather than accept them at face value, better to use the idea of power distance as a framework for discussion. As a manager, ask how your direct reports view power distance (chance to disagree with you, your style, what they prefer) and negotiate a relationship that fits the issues to be resolved.
Keep in mind that there are sub-cultures within every grouping. For example, generation influences the desire for equality too. Demographers are quick to remind us how the Echo generation---those born between 1975 and 1990--- as a whole have a very casual attitude toward supervisors. That implies a narrow power distance perspective which could potentially conflict with some members of other generations who have a more formal attitude toward their bosses. Thus, this needs to be tested and taken into consideration by a manager in calibrating expectations.
Making our mental software----how we think, feel and behave---more conscious is a critical skill of effective leader-managers. None of us can ever figure out accurately where a person comes from on power distance or on values. It is a constant challenge to know ourselves, the virtues with the vices. We can, however, engage in fruitful discussions to table the different views and find areas of commonality.
Enlightenment about self and others increases the odds that the right decisions facing any group or team will emerge despite the formidable complexities of the problems to be solved. Leaders who strive to understand how power distance is helping or hindering creative discussions in their workplaces will see a little more clearly.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Napping as a Competitive Advantage
As one who is often sleep-deprived, I am perpetually drawn to articles on the subject whenever they appear in the media. With daylight savings time upon us, the media provided its annual commentary on the subject. After reading that sleep-deprivation measurably reduces IQ, and that we are not acting fast enough to account for this in our places of work, I am convinced that institutionalizing napping needs to go down on each leader’s priority list.
Before the advent of the light bulb by Thomas Edison in 1910, our forebears slept routinely up to 10 hours a day. We’re down by 30 per cent on average now: between 6.9 and 7.5 hours a day. Sleep researchers generally agree that anything at or below 7.0 hours interferes with our ability to think.
According to Stanley Coren’s research at the Human Neuropsychology and Perception Laboratory, University of British Columbia, if we sleep only seven hours per day, we lose one IQ point each day and it’s cumulative. For each hour short of seven hours sleep, we lose two more points. Over a week, that adds up!
Aside from the health hazards of sleep deprivation, for example, weakening our immune systems, we can assume no organization escapes the consequences in the work place. Collective organizational IQ is compromised.
One antidote is to make napping an acceptable practice. Sleep researchers have long known that our natural circadian rhythms show dips in energy and alertness in the early afternoon and late evening. Yet, we seldom account for this from a policy perspective in our workplaces.
Back in ancient times, they speculate that humans did not necessarily sleep for long times, perhaps to accommodate to the dangerous and uncertain environments in which they lived. Instead, they engaged in polyphasic sleep: lots of short naps throughout the day.
In our modern, fast-paced and frequently tumultuous environments, calling on our ancient habits, may be timely to support not thwart our evolution. Powernaps do help us regain our energy, improve our moods and in the organizational sense, buoy our ability to think and decide. The researchers contend that as little as a daily 10 minute nap can turn our declined performance and attention around.
Some organizations have taken this to heart but the majority has not despite the strong business case presented by sleep researchers. Not surprisingly, the largest obstacle is social: misperceptions about the work ethics of nappers, fears that people will abuse the opportunity, and assumptions that there is no time in the work day to nap (our type “A” personalities). But, we do provide people with time for coffee-breaks and lunch. Thus, there is room already in the way our work days are structured to include a nap.
The researchers estimate that it will take about 20 years before napping becomes widely acceptable in the workplace. Enlightened leaders have an opportunity to seize the moment sooner. In the ever-tightening labour market, making napping an acceptable part of the culture, is a sound attraction and retention strategy. If budgets and space are tight, people will find ways to nap without an investment in sleep rooms or reclining chairs. A more welcoming environment for napping can be built over time, as budgets allow.
No matter the age or stage of life, such a policy has great appeal. At an individual level, personal health and happiness and a feeling that the organization cares will all be enhanced.
Like most innovations, especially at the novelty stage, not everyone will take advantage of permission to nap with no strings attached or career limiting consequences. Even if 10 per cent do, that will go a long way toward offsetting the extent of the weekly IQ deficit of the organization. By association, more nappers and fewer tired people means that the decision making quality may be less compromised and the workplace more fun. Now that’s real competitive advantage!
Before the advent of the light bulb by Thomas Edison in 1910, our forebears slept routinely up to 10 hours a day. We’re down by 30 per cent on average now: between 6.9 and 7.5 hours a day. Sleep researchers generally agree that anything at or below 7.0 hours interferes with our ability to think.
According to Stanley Coren’s research at the Human Neuropsychology and Perception Laboratory, University of British Columbia, if we sleep only seven hours per day, we lose one IQ point each day and it’s cumulative. For each hour short of seven hours sleep, we lose two more points. Over a week, that adds up!
Aside from the health hazards of sleep deprivation, for example, weakening our immune systems, we can assume no organization escapes the consequences in the work place. Collective organizational IQ is compromised.
One antidote is to make napping an acceptable practice. Sleep researchers have long known that our natural circadian rhythms show dips in energy and alertness in the early afternoon and late evening. Yet, we seldom account for this from a policy perspective in our workplaces.
Back in ancient times, they speculate that humans did not necessarily sleep for long times, perhaps to accommodate to the dangerous and uncertain environments in which they lived. Instead, they engaged in polyphasic sleep: lots of short naps throughout the day.
In our modern, fast-paced and frequently tumultuous environments, calling on our ancient habits, may be timely to support not thwart our evolution. Powernaps do help us regain our energy, improve our moods and in the organizational sense, buoy our ability to think and decide. The researchers contend that as little as a daily 10 minute nap can turn our declined performance and attention around.
Some organizations have taken this to heart but the majority has not despite the strong business case presented by sleep researchers. Not surprisingly, the largest obstacle is social: misperceptions about the work ethics of nappers, fears that people will abuse the opportunity, and assumptions that there is no time in the work day to nap (our type “A” personalities). But, we do provide people with time for coffee-breaks and lunch. Thus, there is room already in the way our work days are structured to include a nap.
The researchers estimate that it will take about 20 years before napping becomes widely acceptable in the workplace. Enlightened leaders have an opportunity to seize the moment sooner. In the ever-tightening labour market, making napping an acceptable part of the culture, is a sound attraction and retention strategy. If budgets and space are tight, people will find ways to nap without an investment in sleep rooms or reclining chairs. A more welcoming environment for napping can be built over time, as budgets allow.
No matter the age or stage of life, such a policy has great appeal. At an individual level, personal health and happiness and a feeling that the organization cares will all be enhanced.
Like most innovations, especially at the novelty stage, not everyone will take advantage of permission to nap with no strings attached or career limiting consequences. Even if 10 per cent do, that will go a long way toward offsetting the extent of the weekly IQ deficit of the organization. By association, more nappers and fewer tired people means that the decision making quality may be less compromised and the workplace more fun. Now that’s real competitive advantage!
Monday, October 09, 2006
Cultivating the "Nobel" Leader
‘Tis the season for Nobel prize winners, that special class of thinkers who share important commonalities with great leaders: intellectual curiosity, independent thinking and a strong tendency to challenge conventional wisdom. Their collective virtue is a model for the world, including leading and managing any organization or nation. It is unfortunately in short supply, not because of genetic deficits. Blame the habits of the mind---a learning deficit.
The biggest barrier to the “Nobel” approach to leading and managing, by far, is the tendency to believe “facts” that conform to our views, even in the face of conflicting information or outright contradiction. We see this played out in the newspapers every day with many political leaders—at our peril. Insufficiently swift action or lack of attention to urgent issues such as global warming, infrastructure development and maintenance, poverty, the safety of our food supply and the sources of violence and terrorism dominate the airwaves today. Through neglect, squabbling and short term thinking they are becoming bigger not smaller problems. The issues would likely not have grown to their level of the magnitude and seriousness if the “Nobel mind” prevailed. As analytic rigor is a redeeming feature of those who win Nobels, how can we get more of it in the leadership domain for the good of all?
This year, when the Nobels were awarded, I noticed something I had not before. They run in families. From my undergraduate science days when I was fortunate to be taught by a number of outstanding professors, including Canada’s own Nobel winner in chemistry, John Polyani, I remember the Curies the most. Marie and her husband Pierre shared the physics prize in 1903. After Pierre’s untimely death, Marie went on to win again eight years later for chemistry. In 1935, the family garnered a third Nobel and a second in chemistry, by daughter Irene Joliet-Curie and her husband Frederick Joliet. All Nobels related to the study of the behaviour and synthesis of radioactive elements which are now the back bone of many medical procedures. This year, Roger Kornberg won the chemistry Nobel forty seven years after his still living Dad did in medicine. As with the Curies, their research fields overlap, this time in gene research. In the history of Nobels, there are six pairs of fathers and sons, four married couples and two brothers who have won Nobels since they started in 1901. If we add collaborative partnerships, the numbers greatly multiply.
The dynamics of the environment, therefore, have played a role in nurturing the habits of great thinking. Certainly, the American dominance for Nobel prizes this year suggests this too. To borrow from the language of software programmers, is this “scaleable” in organizations? Why not? The habits---questioning one’s own assumptions, testing pre-conceived notions in the field, replicating findings as well as generating novel ideas---are not difficult. Any leader-manager can become a more powerful “Nobel” thinker simply by deciding to be one. One role modeler leads to another. The culture shifts. The organization gets much smarter!
The biggest barrier to the “Nobel” approach to leading and managing, by far, is the tendency to believe “facts” that conform to our views, even in the face of conflicting information or outright contradiction. We see this played out in the newspapers every day with many political leaders—at our peril. Insufficiently swift action or lack of attention to urgent issues such as global warming, infrastructure development and maintenance, poverty, the safety of our food supply and the sources of violence and terrorism dominate the airwaves today. Through neglect, squabbling and short term thinking they are becoming bigger not smaller problems. The issues would likely not have grown to their level of the magnitude and seriousness if the “Nobel mind” prevailed. As analytic rigor is a redeeming feature of those who win Nobels, how can we get more of it in the leadership domain for the good of all?
This year, when the Nobels were awarded, I noticed something I had not before. They run in families. From my undergraduate science days when I was fortunate to be taught by a number of outstanding professors, including Canada’s own Nobel winner in chemistry, John Polyani, I remember the Curies the most. Marie and her husband Pierre shared the physics prize in 1903. After Pierre’s untimely death, Marie went on to win again eight years later for chemistry. In 1935, the family garnered a third Nobel and a second in chemistry, by daughter Irene Joliet-Curie and her husband Frederick Joliet. All Nobels related to the study of the behaviour and synthesis of radioactive elements which are now the back bone of many medical procedures. This year, Roger Kornberg won the chemistry Nobel forty seven years after his still living Dad did in medicine. As with the Curies, their research fields overlap, this time in gene research. In the history of Nobels, there are six pairs of fathers and sons, four married couples and two brothers who have won Nobels since they started in 1901. If we add collaborative partnerships, the numbers greatly multiply.
The dynamics of the environment, therefore, have played a role in nurturing the habits of great thinking. Certainly, the American dominance for Nobel prizes this year suggests this too. To borrow from the language of software programmers, is this “scaleable” in organizations? Why not? The habits---questioning one’s own assumptions, testing pre-conceived notions in the field, replicating findings as well as generating novel ideas---are not difficult. Any leader-manager can become a more powerful “Nobel” thinker simply by deciding to be one. One role modeler leads to another. The culture shifts. The organization gets much smarter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
