Hi all,
Last week, I mentioned that I considered 'train or motivate' as the basic job description for anyone in a managerial role. This is based around a simple idea- when someone cannot do a job, it is because they either cannot do the job or they do not feel like doing the job. The appropriate response in these situations is to either train or to motivate, respectively.
What else do I consider as important for anyone in a managerial role? Or to put it another way, since all of these roles differ in some way, what are the general rules of thumb that apply to anyone in a leadership position?
That is what I cover in today's post. The post is a basic outline of my manager playbook, a document of mine I referenced in another post. The contents of that playbook are a fusion of my ideas, job experiences, and reading.
On the topic of my reading, the books with direct influence on the playbook and post below include High Output Management by Andy Grove, The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz, Rework by Jason Fried, The Goal by Eliyahu M. Goldratt, and My Years With General Motors by Alfred P. Sloan. I'm sure I've forgotten one or two. Plenty of other reading has influenced the playbook as well, particularly books focusing on developing emotional intelligence. It is hard to lead without the capacity to emphasize and understand.
This will be my last post here for at least one month. When I accumulate enough writing to start posting again, I'll post a two-week warning over on my True On Average blog (with perhaps a preview post!) and we'll resume season two (Season Two?) of The Business Bro with a run of at least six new posts.
Until then, take care, everyone. Thanks for reading. Hope to see you back with us when we resume posting in a few weeks.
Signed,
The Business Bro
******************
Leadership 101
A leader is anyone who identifies potential in people or process.
The minimum requirement is character. This means integrity, maturity, and the abundance mentality. Integrity is high value on oneself and is best expressed through loyalty to those not present. Maturity is the balance of courage and consideration, the capacity to express oneself while simultaneously considering others. Abundance recognizes that there is enough for all and encourages thinking in absolute instead of relative quantities.
Leading means using information to make decisions. Thus, gathering information is vital. The single biggest tool is time management. Those unable to organize their time gather less information than those who organize time effectively.
Information is powerful. Those with power must become custodians of it. They do not cut with the sword. They point with it.
A good leader adjusts to credible information. They never chase the snake. Chasing the snake only allows poison to spread in the system. Leaders constantly ask themselves 'what is the best way to contribute now' and adjust accordingly.
Leaders do not hoard information. They act once a decision is made. To delay risks leaks and forces people to wonder about what other information is being withheld.
A good leader is skeptical of new information. They always question the relevance of a given metric. They worry about efficiency only in times of scarcity and measure inventories only when shortages are frequent.
The highest leverage activity in organization increases the capacity of that organization to get excellent work done. Thus, a leader trains or motivates.
A leader identifies strengths, uses existing energy, and removes barriers to natural progress. A leader recognizes empowered as the natural condition for all persons. No one can be empowered by another. At best, a leader can reverse prior acts of disempowerment.
A leader accepts that people forget what is said or done. People do remember how others make them feel. Leaders explain, instruct, and share in ways that make the recipient feel wonderful.
Informal direction is not leadership. Leaders create resources that others can leverage later to answer frequent questions or resolve common issues. They create cultures of fire safety, not firefighting.
Shame is not a leadership tool. A leader recognizes that shame has seeped into the culture when blame, name-calling, or gossip is prevalent. If people hesitate to ask for help when they cannot complete a given job, leaders take immediate action to rectify the culture of shame.
Leadership is consistent action that exemplifies a desired culture. A culture of performance means rewarding excellent performance and nothing else. Advancement separate from performance defines politics.
Leadership requires principles, not micromanagement. Leaders trust because trust is the highest form of motivation. Instead of seeking to prevent failure, they minimize the consequences for errors and make people feel safe to share and to learn from each other's successes and failures.
Leaders recognize that good organizations are structured to allow decisions to be made at the lowest possible level of the hierarchy. Leaders always push their organizations towards this ideal. They do so by fostering the growth of the people and process around them.
Finally, a good leader is a student. They understand the patterns of people and teams in order to avoid common pitfalls and make the best use of natural capabilities. They learn from all aspects of their experience and their consistency inspires others to do the same. They are humble to accept guidance from any source because they recognize the value inherent in all.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Thursday, September 22, 2016
principled leadership
Good afternoon,
Tomorrow morning, I am going to post a summary of Marie Kondo's The Life-Changing Magic Of Tidying Up on my personal blog, True On Average. My summary will focus on Kondo's principle for tidying and also briefly discuss her ability to motivate through writing (1).
I state in tomorrow's post that Kondo advocates a two-step process for tidying:
1) Ask- do I need this object? Discard if I do not.One reason this book requires over two hundred pages is because she considers many scenarios that one could encounter in a tidying project. In each case, Kondo seems to recommend a response. However, closer examination reveals that she is merely applying her stated principles. There are no exceptions.
2) If I kept the object- decide where to store it.
In fact, her book is among the best examples of principled leadership I have come across. Kondo always ignores the details of an environment or the emotional context of possessions. The only question that counts in her work is 'do I need this?' (2).
I imagine that embodying such commitment to these principles requires tremendous patience and stamina.
Client: Marie, what should I do with these pictures?
Kondo: Ask yourself if you need each photo and, if you do, determine the place you will always store it.
Client: Marie, I have all these perfectly good outfits for the summer- I don't know what to do!
Kondo: Ask yourself if you need each outfit and, if you do, determine the place you will always store it.
Client: Marie, I've been meaning to read these books for years...The fact that she does not have repeat clients is telling. I suspect they see her commitment to her tidying principle and learn how to think like she does. There is no need to consult her further- they already know what the right course of action is.
Kondo: Ask yourself if you need each book and, if you do, determine the place you will always store it.
The challenge of leading by principle is two-fold. First, the leader must clearly state the principles they choose to lead by. Then, the leader must commit fully to those. Any time a course of action which does not align with the principles is seriously considered, the leader should note this as a signal to review the principles or the realism committing to their application.
I imagine a counter-argument to the above would involve the concept of 'the exception to the rule'. I am inclined to see this a little differently because I see rules as a reflection of the principles that underlie them (3). If an established rule must be bent regularly or exceptions are acceptable under certain conditions, it suggests to me that the underlying principle on which the rule is based or the realism of asking for commitment to them requires further examination.
That said, a principled leader might have to accept rules-based leadership at times. The key is to always look for ways to discard the rule in favor of applying the underlying principle. Through this process, a leader can unlock the potential of the people or process that they oversee.
Perhaps the most significant reward of leading through principle is in this final idea. A leader is anyone who identifies potential in people or process. Understanding and applying rules, though critical in some cases, is not a leadership activity. By focusing on principles, the barriers to acts of leadership are removed and the ability of a team or organization to reach its fullest potential is unlocked.
************
Thanks as always for reading.
A quick reminder before I go- next Thursday's post is my last for this 'season' of The Business Bro. Please see last week's post for more details.
Until then...
Signed,
The Business Bro
Footnotes / (additional) imagined complaints
1. Train or motivate...
Kondo's approach to helping her clients tidy is based on one of two techniques. She either trains her client to tidy properly or motivates her client to get started.
I recognized the approach instantly- it is the job description of a manager. I believe I first read the idea in Andy Grove's High Output Management- 'a manager can only train or motivate'.
This is because employees who do not complete a job properly do so for one of two reasons. They either cannot do the job properly or do not feel like doing the job properly. The response to these situations is, respectively, to train or motivate. There is nothing else that a manager can do.
Next week's post, my last in this first 'season' of posts for this blog, will cover the basic skills needed by any rookie manager in order to be successful. Understanding this simple job description is perhaps the preliminary step- a manager can only train or motivate. Once this is understood, mastering the rest of the role becomes a possibility.
2. Scotty Bowman, principled hockey coach
I'm reminded of Ken Dryden's The Game, a book in which the Montreal Canadiens goaltender reflects on his long career during his final season. In a memorable passage, Dryden describes his coach, Scotty Bowman, and lists all the things Bowman considers irrelevant within his decision making process about players.
From my limited memory, I recall the following as examples of questions considered 'irrelevant' in assessing players:
-Does the player show up early?Here is the list of what Bowman considers relevant:
-Does the player show up late?
-Is the player mean?
-Is the player nice?
-Was the player good last year?
-Will the player be good next year?
-Will the player help the team?
3. Falling one step short...?
The continuum that captures 'principled leadership' probably looks something like this:
*Principled leadership
*Rules-based leadership
*Rule of thumb based leadership
*(other leadership principles...)
*Micromanagement
I place micromanagement at the bottom of the continuum because it seems the exact opposite of principled leadership in terms of how those qualities are used to describe leaders. That is, anyone described as 'principled' is being described positively while I have yet to hear someone use 'micromanager' as a term of endearment for a leader.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
leaving by example
Hi,
Last week, I wrote a post about when to start hiring. Though every organization is unique, most do share the basic reality that a noticeable drop in quality, a consistent failure to continue or start work on profitable projects, or the need to directly replace a critical departing member are three ironclad reasons to initiate a hiring process. If you recognize one of these three conditions, there is very little excuse not to immediately begin looking for the next hire.
Since I wrote that post, I've spent some time thinking about my two blogs. One thought experiment led me to consider the blogs in the context of those questions. After some reflection, I concluded that the honest response would be- it is time to hire (1).
After all, each of the three reasons apply. I concluded yesterday while proofreading a True On Average draft that the quality of the writing was not up to my (admittedly low) standard. I am currently sitting on almost one hundred ideas for potential blog posts yet have no posts ready for Monday. And I've just reduced my True On Average posting schedule by eliminating one post every two weeks.
So, to review...
Q #1. Quality down?
A: I suspect so.
Q #2. Failure to start or complete profitable projects?
A: I did not actually count to one hundred...but yes.
Q #3. Need to replace a departing employee?
A: Uh, yes- but you will need to think of each 'scheduled post' as an employee.
Unfortunately, these blogs generate annual revenue of approximately zero ($0) dollars. So, like any other underfunded program, I will be downsizing rather than hiring (2).
I'll post two more times in September- on 9/22 and 9/29.
After that, The Business Bro will go on a brief sabbatical. I am not sure exactly how long it will be but I do know that it will be for a minimum of at least one month. I'll announce my return on True On Average once I accumulate a set of at least six completed posts. I'll put one up per week, each Thursday, until I run out. And then, I'll mark my intent to repeat the process by going on sabbatical again.
I think this represents a required balance. Writing well became more important on these spaces much earlier than I anticipated this summer. I want to make sure I do not cause a quality drop through overwork. Such a drop in quality is dangerous because if it persists for too long without correction, the low level of quality will become accepted as 'good enough'.
So, I do hope to see you back here for the last two posts of this blog's first season, so to speak. Your time spent reading here is very much appreciated.
Until next week,
The Business Bro
Footnotes / imagined complaints
1. True On Average and The Business Bro- now hiring! What a laughable notion!
No comment.
2. The best time to promote somebody is...
If I were forced to pick one answer to the above, I would say- when you can comfortably fire them. Like I pointed out last week, promoting from within tends to cause two uncertainties- one in the role being filled, which is inevitable, and one in the eventual replacement for the role you promoted out of.
A person you can fire is a good candidate to move up. This is because you are likely prepared or accepting that this employee is no longer appropriate for their current role. Since the uncertainty of filling this person's current role is already likely, promoting them somewhere internally might reduce some of the uncertainty for that position.
For completeness, I'll note that 'a person you can fire' and 'a person you should fire' are likely occupying opposite poles on your best employees list.
Endnote- following your own advice, eh?
Good leaders should lead by example, whenever possible, and not ask others to do what they would not do themselves. The advice dispensed last week applies across the board. In a case like this when it applies to me, I must follow it.
I think many leaders struggle with doing things that are imitable. This especially applies to those in my target audience here- managers by necessity, promoted into roles on the basis of outstanding performance in a non-managerial function at a lower level of the hierarchy. After all, you became a manager because you excelled relatively to others- if what you did was so easy to copy, it probably was not outstanding enough to earn the promotion.
Last week, I wrote a post about when to start hiring. Though every organization is unique, most do share the basic reality that a noticeable drop in quality, a consistent failure to continue or start work on profitable projects, or the need to directly replace a critical departing member are three ironclad reasons to initiate a hiring process. If you recognize one of these three conditions, there is very little excuse not to immediately begin looking for the next hire.
Since I wrote that post, I've spent some time thinking about my two blogs. One thought experiment led me to consider the blogs in the context of those questions. After some reflection, I concluded that the honest response would be- it is time to hire (1).
After all, each of the three reasons apply. I concluded yesterday while proofreading a True On Average draft that the quality of the writing was not up to my (admittedly low) standard. I am currently sitting on almost one hundred ideas for potential blog posts yet have no posts ready for Monday. And I've just reduced my True On Average posting schedule by eliminating one post every two weeks.
So, to review...
Q #1. Quality down?
A: I suspect so.
Q #2. Failure to start or complete profitable projects?
A: I did not actually count to one hundred...but yes.
Q #3. Need to replace a departing employee?
A: Uh, yes- but you will need to think of each 'scheduled post' as an employee.
Unfortunately, these blogs generate annual revenue of approximately zero ($0) dollars. So, like any other underfunded program, I will be downsizing rather than hiring (2).
I'll post two more times in September- on 9/22 and 9/29.
After that, The Business Bro will go on a brief sabbatical. I am not sure exactly how long it will be but I do know that it will be for a minimum of at least one month. I'll announce my return on True On Average once I accumulate a set of at least six completed posts. I'll put one up per week, each Thursday, until I run out. And then, I'll mark my intent to repeat the process by going on sabbatical again.
I think this represents a required balance. Writing well became more important on these spaces much earlier than I anticipated this summer. I want to make sure I do not cause a quality drop through overwork. Such a drop in quality is dangerous because if it persists for too long without correction, the low level of quality will become accepted as 'good enough'.
So, I do hope to see you back here for the last two posts of this blog's first season, so to speak. Your time spent reading here is very much appreciated.
Until next week,
The Business Bro
Footnotes / imagined complaints
1. True On Average and The Business Bro- now hiring! What a laughable notion!
No comment.
2. The best time to promote somebody is...
If I were forced to pick one answer to the above, I would say- when you can comfortably fire them. Like I pointed out last week, promoting from within tends to cause two uncertainties- one in the role being filled, which is inevitable, and one in the eventual replacement for the role you promoted out of.
A person you can fire is a good candidate to move up. This is because you are likely prepared or accepting that this employee is no longer appropriate for their current role. Since the uncertainty of filling this person's current role is already likely, promoting them somewhere internally might reduce some of the uncertainty for that position.
For completeness, I'll note that 'a person you can fire' and 'a person you should fire' are likely occupying opposite poles on your best employees list.
Endnote- following your own advice, eh?
Good leaders should lead by example, whenever possible, and not ask others to do what they would not do themselves. The advice dispensed last week applies across the board. In a case like this when it applies to me, I must follow it.
I think many leaders struggle with doing things that are imitable. This especially applies to those in my target audience here- managers by necessity, promoted into roles on the basis of outstanding performance in a non-managerial function at a lower level of the hierarchy. After all, you became a manager because you excelled relatively to others- if what you did was so easy to copy, it probably was not outstanding enough to earn the promotion.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
a dualing view to hiring
Good morning all,
One of life's great challenges is determining the validity of a warning. Someone yells 'FIRE!' in a crowded meeting room, for example, and suddenly we must determine if we should storm out at top speed or wait for additional information.
I think the toughest question to which this challenge applies in a business context involves hiring. I do not mean assessing candidates. What I refer to is prior to that step- the decision to open up a hiring process or not.
After all, it seems that every organization always has someone insisting on hiring more people. It is hard to decide whether to act or wait for more information. Luckily, I've stumbled across some decent wisdom on this topic over the years that has helped me answer this question.
The most obvious time is to fill an existing position (1). Someone leaves the team but their set of responsibilities remains. If the role is vital to the team, you begin searching for a replacement.
Usually, though, there are no obvious holes to fill. This standard case is tougher to figure out. I use two rules of thumb.
One is to consider if quality is slipping. Usually, the people directly involved with the work know. A team brainstorming session or an informal survey of individuals generally helps a decision maker determine simple metrics for quality measurement. When quality falls below the baseline level, start hiring.
A second consideration is knowing which projects are being ignored. A bad sign is if profitable ideas are not being worked on. A good way to gauge this is to find out what project or task is next for departments, teams, and individuals. If the list of 'current plans' you come up with is obviously profitable, it is probably time to hire.
The key unstated idea is the concept of dual reporting. This means each measurement requires a paired measurement to create context.
Most are skilled at simple measurement. It comes naturally because the real world gives us a lot of practice. (What time it is, how cold it is, etc.)
Creating context is an entirely different matter. Context is important because it directs action. (Are we late, should I bring a coat, etc.)
If you want to track inventory, you have to track shortages. If you want to track manpower, you have to track the frequency of cyclical or rushed production distributions (2).
Another way to think of it- efficiency is relevant only in times of scarcity. Like with measurement, the idea of being 'efficient' comes naturally to most people. But someone's efficiency in using time is completely irrelevant if they have no pressing obligations or deadlines.
Getting hiring right is very important. The wrong hire is capable of setting a team or organization back for an unknown amount of time. It is low quality, not high quantity, that clogs sinks. But hiring poorly for a known need is usually a reversible error.
Everything has a natural rate and limit to growth (3). Misreading these might lead to overshooting the correct size of a team or organization. A functioning drain does not resolve all the problems of overflow. Growing too quickly or becoming too big are problems that can sometimes be irreversible.
Therefore, careful monitoring to avoid this error is critical. Using a dual reporting concept is very helpful in making such an assessment. You set a standard or a baseline against which the need to hire is measured. That way, you at least know that the odds of your new hire being profitable or value-generating are favorable.
That is all business investment is- maximizing return on your initial outlay.
It can be hard to implement dual reporting for just the hiring stage. So, I simply recommend incorporating dual reporting at all times. Knowing context always helps.
Over time, this will help differentiate the false alarms from the true problems- especially when someone yells 'HIRE!' in the crowded meeting room.
Signed,
The Business Bro
Footnotes / potential gripes
1. Not that anyone would quit with you as a boss, of course, but sometimes life happens, you know?
One day, you come in and demand to know why Leslie is three weeks late to work.
'Lisa quit.'
'Who?'
'The person who quit. You kept calling her Leslie but her actual name is Lisa.'
Quitters! Only losers quit. 'L' doesn't stand for Leslie, it stands for LOSER!
And how dare...uh...how dare anybody tell me what I did wrong! Might want to review that seating chart over lunch, though.
2. Slow down...
Inventory is relevant only if customers are buying up products too fast for your production team to replace them. There is no need to hire for the sake of building up inventory if you are able to match sales to production.
The manpower thing is subtler- if the production distribution is rushed or cyclical, it usually means management is misusing manpower. Instead of hiring more people to be mismanaged, train your managers to distribute the existing manpower better throughout the production cycle.
3. Everything...? Nothing applies to everything!
Almost nothing should ever be described as applying to 'everything'. I suppose in this case, thinking about an organization's size relative to its field or industry might help make the statement more true. An organization in a shrinking industry (such as newspapers) might shrink in absolute terms (such as total employees or circulation) but still seek growth in relative concepts (such as hiring the best columnists or covering a wider geographical area).
Endnote
A thought about promoting from within...
Promoting from within is a good way to fill organizational gaps. One issue with promotion, though, is that it creates uncertainty in the position being vacated. In a sense, promoting from within brings an organization back to the first condition for hiring- the need to fill an open position.
One observation I've heard in various job interviews and scattered conversations this year is the trend for people my age (which basically covers anyone owning a college degree but not yet obviously locked into an obligation via geography, debt, or family) is the trend toward job hopping. (This is a slow but definite change from the employment structure of, say, several decades ago, but people comment on it anyway.)
I think one contributing factor to such a thing is the unacknowledged danger of internal promotion. An organization that promotes from within creates two performance uncertainties- the internal person promoted into the new role and the outside person coming in to fill the old position. Hiring from outside limits the uncertainty to just the one position. Junior people who observe such a hiring practice will get the hint and start looking around as soon as they feel ready for a promotion (which is somewhere between nine days and nine months after starting a role, I've observed).
One of life's great challenges is determining the validity of a warning. Someone yells 'FIRE!' in a crowded meeting room, for example, and suddenly we must determine if we should storm out at top speed or wait for additional information.
I think the toughest question to which this challenge applies in a business context involves hiring. I do not mean assessing candidates. What I refer to is prior to that step- the decision to open up a hiring process or not.
After all, it seems that every organization always has someone insisting on hiring more people. It is hard to decide whether to act or wait for more information. Luckily, I've stumbled across some decent wisdom on this topic over the years that has helped me answer this question.
The most obvious time is to fill an existing position (1). Someone leaves the team but their set of responsibilities remains. If the role is vital to the team, you begin searching for a replacement.
Usually, though, there are no obvious holes to fill. This standard case is tougher to figure out. I use two rules of thumb.
One is to consider if quality is slipping. Usually, the people directly involved with the work know. A team brainstorming session or an informal survey of individuals generally helps a decision maker determine simple metrics for quality measurement. When quality falls below the baseline level, start hiring.
A second consideration is knowing which projects are being ignored. A bad sign is if profitable ideas are not being worked on. A good way to gauge this is to find out what project or task is next for departments, teams, and individuals. If the list of 'current plans' you come up with is obviously profitable, it is probably time to hire.
The key unstated idea is the concept of dual reporting. This means each measurement requires a paired measurement to create context.
Most are skilled at simple measurement. It comes naturally because the real world gives us a lot of practice. (What time it is, how cold it is, etc.)
Creating context is an entirely different matter. Context is important because it directs action. (Are we late, should I bring a coat, etc.)
If you want to track inventory, you have to track shortages. If you want to track manpower, you have to track the frequency of cyclical or rushed production distributions (2).
Another way to think of it- efficiency is relevant only in times of scarcity. Like with measurement, the idea of being 'efficient' comes naturally to most people. But someone's efficiency in using time is completely irrelevant if they have no pressing obligations or deadlines.
Getting hiring right is very important. The wrong hire is capable of setting a team or organization back for an unknown amount of time. It is low quality, not high quantity, that clogs sinks. But hiring poorly for a known need is usually a reversible error.
Everything has a natural rate and limit to growth (3). Misreading these might lead to overshooting the correct size of a team or organization. A functioning drain does not resolve all the problems of overflow. Growing too quickly or becoming too big are problems that can sometimes be irreversible.
Therefore, careful monitoring to avoid this error is critical. Using a dual reporting concept is very helpful in making such an assessment. You set a standard or a baseline against which the need to hire is measured. That way, you at least know that the odds of your new hire being profitable or value-generating are favorable.
That is all business investment is- maximizing return on your initial outlay.
It can be hard to implement dual reporting for just the hiring stage. So, I simply recommend incorporating dual reporting at all times. Knowing context always helps.
Over time, this will help differentiate the false alarms from the true problems- especially when someone yells 'HIRE!' in the crowded meeting room.
Signed,
The Business Bro
Footnotes / potential gripes
1. Not that anyone would quit with you as a boss, of course, but sometimes life happens, you know?
One day, you come in and demand to know why Leslie is three weeks late to work.
'Lisa quit.'
'Who?'
'The person who quit. You kept calling her Leslie but her actual name is Lisa.'
Quitters! Only losers quit. 'L' doesn't stand for Leslie, it stands for LOSER!
And how dare...uh...how dare anybody tell me what I did wrong! Might want to review that seating chart over lunch, though.
2. Slow down...
Inventory is relevant only if customers are buying up products too fast for your production team to replace them. There is no need to hire for the sake of building up inventory if you are able to match sales to production.
The manpower thing is subtler- if the production distribution is rushed or cyclical, it usually means management is misusing manpower. Instead of hiring more people to be mismanaged, train your managers to distribute the existing manpower better throughout the production cycle.
3. Everything...? Nothing applies to everything!
Almost nothing should ever be described as applying to 'everything'. I suppose in this case, thinking about an organization's size relative to its field or industry might help make the statement more true. An organization in a shrinking industry (such as newspapers) might shrink in absolute terms (such as total employees or circulation) but still seek growth in relative concepts (such as hiring the best columnists or covering a wider geographical area).
Endnote
A thought about promoting from within...
Promoting from within is a good way to fill organizational gaps. One issue with promotion, though, is that it creates uncertainty in the position being vacated. In a sense, promoting from within brings an organization back to the first condition for hiring- the need to fill an open position.
One observation I've heard in various job interviews and scattered conversations this year is the trend for people my age (which basically covers anyone owning a college degree but not yet obviously locked into an obligation via geography, debt, or family) is the trend toward job hopping. (This is a slow but definite change from the employment structure of, say, several decades ago, but people comment on it anyway.)
I think one contributing factor to such a thing is the unacknowledged danger of internal promotion. An organization that promotes from within creates two performance uncertainties- the internal person promoted into the new role and the outside person coming in to fill the old position. Hiring from outside limits the uncertainty to just the one position. Junior people who observe such a hiring practice will get the hint and start looking around as soon as they feel ready for a promotion (which is somewhere between nine days and nine months after starting a role, I've observed).
Thursday, September 1, 2016
the manager playbook
Good morning,
I pointed out in my first post that a key characteristic of a business bro is the ability to speak knowledgeably in areas of little to no knowledge. A tongue in cheek definition, of course, but the underlying truth that we often must make decisions despite our uncertainty defines the role of a manager.
The critical step forward in my own business bro decision making ability involved applying lessons from very different books. The first, Religion For Atheists, noted that human beings forget things. The antidote to forgetfulness being writing things down, I immediately started writing down anything I thought might help me make a decision in the future (1).
The second book provided an organizing principle for my notes. In this book, a limited high school quarterback with coaching ambitions joins a powerhouse college football program as a practice player. His goal is to prepare for a coaching future through observation of the methods of this school's elite coaches. In order to retain his knowledge, this player writes down everything- practice techniques, strategy concepts, training philosophies, etc- and sorts them into a binder- his 'coaching playbook' (2).
I put this idea into action by creating my own binder. Sections with titles like 'Training New People', 'Job Interviewing Tactics', and 'Basic Teaching Principles' organized my notes. Over time, I had a working version of my own manager playbook.
Initially, I used this in a way similar to how I used notes to prepare for college exams. I 'studied' it before making decisions and tried to set aside regular time to simply review when no pressing decision needed to be made.
I have a few recommendations for anyone considering making the same. Like class notes from any course, the more you pay attention to the lecture or to your assigned reading, the better the note-taking will be. So, pay close attention to your own experience- you never know when something relevant might come up.
Next, get in the habit of writing down anything that might be helpful to recall later. Unsure? Write it down anyway- you can always delete it later.
It is also good to note what not to do. It is common to talk about learning from mistakes but less so to discuss exactly how one does this. I always wrote down the circumstances or thought process that led to past errors. Later on, I found it very useful to review these notes to identify possible warning signs about mistakes that I was in danger of replicating.
I recommend taking notes on things that happen outside of work, within reason, for uninterrupted leisure time is critical. But excluding life experiences entirely from professional thought process just to maintain an arbitrary 'work-life balance' prevents you from drawing on your full self to make good decisions.
Finally, make sure to edit relentlessly. A football team's playbook changes constantly to remain in line with one overriding principle- list only plays that will help the team win. Each play is crystal clear in terms of when and how to use it. So, review often to keep the entries clear, organize them in a way that makes them easy to find, and always make sure that playbook entries help you make better decisions (3).
Signed,
The Business Bro
Footnotes / imagined complaints
1. Write it down...
The ideal tool for this task is a pen. Preferably, this is one of those pens that clicks each time you use it. That way, each time you take down a note, you can dramatically click your pen a couple of times first so that everyone around you immediately understands that you are having a deep, important thought.
Over time, I suppose a successful business bro might even use the click of a pen as a substitute for giving positive feedback- just click the pen after someone speaks so that they know you are preparing to write down the wise words just uttered in your presence.
2. What is the name of this wonderful sounding book?
Actually, I forget. I read it in junior high and, back then, I had yet to read Religion For Atheists. So, I never even realized that I should be writing these things down.
My apologies, readers.
3. This last paragraph sounds a little obvious...
Agreed. I included this last one because the manager job is a difficult one psychologically. Often, it is hard to understand the extent to which your contributions are making any impact. The tendency in these cases is to trumpet your own horn a little bit.
If you use something like a manager playbook, you are going to show it to other people. That is all well and good. So when I say that each entry must help you make better decisions, the kind of entry I am warning against is one that appears intelligent on paper without setting clear direction on when or how to use it.
One such entry is actually another lesson from the Religion For Atheists book. This entry- 'Art is a powerful tool for reinforcing simple messages'- is both true and insightful. Retrieving such wisdom from the rubble of a fortune cookie will fill any diner with the satisfaction of a meal well completed.
But these types of comments are irrelevant in the manager playbook context. A better entry describes when to use art instead of words when stating a simple message.
Endnote: I still use this today...
Longtime readers of this blog will recall that I was recently laid off from my manager position. However, I'm pleasantly surprised to report that I am still making use of my 'playbook' today.
One way has been through blogging. If I am running out of ideas, I go back to that and write about what originally inspired an entry. My post about teachers being 'the smartest person in the room' came from it. An upcoming post about 'manager math' is another such example.
It also came into play just a month ago as I prepared for a job interview. Prior to my interview, I reread the twenty or so pages in my playbook to refresh myself on my own (developing) managerial philosophy.
Each entry, I discovered, linked back to someone or something from my prior role. It turned out to be great preparation for answering the specific questions about my management techniques that I was asked during the interview- how did you on-board new hires, how did you handle career development, what do you consider important in a leader, etc.
I pointed out in my first post that a key characteristic of a business bro is the ability to speak knowledgeably in areas of little to no knowledge. A tongue in cheek definition, of course, but the underlying truth that we often must make decisions despite our uncertainty defines the role of a manager.
The critical step forward in my own business bro decision making ability involved applying lessons from very different books. The first, Religion For Atheists, noted that human beings forget things. The antidote to forgetfulness being writing things down, I immediately started writing down anything I thought might help me make a decision in the future (1).
The second book provided an organizing principle for my notes. In this book, a limited high school quarterback with coaching ambitions joins a powerhouse college football program as a practice player. His goal is to prepare for a coaching future through observation of the methods of this school's elite coaches. In order to retain his knowledge, this player writes down everything- practice techniques, strategy concepts, training philosophies, etc- and sorts them into a binder- his 'coaching playbook' (2).
I put this idea into action by creating my own binder. Sections with titles like 'Training New People', 'Job Interviewing Tactics', and 'Basic Teaching Principles' organized my notes. Over time, I had a working version of my own manager playbook.
Initially, I used this in a way similar to how I used notes to prepare for college exams. I 'studied' it before making decisions and tried to set aside regular time to simply review when no pressing decision needed to be made.
I have a few recommendations for anyone considering making the same. Like class notes from any course, the more you pay attention to the lecture or to your assigned reading, the better the note-taking will be. So, pay close attention to your own experience- you never know when something relevant might come up.
Next, get in the habit of writing down anything that might be helpful to recall later. Unsure? Write it down anyway- you can always delete it later.
It is also good to note what not to do. It is common to talk about learning from mistakes but less so to discuss exactly how one does this. I always wrote down the circumstances or thought process that led to past errors. Later on, I found it very useful to review these notes to identify possible warning signs about mistakes that I was in danger of replicating.
I recommend taking notes on things that happen outside of work, within reason, for uninterrupted leisure time is critical. But excluding life experiences entirely from professional thought process just to maintain an arbitrary 'work-life balance' prevents you from drawing on your full self to make good decisions.
Finally, make sure to edit relentlessly. A football team's playbook changes constantly to remain in line with one overriding principle- list only plays that will help the team win. Each play is crystal clear in terms of when and how to use it. So, review often to keep the entries clear, organize them in a way that makes them easy to find, and always make sure that playbook entries help you make better decisions (3).
Signed,
The Business Bro
Footnotes / imagined complaints
1. Write it down...
The ideal tool for this task is a pen. Preferably, this is one of those pens that clicks each time you use it. That way, each time you take down a note, you can dramatically click your pen a couple of times first so that everyone around you immediately understands that you are having a deep, important thought.
Over time, I suppose a successful business bro might even use the click of a pen as a substitute for giving positive feedback- just click the pen after someone speaks so that they know you are preparing to write down the wise words just uttered in your presence.
2. What is the name of this wonderful sounding book?
Actually, I forget. I read it in junior high and, back then, I had yet to read Religion For Atheists. So, I never even realized that I should be writing these things down.
My apologies, readers.
3. This last paragraph sounds a little obvious...
Agreed. I included this last one because the manager job is a difficult one psychologically. Often, it is hard to understand the extent to which your contributions are making any impact. The tendency in these cases is to trumpet your own horn a little bit.
If you use something like a manager playbook, you are going to show it to other people. That is all well and good. So when I say that each entry must help you make better decisions, the kind of entry I am warning against is one that appears intelligent on paper without setting clear direction on when or how to use it.
One such entry is actually another lesson from the Religion For Atheists book. This entry- 'Art is a powerful tool for reinforcing simple messages'- is both true and insightful. Retrieving such wisdom from the rubble of a fortune cookie will fill any diner with the satisfaction of a meal well completed.
But these types of comments are irrelevant in the manager playbook context. A better entry describes when to use art instead of words when stating a simple message.
Endnote: I still use this today...
Longtime readers of this blog will recall that I was recently laid off from my manager position. However, I'm pleasantly surprised to report that I am still making use of my 'playbook' today.
One way has been through blogging. If I am running out of ideas, I go back to that and write about what originally inspired an entry. My post about teachers being 'the smartest person in the room' came from it. An upcoming post about 'manager math' is another such example.
It also came into play just a month ago as I prepared for a job interview. Prior to my interview, I reread the twenty or so pages in my playbook to refresh myself on my own (developing) managerial philosophy.
Each entry, I discovered, linked back to someone or something from my prior role. It turned out to be great preparation for answering the specific questions about my management techniques that I was asked during the interview- how did you on-board new hires, how did you handle career development, what do you consider important in a leader, etc.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
environment always impacts behavior, part 2
Hi all,
My best professor in college introduced me to my favorite definition for understanding the effect of a given change to a system. An economics professor, he always walked his classes through the effects of an economic shock. A raise in tax rates, for example, might lead to a decrease in individual savings and consumption spending. At the end of the lecture, he often reminded his classes that true understanding came not when you could explain the effect of the same economic shock back to him but when you could explain the effect of the shock in the opposite direction (in the above, a lowering of tax rates).
Two weeks ago, I shared a story about a recent train ride and linked it to a problem I often encountered in my former position. I thought about how to encourage people in organizations who had good ideas but were unwilling or unready to initiate.
But what about the opposite? To use the original example- what if standing up before the train stopped was a highly dangerous activity that needed to be curtailed immediately? What if the problem is stopping the initiators so that the natural followers would keep their eyes on the road and avoid getting themselves into trouble?
One possibility is to worry only about the outcome and address the issue there. The MBTA could, for example, fine the first person who stood up before the train stopped. Ideally, stopping the initiator would keep the natural followers in their seats.
The problem with this approach is that you will only find out it is not working when it stops working. After all, a penalty is not a prohibition against the activity- it simply increases the cost of the activity. If someone riding the train wants to pay $50 to get off the train first, they will stand up and do it (1). And of course, once this person stands, everyone waiting will imitate.
Another approach is to get the initiators out of sight. Give them new assignments, transfer them to less process oriented departments, or just fire them. This seems the quickest and cleanest approach. But, be warned- it only addresses the outward manifestation of people's interests. Though one 'troublemaker' is gone, you will still be left with people who are ready to stand up as soon as the next initiator boards the train.
The only approach that I think truly works, long term, is to address the underlying feeling that drives the unwanted behavior. I think people stand up on the train because there is no guarantee made that the train will not start again before everyone is safely on the platform. A different transportation example highlights this point- no one ever stands up while an airplane is in flight because everyone knows the plane does not take off for the next airport with passengers still walking toward the exit.
In a work environment, digging into unwanted behavior to find the source of discontent, insecurity, or frustration is difficult work. But it is crucial for the health of an organization in the long term. Usually, what you find is some combination of a lack of definition for good work, a broken communication link, or a specific case of unfair treatment (perceived or otherwise) that is driving people away from a teamwork mentality. Fixing these core breakdowns will reduce or eliminate selfish behavior within any organization and will provide a lot more value than implementing complex systems which address symptoms while ignoring the underlying condition.
Until next Thursday, take care.
The Business Bro
Footnotes...
1. Incentive systems
Airlines already offer such an option through their premium or preferred seating plans.
Another way to talk about a fine is to describe it as a negative incentive system. Incentive systems are really popular ways try and align compensation with performance- so in this case, the 'negative incentive' of fining a first offender is like reducing compensation for something that results in reduced performance.
A thought that I might explore more in the future is a problem I run into from time to time about incentives. Basically, the issue is that it seems like the people who implement incentive systems expect the presence of such a system to automatically lead to greater effort. I think this assumption is naive.
Sure, the incentives will motivate someone who is interested in the incentive to work harder. But what about the employee who does not care? The incentive system might work in reverse here- now, those who do not respond to the incentives will appear lethargic, apathetic, or just disinterested in comparison to their 'incentivized' colleagues. I cannot come up with a reason for why this would be a good thing for any organization.
My best professor in college introduced me to my favorite definition for understanding the effect of a given change to a system. An economics professor, he always walked his classes through the effects of an economic shock. A raise in tax rates, for example, might lead to a decrease in individual savings and consumption spending. At the end of the lecture, he often reminded his classes that true understanding came not when you could explain the effect of the same economic shock back to him but when you could explain the effect of the shock in the opposite direction (in the above, a lowering of tax rates).
Two weeks ago, I shared a story about a recent train ride and linked it to a problem I often encountered in my former position. I thought about how to encourage people in organizations who had good ideas but were unwilling or unready to initiate.
But what about the opposite? To use the original example- what if standing up before the train stopped was a highly dangerous activity that needed to be curtailed immediately? What if the problem is stopping the initiators so that the natural followers would keep their eyes on the road and avoid getting themselves into trouble?
One possibility is to worry only about the outcome and address the issue there. The MBTA could, for example, fine the first person who stood up before the train stopped. Ideally, stopping the initiator would keep the natural followers in their seats.
The problem with this approach is that you will only find out it is not working when it stops working. After all, a penalty is not a prohibition against the activity- it simply increases the cost of the activity. If someone riding the train wants to pay $50 to get off the train first, they will stand up and do it (1). And of course, once this person stands, everyone waiting will imitate.
Another approach is to get the initiators out of sight. Give them new assignments, transfer them to less process oriented departments, or just fire them. This seems the quickest and cleanest approach. But, be warned- it only addresses the outward manifestation of people's interests. Though one 'troublemaker' is gone, you will still be left with people who are ready to stand up as soon as the next initiator boards the train.
The only approach that I think truly works, long term, is to address the underlying feeling that drives the unwanted behavior. I think people stand up on the train because there is no guarantee made that the train will not start again before everyone is safely on the platform. A different transportation example highlights this point- no one ever stands up while an airplane is in flight because everyone knows the plane does not take off for the next airport with passengers still walking toward the exit.
In a work environment, digging into unwanted behavior to find the source of discontent, insecurity, or frustration is difficult work. But it is crucial for the health of an organization in the long term. Usually, what you find is some combination of a lack of definition for good work, a broken communication link, or a specific case of unfair treatment (perceived or otherwise) that is driving people away from a teamwork mentality. Fixing these core breakdowns will reduce or eliminate selfish behavior within any organization and will provide a lot more value than implementing complex systems which address symptoms while ignoring the underlying condition.
Until next Thursday, take care.
The Business Bro
Footnotes...
1. Incentive systems
Airlines already offer such an option through their premium or preferred seating plans.
Another way to talk about a fine is to describe it as a negative incentive system. Incentive systems are really popular ways try and align compensation with performance- so in this case, the 'negative incentive' of fining a first offender is like reducing compensation for something that results in reduced performance.
A thought that I might explore more in the future is a problem I run into from time to time about incentives. Basically, the issue is that it seems like the people who implement incentive systems expect the presence of such a system to automatically lead to greater effort. I think this assumption is naive.
Sure, the incentives will motivate someone who is interested in the incentive to work harder. But what about the employee who does not care? The incentive system might work in reverse here- now, those who do not respond to the incentives will appear lethargic, apathetic, or just disinterested in comparison to their 'incentivized' colleagues. I cannot come up with a reason for why this would be a good thing for any organization.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
if you can read, you can code
Hi,
Months ago, I read a particularly interesting line from Haruki Murakami's Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimmage- 'if you can read, you can cook'. Lately, I've found the line coming to mind whenever I am asked about my SQL programming experience during a job interview.
These questions range from informal (talk about your experience) to formal (please complete this questionnaire/assessment). The result is either a near philosophical conversation about database querying or a very detailed account of what projects I happened to work on in the past, respectively.
Both lines of discussion are useful in certain contexts, of course. One such case is when no specific role is being applied for.
But I struggle to understand how helpful they might be in learning about a candidate's programming ability to complete a specific role or project. The reason I toss this thought out there is because almost every programming script I ever wrote required me to do at least one of the following:
1) Read an old script I wrote that did a similar function
2) Search online for the correct syntax
3) Ask a colleague for guidance
Often, I would do all three. Since all three of these methods require reading (even #3, since I usually 'asked' via email), you could say my programming slogan is 'if you can read, you can code'. Just like with cooking, once certain basic knowledge about the programming language is known, you can pretty much solve any problem you want as long as someone else wrote down what you might need to know in a place where you can easily find it. But beyond listing those three points, it is tough to highlight that process-minded approach in an interview setting when the questions encourage strictly backward-looking responses.
I think my overall sense is that these types of questions do not offer much insight into how a candidate would complete the jobs I am applying for. In other words, for these specific roles, I think it is generally not relevant to talk database philosophy (since the role is not for a computer science professor) or use an assessment that asks detail-level questions like what is the difference between a clustered and non-clustered index (since most jobs tend to allow access to the internet, a useful tool for answering such questions) (1).
But if my conclusion is true, so what? Or to put it more professionally, what is the best way to assess the skill level of a candidate?
In a broad sense, this is an example of perhaps the trickiest part in defining an open position- what skills are needed prior to starting the role and what skills are OK to learn as the new hire goes (2)?
In my prior role, I faced this question and concluded that we needed to see clear evidence of the things which could not be taught (or, the things I was incapable of teaching anyone) if we were to move forward with any candidate.
To make an attempt to answer my own question in this context- I would either try to confirm that a candidate has the bare basics needed to quickly learn, on the job, the programming required or offer a simple short term project/contract in which a successful outcome will utilize all the skills needed that the organization is incapable of teaching a new hire.
I'm not sure this will work perfectly but it is better than what seems to be the current trend. It does at least have the advantage of tailoring the recruiting process to fit the job opening as closely as possible. And I can't (yet) think of a good reason why that would not be a strong design for any job interview.
Signed,
The Business Bro
Footnotes?
1. OK, hotshot, we know all this is a way to hide that you have no clue what a clustered index is!
Who cares? Google it. Here is the first hit from my search. It took seven seconds to find, twenty seconds to read, and the rest of the minute to understand.
My technique for googling SQL concepts is very simple. Over time, I've come to a tentative conclusion that the website Stack Overflow is my preferred source for finding answers to my SQL questions. But, I do not find the navigation within the website very helpful.
To get around this problem, I almost always type my search terms into Google and include 'stack overflow' at the end. This takes advantage of Google's superior ability to filter and find websites while ensuring that, in the event of a tie, content from my preferred website is placed atop the list.
2. Passion...
From my own experience, doing this part of the process properly lead to very interesting insights. One such moment involved 'passion' for the role- surely, we would seek candidates ' passionate' about the industry we were in?
When I took a closer look at the existing team (and company), I realized that not a single person could be described as 'passionate' about the industry. They were passionate about many things- teamwork, completing high quality work, constantly learning or growing, etc- but not about the industry. So I played a hunch and dismissed it as a category for consideration.
Was I right to do this? Possibly not. Likely not. It may have been the case that finding someone passionate about the industry would have truly transformed the team. But the team had been transformed in the past by those without this passion, too. Ultimately, it seemed a better use of time to focus on other attributes in the hiring process.
What were those attributes? They were not technical skills. Rather, they were the basic components of fitting into the team- characteristics such as an enthusiasm to learn and the ability to communicate clearly in writing. The things I or the team could teach were assessed on whether a candidate reached the bare minimum level needed to learn from us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)