"The best leaders of all, the people know not they exist. They turn to each other and say, we did it ourselves."
-- Zen Proverb
Invisible leadership is perhaps the most powerful form. It is difficult to practice, however, because we all have an innate desire for personal recognition. It is a well-known management axiom that people support what they help to create. Thus, if leadership is the art of enlisting the aid and support of others to achieve a common goal, then helping others get credit is a critical leadership skill.
I've never been good at tooting my own horn. As a consequence, at various times in life I've fumed when someone else stole the credit for my idea. I think that's a reasonable reaction at the beginning of your career when you need your good work to be noticed by those in a position to promote you. But when you're the one leading, instead of fuming when this happens, you should be celebrating. Job well done. That's invisible leadership.
Effective delegation is another means to invisible leadership. When others take the ball and run with it, the credit for the score is all theirs. Few take note of the coach that called the play or the quarterback that handed off the ball; they just notice the running back that made it to the end zone. If we always gave credit to the play callers, the other members of the team wouldn't be as motivated to score.
Creating an open-minded environment conducive to creativity and innovation from all levels of the organization is another great way to enable people to say "we did it ourselves." Quality management principles posit that the best ideas for continuous improvement come from the line-level worker, not management.
Finally, don't toot your own horn unless there is a specific benefit to the team, not you. Celebrate everyone's contributions except yours. Few people respect leaders that are constantly calling attention to themselves and their accomplishments; in fact, they have the most respect for those that are highly accomplished and yet humble about it.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Leaders Make Themselves Dispensible
"Whatever you set your mind to do, you always should make the road before you wide open, so that all people may traverse it. This is the concern of a great man.
If the way is narrow and perilous, so that others cannot go on it, then you yourself will not have any place to set foot either."
-- Zen Lessons, Translated by Thomas Cleary
One of my personal goals as a leader is to make myself as dispensible as possible. This goes against the grain of my natural and human desire to be important, needed and, of course. . . indispensible. It is a leadership paradox: in order to be a truly indispensible leader, you need to make yourself dispensible.
Leadership requires getting things done through others, not doing everything yourself. Doing it yourself is not leadership -- no one is following, no one is learning and no one is growing from the experience of doing whatever it is you're doing.
A challenge I face -- and I know I'm not alone among the ranks of business owners --is that I often serve as a bottleneck in my organization. For example, a contract sits in my inbox needing my signature but I keep putting it off due to other, more urgent items needing attention. Meanwhile, I have a staff member who is stuck. She cannot take the next steps she needs to take to get a task done because the contract in my inbox must be signed before she can move forward.
If I were simply to train her on what to look for in contracts, then when satisfied with her competence in reviewing them, empower her to submit contracts to me for immediate signature without review (or better yet, sign them herself), I could put an end to the bottleneck. Of course, that would make me dispensible. But that's a good thing.
The quote above speaks to a key element of achieving dispensibility: make the road before you wide open so others may traverse it. To me, that means give them the tools, training and resources to do what you do. Then resist the urge to do it yourself. Let them do it.
In this context, leadership is a constant exercise in letting go. What am I doing now that someone else can do? How do I let go of this and let someone else run with it? In other words, how can I find one more way to be dispensible?
If the way is narrow and perilous, so that others cannot go on it, then you yourself will not have any place to set foot either."
-- Zen Lessons, Translated by Thomas Cleary
One of my personal goals as a leader is to make myself as dispensible as possible. This goes against the grain of my natural and human desire to be important, needed and, of course. . . indispensible. It is a leadership paradox: in order to be a truly indispensible leader, you need to make yourself dispensible.
Leadership requires getting things done through others, not doing everything yourself. Doing it yourself is not leadership -- no one is following, no one is learning and no one is growing from the experience of doing whatever it is you're doing.
A challenge I face -- and I know I'm not alone among the ranks of business owners --is that I often serve as a bottleneck in my organization. For example, a contract sits in my inbox needing my signature but I keep putting it off due to other, more urgent items needing attention. Meanwhile, I have a staff member who is stuck. She cannot take the next steps she needs to take to get a task done because the contract in my inbox must be signed before she can move forward.
If I were simply to train her on what to look for in contracts, then when satisfied with her competence in reviewing them, empower her to submit contracts to me for immediate signature without review (or better yet, sign them herself), I could put an end to the bottleneck. Of course, that would make me dispensible. But that's a good thing.
The quote above speaks to a key element of achieving dispensibility: make the road before you wide open so others may traverse it. To me, that means give them the tools, training and resources to do what you do. Then resist the urge to do it yourself. Let them do it.
In this context, leadership is a constant exercise in letting go. What am I doing now that someone else can do? How do I let go of this and let someone else run with it? In other words, how can I find one more way to be dispensible?
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Leaders Aren't Special: Don't Be Intimidated
I find at times I am reluctant to call myself a leader. The reason is so many of the books and speakers on leadership talk of it in context to extraordinary leaders in history, such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi and others. Or, they focus on elite athletes, winning coaches or CEOs of the world's largest corporations.
Furthermore, the described qualities of a great leader are ideals that most of us are unable to sustain in whole or in part: visionary, passionate, servant, charismatic, influencer, principled, etc. Of course, most of us have known -- and some of you may be -- individuals that deeply embody these qualities. But I think over-romanticizing these qualities of leadership may make us overlook the fact that many great leaders do not have all of these qualities, and in fact may have very few of them.
I think it's also safe to say some of the world's worst leaders had the same qualities we tend to ascribe to great leaders, as well. Hitler, for example, was visionary, passionate, charismatic, influential and principled -- though few today would agree with his vision or principles.
I believe a great leader can be not particularly visionary, even-keeled, introverted and unassuming. You probably know some strong, effective organizational leaders that match this description. They're not dynamic, charismatic or especially passionate in temperament, yet maybe they have integrity or intelligence that others respect and admire.
So, in my view, it's not really personality traits or qualities that define a leader. A leader is really just someone who can enroll others in accomplishing an objective. Leaders in the most basic sense are those who can influence the behavior of others such that willingly they choose to follow them.
Keeping that in mind, one of the key qualities of leadership is the ability to ask. Many people who end up volunteering for a cause, for example, say the only reason they choose to do so was because someone asked them. One of the most basic leadership behaviors, then, is simply asking someone to do something -- that is, making a request.
Now, that may seem obvious, but how often have you found yourself suffering in silence, taking on the entire burden of a project? Because of my perfectionist tendencies and the pride I take in completing a project on my own, one of the hardest things for me to do is ask for help. Yet, I realize, if I want to be a leader, I have to let go of that mindset.
I'm not sure why it's so difficult to ask for help, but for whatever reason, it's not the first thought that comes to mind when taking something on. Interestingly, I find that most times I ask others to join me in a project, they actually want to be a part of it. The reality is, most of us have an innate desire to be of service. So when someone asks for our help, we are flattered and want to contribute.
Leadership doesn't need to be intimidating. It can be as simple as making a request.
Furthermore, the described qualities of a great leader are ideals that most of us are unable to sustain in whole or in part: visionary, passionate, servant, charismatic, influencer, principled, etc. Of course, most of us have known -- and some of you may be -- individuals that deeply embody these qualities. But I think over-romanticizing these qualities of leadership may make us overlook the fact that many great leaders do not have all of these qualities, and in fact may have very few of them.
I think it's also safe to say some of the world's worst leaders had the same qualities we tend to ascribe to great leaders, as well. Hitler, for example, was visionary, passionate, charismatic, influential and principled -- though few today would agree with his vision or principles.
I believe a great leader can be not particularly visionary, even-keeled, introverted and unassuming. You probably know some strong, effective organizational leaders that match this description. They're not dynamic, charismatic or especially passionate in temperament, yet maybe they have integrity or intelligence that others respect and admire.
So, in my view, it's not really personality traits or qualities that define a leader. A leader is really just someone who can enroll others in accomplishing an objective. Leaders in the most basic sense are those who can influence the behavior of others such that willingly they choose to follow them.
Keeping that in mind, one of the key qualities of leadership is the ability to ask. Many people who end up volunteering for a cause, for example, say the only reason they choose to do so was because someone asked them. One of the most basic leadership behaviors, then, is simply asking someone to do something -- that is, making a request.
Now, that may seem obvious, but how often have you found yourself suffering in silence, taking on the entire burden of a project? Because of my perfectionist tendencies and the pride I take in completing a project on my own, one of the hardest things for me to do is ask for help. Yet, I realize, if I want to be a leader, I have to let go of that mindset.
I'm not sure why it's so difficult to ask for help, but for whatever reason, it's not the first thought that comes to mind when taking something on. Interestingly, I find that most times I ask others to join me in a project, they actually want to be a part of it. The reality is, most of us have an innate desire to be of service. So when someone asks for our help, we are flattered and want to contribute.
Leadership doesn't need to be intimidating. It can be as simple as making a request.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
For-Profit Leaders can Learn Something from Non-Profit Leaders
Most of my posts are relevant for all types of organizational leadership, but this time I'm going to focus on a leadership skill more prevelant in the non-profit sector, which is leadership through influence. I contend that for-profit sector leaders could benefit greatly from honing this skill, which is often overlooked in the corporate world, which tends to focus more on motivation through power and position than influence.
One of the hallmarks of most businesses -- despite the lip-service given to having "flatter," matrix style organizational charts -- is heirarchy. You have the CEO at the top of the pyramid with progressively wider layers until you reach the wide base of line-level workers. What distinguishes non-profit from for-profit management is that there are, in fact, two heirarchies -- parallel pyramids, if you will.
One heirarchy is the staff, which matches the for-profit corporate structure just mentioned, and the other is a volunteer heirarchy. At the top of the volunteer pyramid is the elected board of directors, with progressively wider layers of committees, working groups and task forces with the wide bottom layer being the dues-paying members or contributors that support the organization but don't hold a volunteer role.
A unique aspect of non-profit leadership is that the customers (members), not the employees, "own" the organization - although they reap no direct financial benefit from ownership. Furthermore, the volunteer heirarchy is the ultimate authority and has the ability to hire and fire staff and even change the mission of the organization. Thus, staff are employed solely at the will of the volunteers.
The challenge of this structure is that it is staff that best understands the business of the organization, as they run it every day. And it is the staff that is held most accountable for the success of the organization. Yet, staff must follow the dictates of individuals whose leadership positions are part-time (i.e., they have a day job), usually unpaid and temporary -- generally no more than a 1- to 2-year term in a specific role.
And the volunteer leadership is elected, not hired, so there is no means for maintaining true accountability. If a volunteer "checks out," or is acting in a way that is truly harmful to the organization, in many cases, there is little if any recourse available. In some cases, the only course of action available is for the board to request that the individual voluntarily resign. Sometimes they will. Usually, they won't.
While the non-profit sector is perceived by some as a "lesser" profession than the for-profit corporate sector (the thought being the best and the brightest can only be attracted by high salaries and stock options), to be truly effective, I contend non-profit organizations require a much higher standard of staff leadership and management than for-profit entities.
Why?
Precisely because of the non-profit CEO's inability to use a paycheck or the ability to hire and fire as a form of motivation within the volunteer hierarchy. To enlist others in the peformance of a common task, non-profit CEOs cannot simply dictate organizational policy because their position is subordinate to the volunteer board of directors. A more nuanced form of leadership is required, where influence, rather then power and position, brings results.
Non-profit CEOs are the ultimate influencer leaders. President Ronald Reagan was famous for saying, "There's no limit to what you can accomplish as long as you don't care who gets the credit." Effective non-profit CEOs have that quote tatooed on their foreheads. They must be forever the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. (I've had to bite my tongue more than once when a volunteer leader has taken credit for my idea, saying something like "This is one of the key objectives of my administration.")
This style of leadership requires consensus-building, being able to "sell" your ideas by providing the benefit of your knowledge and experience, building confidence among the volunteers that you have the best interest of the organization at heart and can "see the big picture." This is a form of leadership that is more difficult than handing down policy from the corner office knowing the footsoldiers have to implement it or find another job.
The command and control form of leadership may get results, but what it may not get is commitment and confidence. Leadership through influence, which comes from trust and relationship building gets results, but it also gets commitment and confidence.
One of the hallmarks of most businesses -- despite the lip-service given to having "flatter," matrix style organizational charts -- is heirarchy. You have the CEO at the top of the pyramid with progressively wider layers until you reach the wide base of line-level workers. What distinguishes non-profit from for-profit management is that there are, in fact, two heirarchies -- parallel pyramids, if you will.
One heirarchy is the staff, which matches the for-profit corporate structure just mentioned, and the other is a volunteer heirarchy. At the top of the volunteer pyramid is the elected board of directors, with progressively wider layers of committees, working groups and task forces with the wide bottom layer being the dues-paying members or contributors that support the organization but don't hold a volunteer role.
A unique aspect of non-profit leadership is that the customers (members), not the employees, "own" the organization - although they reap no direct financial benefit from ownership. Furthermore, the volunteer heirarchy is the ultimate authority and has the ability to hire and fire staff and even change the mission of the organization. Thus, staff are employed solely at the will of the volunteers.
The challenge of this structure is that it is staff that best understands the business of the organization, as they run it every day. And it is the staff that is held most accountable for the success of the organization. Yet, staff must follow the dictates of individuals whose leadership positions are part-time (i.e., they have a day job), usually unpaid and temporary -- generally no more than a 1- to 2-year term in a specific role.
And the volunteer leadership is elected, not hired, so there is no means for maintaining true accountability. If a volunteer "checks out," or is acting in a way that is truly harmful to the organization, in many cases, there is little if any recourse available. In some cases, the only course of action available is for the board to request that the individual voluntarily resign. Sometimes they will. Usually, they won't.
While the non-profit sector is perceived by some as a "lesser" profession than the for-profit corporate sector (the thought being the best and the brightest can only be attracted by high salaries and stock options), to be truly effective, I contend non-profit organizations require a much higher standard of staff leadership and management than for-profit entities.
Why?
Precisely because of the non-profit CEO's inability to use a paycheck or the ability to hire and fire as a form of motivation within the volunteer hierarchy. To enlist others in the peformance of a common task, non-profit CEOs cannot simply dictate organizational policy because their position is subordinate to the volunteer board of directors. A more nuanced form of leadership is required, where influence, rather then power and position, brings results.
Non-profit CEOs are the ultimate influencer leaders. President Ronald Reagan was famous for saying, "There's no limit to what you can accomplish as long as you don't care who gets the credit." Effective non-profit CEOs have that quote tatooed on their foreheads. They must be forever the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. (I've had to bite my tongue more than once when a volunteer leader has taken credit for my idea, saying something like "This is one of the key objectives of my administration.")
This style of leadership requires consensus-building, being able to "sell" your ideas by providing the benefit of your knowledge and experience, building confidence among the volunteers that you have the best interest of the organization at heart and can "see the big picture." This is a form of leadership that is more difficult than handing down policy from the corner office knowing the footsoldiers have to implement it or find another job.
The command and control form of leadership may get results, but what it may not get is commitment and confidence. Leadership through influence, which comes from trust and relationship building gets results, but it also gets commitment and confidence.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Everyone is a Volunteer
As employers or organizational leaders, we sometimes view the contributions others make to the organization as "owed" to us. They get a paycheck, after all. Or, if they are volunteers, they "signed up for this" and owe us a commitment.
As leaders we need to recognize that everyone, even if they get a paycheck, is a volunteer.
Even though we as leaders may live under the delusion that others do our bidding because they are compelled to do so because of our position or title and their desire for self-preservation, the reality is they choose how they will do it, when they will do it, how well they will do it, and even if they will do it. If this weren't the case, then performance appraisal, discipline, etc., would be unnecessary.
Whether one uses the carrot or the stick, it is important to remember that we can only influence behavior, we cannot compel or control it. One need only consider the prisoner of war who, despite hellish torture and deprivation, is still able to choose not to be compelled -- even if doing so means annihilation. While all of us may have had "the job from hell" at some point in our careers, no one, I think, has faced the conditions of a prisoner of war in the corporate environment.
We might take the perspective, then, that those under our leadership provide their time and talent as a gift freely given. Whether we recognize it or not, people do have other options and could make different choices. If they do the job assigned, it is because they choose to provide service to us and our organization.
With this in mind, we can view leadership differently. What do we need to consider if everyone is a volunteer?
Personal Priorities: Our priorities are measured by where we put our time. If I say my family is my priority but spend all my time at work, I'm kidding myself. Clearly, whether I am willing to acknowledge it, work is my priority. Thus, an employee who truly values family more than work may choose not to do a task assigned because it interferes with family time. Being clear, then, on our volunteers' priorities can assist us in recognizing how to create an environment where the task can be done without having to compete with a higher priority. Attempting to change another person's inner priorities will only lead to frustration.
Desire to Make a Difference: One aspect of voluntarism is a desire to make a difference. Is my contribution meaningful? Does it have an impact? Sometimes, the tasks that must be performed seem meaningless and of little influence. The reality is, every action, no matter how small, is meaningful. Processes are interdependent. A simple invoice sent with the correct information, sent to the right address in a prompt manner can have enormous impact on a customer's perception of your business and their desire to continue working with you. While a salesperson may get the glory for bringing in the customer, the accounts receivable clerk may have just as much impact on your profitability. Thus, communicating the importance of even the small actions and appreciating the contribution made in the context of its impact on the success of the organization is very important.
Passion for the Cause: We willingly gift our time and talent with no expectation of return when we are passionate about a cause. What makes people passionate about a cause? It is the perceived positive impact being made in the world. Does your organization have a cause others can be passionate about? Does your product or service truly contribute to a better world? Or, maybe more indirectly, does your production of that product or service enable the organization to contribute to a better world? If so, then that should be communicated and reinforced by organizational leadership.
Other reasons people have for volunteering include:
As leaders we need to recognize that everyone, even if they get a paycheck, is a volunteer.
Even though we as leaders may live under the delusion that others do our bidding because they are compelled to do so because of our position or title and their desire for self-preservation, the reality is they choose how they will do it, when they will do it, how well they will do it, and even if they will do it. If this weren't the case, then performance appraisal, discipline, etc., would be unnecessary.
Whether one uses the carrot or the stick, it is important to remember that we can only influence behavior, we cannot compel or control it. One need only consider the prisoner of war who, despite hellish torture and deprivation, is still able to choose not to be compelled -- even if doing so means annihilation. While all of us may have had "the job from hell" at some point in our careers, no one, I think, has faced the conditions of a prisoner of war in the corporate environment.
We might take the perspective, then, that those under our leadership provide their time and talent as a gift freely given. Whether we recognize it or not, people do have other options and could make different choices. If they do the job assigned, it is because they choose to provide service to us and our organization.
With this in mind, we can view leadership differently. What do we need to consider if everyone is a volunteer?
Personal Priorities: Our priorities are measured by where we put our time. If I say my family is my priority but spend all my time at work, I'm kidding myself. Clearly, whether I am willing to acknowledge it, work is my priority. Thus, an employee who truly values family more than work may choose not to do a task assigned because it interferes with family time. Being clear, then, on our volunteers' priorities can assist us in recognizing how to create an environment where the task can be done without having to compete with a higher priority. Attempting to change another person's inner priorities will only lead to frustration.
Desire to Make a Difference: One aspect of voluntarism is a desire to make a difference. Is my contribution meaningful? Does it have an impact? Sometimes, the tasks that must be performed seem meaningless and of little influence. The reality is, every action, no matter how small, is meaningful. Processes are interdependent. A simple invoice sent with the correct information, sent to the right address in a prompt manner can have enormous impact on a customer's perception of your business and their desire to continue working with you. While a salesperson may get the glory for bringing in the customer, the accounts receivable clerk may have just as much impact on your profitability. Thus, communicating the importance of even the small actions and appreciating the contribution made in the context of its impact on the success of the organization is very important.
Passion for the Cause: We willingly gift our time and talent with no expectation of return when we are passionate about a cause. What makes people passionate about a cause? It is the perceived positive impact being made in the world. Does your organization have a cause others can be passionate about? Does your product or service truly contribute to a better world? Or, maybe more indirectly, does your production of that product or service enable the organization to contribute to a better world? If so, then that should be communicated and reinforced by organizational leadership.
Other reasons people have for volunteering include:
- Achievement: to enjoy a sense of accomplishment.
- Recognition and Feedback: to be held in high esteem by your fellows and get a "pat on the back."
- Personal Growth: to stretch and learn.
- Giving Something Back: to return the blessings you have received. In the job setting, this could be someone who has had an exquisite career but now wants to teach, mentor or counsel.
- Friendship, Support and a Feeling of Belonging: how often have you stayed in a job longer than you might have simply because you loved the people you worked with? How often have you heard that "people don't leave jobs, they leave people?"
Employees seek and stay in jobs for many of the same reasons they volunteer. Finding out what stirs their passion to volunteer can also help you determine what stirs their passion for work in general.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Omit Needless Words: Good Advice for Writers and Leaders
I was a journalism major. Our Bible on how to write was Strunk & White's Elements of Style. It's most memorable admonition: "Omit needless words."
The book goes on to say:
"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."
Strunk and White were preaching "Thoughtful Reduction" decades before John Maeda coined the phrase in The Laws of Simplicity.
Applied to communication, both written and spoken, "Omit needless words" is not only good advice for writers but leaders. Our job is to make the complex simple, to articulate a clear vision that staff at any level can understand and implement.
As stated in my post "Haiku Strategy" Google's informal mission statement is: "Don't be evil." It's actual mission statement is: "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Both say a lot in a few words about one of the largest and most complex companies on the planet.
The paradox of making communication simpler is that it is really hard work. But that shouldn't stop you. Spend less time crafting the content of the message and more time making it elegantly simple.
The book goes on to say:
"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."
Strunk and White were preaching "Thoughtful Reduction" decades before John Maeda coined the phrase in The Laws of Simplicity.
Applied to communication, both written and spoken, "Omit needless words" is not only good advice for writers but leaders. Our job is to make the complex simple, to articulate a clear vision that staff at any level can understand and implement.
As stated in my post "Haiku Strategy" Google's informal mission statement is: "Don't be evil." It's actual mission statement is: "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Both say a lot in a few words about one of the largest and most complex companies on the planet.
The paradox of making communication simpler is that it is really hard work. But that shouldn't stop you. Spend less time crafting the content of the message and more time making it elegantly simple.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Set Goals With Intention but Not Attachment
A colleague and friend of mine, Jeff DeCagna, contended in a strategy training program I attended that "strategic planning is dead." He stated that we should keep a strategic focus, constantly ask strategic questions, have ongoing strategy sessions, but not lock ourselves into a specific, long-term strategic plan. Why? Because the environment changes constantly and therefore the strategy-making process must be nimble and continuous. A detailed, written document is not conducive to "changing on the fly."
There's a common acronym used in goal-setting: SMART, which stands for "Specific," "Measurable," "Attainable," "Realistic" and "Time-Bound" or "Time-Limited." It is believed that all good goals should have these attributes. The guidelines are good, as they build in some accountability.
I'd like to take the concept a little further. I suggest adding two additional attributes: "Intention" and "Non-attachment." While the SMART attributes allow for accountability, they don't necessarily foster flexibility and the ability to "change on the fly."
In addition to listing out the specifics, the metrics and time-frames for accomplishing a goal, I also like to ask what is my intention? In other words, to what end am I setting this goal? Is it really to accomplish the specifics I laid out? Or can it take shape in a slightly -- or even significantly -- different way and still achieve my intention, the direction I'm heading?
This flows naturally into the second attribute: non-attachment. Much as a static strategic plan isn't conducive to being nimble, static goals may not allow for adjustments in a changing environment. A goal as written may not keep us headed toward our intention if the wind shifts -- as so often is the case with new technology and a constantly changing socio-political and economic climate. Therefore, we might not want to become too attached to our goals. We should remain committed to our intention, but not so much to being SMART.
There's a common acronym used in goal-setting: SMART, which stands for "Specific," "Measurable," "Attainable," "Realistic" and "Time-Bound" or "Time-Limited." It is believed that all good goals should have these attributes. The guidelines are good, as they build in some accountability.
I'd like to take the concept a little further. I suggest adding two additional attributes: "Intention" and "Non-attachment." While the SMART attributes allow for accountability, they don't necessarily foster flexibility and the ability to "change on the fly."
In addition to listing out the specifics, the metrics and time-frames for accomplishing a goal, I also like to ask what is my intention? In other words, to what end am I setting this goal? Is it really to accomplish the specifics I laid out? Or can it take shape in a slightly -- or even significantly -- different way and still achieve my intention, the direction I'm heading?
This flows naturally into the second attribute: non-attachment. Much as a static strategic plan isn't conducive to being nimble, static goals may not allow for adjustments in a changing environment. A goal as written may not keep us headed toward our intention if the wind shifts -- as so often is the case with new technology and a constantly changing socio-political and economic climate. Therefore, we might not want to become too attached to our goals. We should remain committed to our intention, but not so much to being SMART.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Asking the Right Questions is the Key to Effective Strategy
“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.”
—ALBERT EINSTEIN
Effective strategy-making begins with questions. Effective tactical plans also begin with questions, but the types of questions used in strategy are different from those used for operations.
Operational questions start with "who," "what," "when," "where," and "how." Who is going to do what by when? Where will it take place? How will we do it?
Strategic questions often begin with "which" and "why" because strategic decision-making is about making choices (which), then justifying (why) you made those choices. Which market? Which product? Which service? Why this market? Why this product? Or Why this service?
In other words, the purpose of strategic questions is to create a framework for leadership to make choices -- strategic choices. Any strategic question you ask should have many possible answers and, ideally, bring forth new information.
A mistake many businesses and non-profit organizations make is to try to be all things to all people. They think more stuff means more value. Not true. With limited resources, the only reasonable strategy is to keep your offerings limited in scope and aimed at your defined constituencies – you can be some things to some people.
Strategic questions are a tool intended to lead you to make strategic choices that put you on the most direct path to your desired future (vision). With this in mind, focus your strategy making efforts first on asking the right questions. The right answers will follow.
—ALBERT EINSTEIN
Effective strategy-making begins with questions. Effective tactical plans also begin with questions, but the types of questions used in strategy are different from those used for operations.
Operational questions start with "who," "what," "when," "where," and "how." Who is going to do what by when? Where will it take place? How will we do it?
Strategic questions often begin with "which" and "why" because strategic decision-making is about making choices (which), then justifying (why) you made those choices. Which market? Which product? Which service? Why this market? Why this product? Or Why this service?
In other words, the purpose of strategic questions is to create a framework for leadership to make choices -- strategic choices. Any strategic question you ask should have many possible answers and, ideally, bring forth new information.
A mistake many businesses and non-profit organizations make is to try to be all things to all people. They think more stuff means more value. Not true. With limited resources, the only reasonable strategy is to keep your offerings limited in scope and aimed at your defined constituencies – you can be some things to some people.
Strategic questions are a tool intended to lead you to make strategic choices that put you on the most direct path to your desired future (vision). With this in mind, focus your strategy making efforts first on asking the right questions. The right answers will follow.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Strategic Adaptation
Having a vision is critical. Not straying from the "big picture" - the ultimate desired outcome - is essential to long-term success. But sticking too closely to the letter and detail of a plan can actually take you farther away from achieving your desired outcome.
An oft-cited quote from success expert Brian Tracy states: "When an airplane leaves Chicago for Los Angeles, it is off course 99% of the time. This is normal and to be expected. A pilot makes continual course courrections, a little to the north, a little to the south. The pilot continually adjusts the altitude and throttle. And sure enough, several hours later, the plane touches down at exactly the time predicted."
That is the idea behind strategic adaptation. For leaders, like pilots, most of the flight time the plane is off course. Like a pilot, we must make adjustments to the speed and direction of the plane in order to keep it on course. Yet the beginning and end points are precise, even though the flight path is not.
For an analogy here on the ground, if we are driving and hear of a traffic jam ahead on the road, we will seek a different route that will take us around the jam, but will ultimately take us to our final destination.
So it is with leadership. Strategic adaptation in business means when new information comes along like the a change in weather patterns or news of a traffic jam, we may have to change course. But our final destination (vision) remains unchanged.
Kodak is a good example of a company that applied strategic adaptation. If Kodak had decided to remain committed selling only film cameras as digital cameras came on the scene, rather than strategically adapting with its own digital products and support services, the company might not be around now. The company's vision -- ultimate outcome -- remains the same, but its path changed based on new information.
In my view, strategic focus is far more important than strategic planning. In fact, many strategy thought leaders believe strategic planning is (and has been) dead. Does that mean you shouldn't have a plan? Of course not. But as leaders, we need to keep our eye on the long view. As Steven Covey says, we need to "begin with the end in mind."
With this in mind, we set our flight path for the final destination but consistently correct course as weather patterns and ground conditions change.
An oft-cited quote from success expert Brian Tracy states: "When an airplane leaves Chicago for Los Angeles, it is off course 99% of the time. This is normal and to be expected. A pilot makes continual course courrections, a little to the north, a little to the south. The pilot continually adjusts the altitude and throttle. And sure enough, several hours later, the plane touches down at exactly the time predicted."
That is the idea behind strategic adaptation. For leaders, like pilots, most of the flight time the plane is off course. Like a pilot, we must make adjustments to the speed and direction of the plane in order to keep it on course. Yet the beginning and end points are precise, even though the flight path is not.
For an analogy here on the ground, if we are driving and hear of a traffic jam ahead on the road, we will seek a different route that will take us around the jam, but will ultimately take us to our final destination.
So it is with leadership. Strategic adaptation in business means when new information comes along like the a change in weather patterns or news of a traffic jam, we may have to change course. But our final destination (vision) remains unchanged.
Kodak is a good example of a company that applied strategic adaptation. If Kodak had decided to remain committed selling only film cameras as digital cameras came on the scene, rather than strategically adapting with its own digital products and support services, the company might not be around now. The company's vision -- ultimate outcome -- remains the same, but its path changed based on new information.
In my view, strategic focus is far more important than strategic planning. In fact, many strategy thought leaders believe strategic planning is (and has been) dead. Does that mean you shouldn't have a plan? Of course not. But as leaders, we need to keep our eye on the long view. As Steven Covey says, we need to "begin with the end in mind."
With this in mind, we set our flight path for the final destination but consistently correct course as weather patterns and ground conditions change.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Haiku Strategy
"Principle I: By setting limitations, we must choose the essential. So in everything you do, learn to set limitations."
-- Leo Babauta from "The Power of Less"
In "Strategy, Plain and Simple," I summarized the difference between a strategic plan that was shelved versus one that became integrated into the operations of an organization in one word: simplicity.
In his book "The Power of Less" quoted above Leo Babauta uses the example of the Japanese Haiku poem. Haiku poems are nature-related, just 17 syllables, written in 3 lines, always 5, 7, 5 unrhymed. One of my favorites:
The Apple advertising slogan is "Think Different." Can you think of a company to which this simple statement more aptly applies? Can you see how employees of Apple achieve exactly that? While it may just be a slogan, if you worked for Apple, and this statement became the lens through which you made decisions, it's no surprise innovations like the iPod and iPhone become a deliverable.
By Jeff Arnold, MAM, CAE
-- Leo Babauta from "The Power of Less"
In "Strategy, Plain and Simple," I summarized the difference between a strategic plan that was shelved versus one that became integrated into the operations of an organization in one word: simplicity.
In his book "The Power of Less" quoted above Leo Babauta uses the example of the Japanese Haiku poem. Haiku poems are nature-related, just 17 syllables, written in 3 lines, always 5, 7, 5 unrhymed. One of my favorites:
A firefly flitted by:
"Look"! I almost said
but I was alone
- Taigi
"Look"! I almost said
but I was alone
- Taigi
The Haiku poet must carefully choose only the ESSENTIAL words. From the very structure of the poem, one is forced get to the heart of things with absolute clarity.
If you want strategy to be successful, I suggest "Haiku Strategy." Simplicity doesn't just mean limit yourself to 3 to 4 areas of strategic focus solely because people are unable to effectively focus on more than that, although that is a fact. Haiku Strategy means because people can only effectively focus on 3 to 4 areas at most, you are forced, as with the Haiku poem, to carefully choose only the ESSENTIAL areas.
Now, I would also contend, if you could keep all strategic statements, such as visions, missions, goals and strategies to 17 syllables, that would be ideal too.
Google's informal mission statement is: "Don't be evil." Four syllables. It's actual mission statement is: "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Not quite 17 syllables (25 actually) but a heck of a lot closer than most organizations get. Pretty simple for one of biggest, most complex companies on the planet.
The Apple advertising slogan is "Think Different." Can you think of a company to which this simple statement more aptly applies? Can you see how employees of Apple achieve exactly that? While it may just be a slogan, if you worked for Apple, and this statement became the lens through which you made decisions, it's no surprise innovations like the iPod and iPhone become a deliverable.
In "The Laws of Simplicity" John Maeda lists 10 laws, the first of which is "Reduce" where he introduces the concept of "Thoughtful Reduction." He says, "The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction. When in doubt, just remove. But be careful of what you remove."
The last statement is the critical one, of course. Keep it simple but not too simple. Don't eliminate the essential, too, in your zeal for simplicity.
The last statement is the critical one, of course. Keep it simple but not too simple. Don't eliminate the essential, too, in your zeal for simplicity.
The work of determining what is essential, or at the very least, most meaningful and applying "Thoughtful Reduction" is, in fact, the most difficult work. While the outcome is simple, the process of getting there is not. Think again of the Haiku poem. Try writing one. It's hard. But think about how elegant, simple and clear it is when done well.
By Jeff Arnold, MAM, CAE
Monday, January 24, 2011
Strategy Plain and Simple
Strategic planning is simultaneously considered mission critical to our organizations and the bane of our existence. We hole up our organizational leadership in a room for a day or more and cover the walls with flip chart pages.
At the end of the retreat, we feel energized, forward-thinking, ambitious. Brainstorming and banter coalesces into a brilliant 10-point plan for world domination. Then, life happens. We get back into operations and don't look at the strategic plan again until the next time we all head out for a planning retreat.
I've had this experience, but I've also seen a strategy session turn into a living, breathing systemic organizational focus that drove intention and created results. What made the difference? Simplicity.
Often strategic planning sessions look at EVERYTHING the organization does and goals are set in every area (after all, there's room for improvement in all areas, right?). The plan is a multiple page spreadsheet with goal 1, objective 1.1 and so on through goal 6, objective 6.25. The plan looks like a massive task list and none of the goals are given strategic priority. Such a deliverable is why plans get shelved.
The critical missing piece is focused priority given to those areas that are most MEANINGFUL. While there may well be six important things an organization does, all six are not equally important and equally effectively executed. (Imagine disaster struck and you could only choose 1 or 2 or 3 things the organization could keep doing. Which ones would you pick?)
The reality is people and organizations are only able to effectively focus on 3-4 or (preferably) fewer strategic priorities. If you apply the 80/20 Rule or Pareto Principle to your organization, you'll inevitably find a very short list of clients, markets and/or activities drive a disproportionate share of your organization's profitability. That's where you need to focus your time.
I don't believe in detailed tactical plans (goal 1, objective 1.1, etc.) in conjunction with strategic plans; I only believe in strategic focus documents, strategic thinking sessions and strategy reviews.
Strategic focus documents are simple, short statements listing the 1-3 strategic focus areas you identified as being the most meaningful in advancing your competitive advantage.
Strategic thinking sessions are continuous discussions about actions to take within the strategic focus areas, adjustments to the navigation or whole new courses to set based on new information or changes in the environment.
Strategic reviews are periodic checkups on what has been accomplished so far in advancing the strategic focus areas.
Instead of attempting to have staff implement a "task list" tactical plan developed by the leadership, embed strategy in organization-wide thinking and decision making.
People inherently know what to do (i.e., develop their own task lists) if they know what the parameters are for decision making based on the organization's strategic focus. Make the strategic focus areas the key agenda items of regular, not special, meetings. This makes strategy systemic, integrated in operations, not independent of them.
At its simplest, strategic planning is an exercise in answering some basic strategic questions that determine your differentiators:
1) Which?
2) Who?
3) How?
Which market, which product, which service? Who are we targeting? How will we set ourselves apart? How do we compete?
Simply use the answers to those questions to create the parameters, the "lenses" through which everyone in the organization sees it. If they make daily decisions that lead to specific actions based on these strategic parameters, then the "task list" takes care of itself.
By Jeff Arnold, MAM, CAE
At the end of the retreat, we feel energized, forward-thinking, ambitious. Brainstorming and banter coalesces into a brilliant 10-point plan for world domination. Then, life happens. We get back into operations and don't look at the strategic plan again until the next time we all head out for a planning retreat.
I've had this experience, but I've also seen a strategy session turn into a living, breathing systemic organizational focus that drove intention and created results. What made the difference? Simplicity.
Often strategic planning sessions look at EVERYTHING the organization does and goals are set in every area (after all, there's room for improvement in all areas, right?). The plan is a multiple page spreadsheet with goal 1, objective 1.1 and so on through goal 6, objective 6.25. The plan looks like a massive task list and none of the goals are given strategic priority. Such a deliverable is why plans get shelved.
The critical missing piece is focused priority given to those areas that are most MEANINGFUL. While there may well be six important things an organization does, all six are not equally important and equally effectively executed. (Imagine disaster struck and you could only choose 1 or 2 or 3 things the organization could keep doing. Which ones would you pick?)
The reality is people and organizations are only able to effectively focus on 3-4 or (preferably) fewer strategic priorities. If you apply the 80/20 Rule or Pareto Principle to your organization, you'll inevitably find a very short list of clients, markets and/or activities drive a disproportionate share of your organization's profitability. That's where you need to focus your time.
I don't believe in detailed tactical plans (goal 1, objective 1.1, etc.) in conjunction with strategic plans; I only believe in strategic focus documents, strategic thinking sessions and strategy reviews.
Strategic focus documents are simple, short statements listing the 1-3 strategic focus areas you identified as being the most meaningful in advancing your competitive advantage.
Strategic thinking sessions are continuous discussions about actions to take within the strategic focus areas, adjustments to the navigation or whole new courses to set based on new information or changes in the environment.
Strategic reviews are periodic checkups on what has been accomplished so far in advancing the strategic focus areas.
Instead of attempting to have staff implement a "task list" tactical plan developed by the leadership, embed strategy in organization-wide thinking and decision making.
People inherently know what to do (i.e., develop their own task lists) if they know what the parameters are for decision making based on the organization's strategic focus. Make the strategic focus areas the key agenda items of regular, not special, meetings. This makes strategy systemic, integrated in operations, not independent of them.
At its simplest, strategic planning is an exercise in answering some basic strategic questions that determine your differentiators:
1) Which?
2) Who?
3) How?
Which market, which product, which service? Who are we targeting? How will we set ourselves apart? How do we compete?
Simply use the answers to those questions to create the parameters, the "lenses" through which everyone in the organization sees it. If they make daily decisions that lead to specific actions based on these strategic parameters, then the "task list" takes care of itself.
By Jeff Arnold, MAM, CAE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
