What we can learn from curling
March 3, 2010
Before you make snarky comments about the title of this post (and yes, I’ve thought of a half dozen myself), think about this quote from a recent Wall Street Journal article about why the US curling team failed to medal in the Olympics:
“We never really got on one path,” says Rick Patzke, the chief operating officer for USA Curling, who said there was never any cohesive plan in place to win and that the training ahead of these Games was essentially a write-off. “There wasn’t total buy-in,” he says. By the time the Olympics came around, Mr. Patzke adds, USA Curling was resigned to the fact that it was really preparing for 2014. “We started with Sochi and we worked backward,” he says.
If you read the rest of the article, you’ll see several patterns that are far from unique to the odd-ball world of curling:
- Increased Competition: Curling has enjoyed a worldwide increase in popularity. Countries who used to be non-factors have begun to invest in developing teams who can challenge the traditional powers for honors.
- Stagnation: The US used the same method to select and develop its team as it had in the past. It had paid results in the past, so leaders initially assumed the same old way would deliver similar or better results. Other countries used different methods and benefited.
- Desperation Plays: After realizing that they were behind, the US team invested heavily in trying to make the existing model successful. Ironically, they plowed more money and effort in than ever before, but the investment was too late. This team under this model couldn’t compete with the rising competition.
- Resignation: As the COO says above, the team realized it had little chance in Vancouver and had to cede their position as a leader to others.
Now, remove this storyline from curling and it almost perfectly describes the cycle that so many organizations – especially successful ones – endure. Unless an organization regularly steps back, examines what others – especially the upstarts – are doing differently, discerns the trends, and acts in time, they can miss an opportunity to achieve their vision. As master planner Tom Paterson says,
Discover the truth or it will bite you in the behind.
The silver lining for US Curling? They’re now focused on 2014 and have a renewed motivation to achieve their potential at that time. Falling short can do that to you – but even better if we can avoid those painful lessons with a little foresight.
Good fights
February 25, 2010
I got some interesting responses from my last post on handling irritants. It led me to think more about the inevitable fights we have on leadership teams.
We shouldn’t be surprised when leadership teams experience conflict. Whenever there are important issues and people with strong opinions, there will be fights. As Peter Drucker once said, “Not to have an opinion after having experience would argue for an unobservant eye and a sluggish mind.” Strategic discussions, policy deliberations, and even everyday operational trade-offs will often prompt friction and, shall we say, the open exchange of ideas.
The question is, what kind of fights does your leadership team have?
A recent HBR article on the topic got my juices going on this. And I humbly offer my simple grid to help prompt some thought on the conflicts you have in your leadership team. (Yes, this model works for domestic relationships too, but that’s my marriage therapist-wife’s department.)
(Click on the thumbnail to see a larger view!)
The message of the model is simple – we’re trying to manage two variables when picking fights: what we fight about and how we conduct ourselves before, during, and after the fight. If we can fight constructively about substantive things more often than not, we won’t do the things that leadership teams typically do – and we’ll waste less time, focus more energy on important things (like serving customers!), and maybe even enjoy work more.
So here’s the question: In your leadership team’s last planning cycle, how much time and energy was spent in each of these quadrants? What additional business value could you create next time by simply pushing more time and energy up and to the right? What can you personally do to influence that shift?
Worth pondering…
Handling Irritants
February 18, 2010
A while back, I was talking with an extraordinarily successful leader about his company. As often happens with astute leaders, the conversation eventually swung to the quality of his leadership team. He has been working hard to improve the prospects of his business despite the challenges in his market – and that includes both getting clear on strategy and raising the game for his team members.
At one point, he paused mid-sentence and blurted out something that obviously had been bugging him for a while:
I know how to keep my team moving toward our goals. But how do I handle the irritating things that my team members do on a regular basis?
That got me thinking, because let’s face it, we all get irritated plenty. Sometimes people have little quirks and mannerisms that bother us. Sometimes they hold views that irk us. And I’ll bet people would have the same thing to say about each of us as well. (In fact, this same leader went on to say, “You irritate me sometimes, Ted!” Tell me about it… get in line!)
So here are my thoughts on how to handle irritants so that they don’t get in the way of important strategic work (and anyone who has been with a leadership team when trying to discern strategic direction knows irritants can affect how well those exercises go):
- Hijack your own brain. When you find yourself irritated, ask yourself a question that gets you out of knee-jerk response mode. Something like, “What is important to that person right now?” works sometimes. Distract yourself with something more productive. Maybe even ask, “How am I contributing to this person being so irritating right now? What am I doing/not doing to reinforce this situation?”
- Ask yourself, “Is it worth it?” If you’re getting worked up, just check to be sure it’s worth it – or if you’re engaging in your own irritating habit of making a big deal about little things. This is also a great question to ask before commenting on the irritating behavior – either to the person directly or behind their backs.
- The “G” Word – As much as others irritate me (and believe me, they do), I know that I’m that irritating person for somebody too. (Maybe even two somebody’s!) A little grace – giving people more patience than they deserve – can go a long way when you’re in stressful times.
What do you do to get work done despite the irritants?
Goal Season – What do good goals look like?
February 10, 2010
A few weeks ago, with a new year upon us, a client asked me an intriguing question:
You spend your life helping people identify goals. What are the classic mistakes people make in goal-setting?
Spoiler alert: I’m not going to simply review the virtues of SMART goals in the remainder of this post. While having smart goals is definitely better than having stupid ones, I’m assuming most readers have been taught that handy acronym (though I’d love someone to give me the definitive answer of what the A stands for – I’ve seen at least half a dozen alternatives).
My client is right. I’ve spent nearly 20 years interviewing senior executives about their goals and priorities. I’m sure I’m well on my way to 1000 such interviews and I’ve seen leaders who have had a great grasp on their direction and others who – well, let’s just say some trains of thought never reach the station.
As you and your team set goals for 2010, here are a few characteristics of great goals I’ve seen over the years:
- SMART – OK, I lied. If you do nothing else, it’s not a bad idea to have goals that are Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic, and Time-bound. If your goals need to go to school to get smarter, that’s a good start.
- Connect to value: Too often, even when I talk with senior leaders, their goals have surprisingly few “so what’s” to them. I’m interested in the fact that you are going to implement that huge new technology system. But how will the successful achievement of that goal benefit customers, owners/shareholders, employees, and/or other key parties in your value network? This is particularly important for staff groups (IT, HR, Finance, Marketing) since their internal stakeholders are so often asking the question (perhaps out of your hearing), “Why are we spending that money on that project instead of X?”
- Make them few enough to promote focus: I know, you’re saying that’s basic. I with I had a buck for every executive I’ve met who has 6,7,8,9… goals. Every one of us thinks we are exceptional, but most human beings (and every organization I’ve known) can only focus on a very few things at a time. Think 3-5 maximum and I think your team members will give you a standing O. (OK, maybe not – but a little fantasy doesn’t hurt.)
- Give innovation and growth priority: Most team members intuitively know that long-term success depends on adjusting and trying new things. Yes, we need to take care of basics (especially in tough economic times), but I find that organizations need some sense of where the new life-blood is going to come from. Otherwise, people start to mutter Einstein’s “If we do the same thing expecting different results…” quote to themselves. That’s a sign they are losing belief in the long-term viability of the current operating philosophy. They’re looking for what will take the organization to the next level of growth and performance. Do your goals speak to that?
So that’s my starter on what makes a good set of goals. What would you add from your experience?
Goal Season – Are strategic plans dead?
February 2, 2010
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal argues that our current economic environment may have rendered strategic planning obsolete (subscribers can click here to read the whole article). As an Accenture partner is quoted saying,
Strategy as we knew it is dead.
Really?
Read a little deeper in the article. The leaders and consultants profiled didn’t stop scanning the environment and planning responses that would help them to succeed over the long haul. Instead, they changed a couple of key features in how they planned:
* They accelerated review cycles. Rather than quarterly or annual reviews, they moved to monthly reviews so that they could act quickly on changing scenarios.
* They considered more variables and different scenarios.
* They made decision-making more experimental and adaptive instead of making decisions all at once for the next five years.
If anything, these may be good planning disciplines, not concessions to a lousy economy. Leading thinkers in entrepreneurial planning have long advocated a more experimental approach to decision-making and planning since most entrepreneurial ventures deal with a lot of unknowns.
For instance, Rita McGrath and Ian MacMillan describe this approach to planning in their excellent book, Discovery-Driven Planning. Their basic premise is simple enough:
* Make plans knowing that you can’t possibly master all of the variables before moving to implementation.
* Identify and document assumptions behind your plans.
* Be sure that those assumptions (and especially the assumptions that will most dramatically impact your success) will be tested as early and as cheaply as possible as you move forward in your plan.
* Review progress and the validity of your assumptions at each milestone – and adjust, curtail, or harvest learning from plans that have failing assumptions.
Of course, as in most things, this process sounds simple but it’s not necessarily easy since it requires a whole new mind-set to pull it off. But it puts the lie to the notion that strategy is dead. Maybe it’s just getting more nimble.
When silence is NOT golden
January 27, 2010
Sometimes silence is golden – movie theaters, wilderness sunsets, and that moment when you stop in the middle of a ski run to enjoy the view.
Other times, not so much…
2009 was such a difficult year for so many organizations. We were all pushed to focus, prune, and make tough decisions – often to just stay in the game. Some thrived, but many organizations and leaders privately sighed with relief to hold steady, to avoid free-fall.
Don’t confuse this with feeling satisfied or successful – leaders are incurably goal-oriented and success-addicted. I think a lot of them look back at 2009 with ambivalence – relieved to still be standing but pretty grumpy about the absolute results.
That ambivalence can make it easy to ignore 2009, stick it in the file drawer (or the trash can), and move on. Here’s one reason that might not be the best idea.
Read more
Feedback Season
January 19, 2010
It’s that time of year again! In many organizations, January ushers in the time of year to provide formal feedback on the past year’s contribution. Most leaders (and most of their people) anticipate this exercise with all of the joy of a trip to the dentist. (Yes, there are a few people, like Bill Murray in Little Shop of Horrors, who savor “long, slow root canals,” but let’s not waste too much time on that tiny minority.)
Part of the pain people experience in the traditional feedback process comes from the hassle of writing up and collecting input from a person’s peer group. It’s time-consuming, written words are often misunderstood, and the whole exercise is timed poorly (after a holiday period and as a new year is just kicking off).Too often, people do it as an exercise and the poor folks in HR end up being the nags trying to get people to comply. Comply! We all know that feedback is one of the most powerful levers for improving our performance, but we drag our feet because the process is painful.
Most organizations rightly focus on both quantitative feedback (what you achieved) and qualitative feedback (how you achieved it). Assuming goals and metrics were identified early in the year, quantitative feedback is often easier. Qualitative feedback is where people most often burn time and generate frustration.
Over the past year, our team had the opportunity to trial a different way of providing this qualitative feedback for the leadership team at a progressive client. It went like this:
- Each person received peer feedback through a standard 360-degree feedback tool. (We used the widely-available Leadership Practices Inventory developed by Kouzes and Posner.)
- A coach briefly worked with each person to identify themes and select up to five developmental areas they wanted to improve in.
- We gathered the peer group together and gave each person 30 minutes (maximum) to get the group’s input. In that 30 minutes:
- The participant reviewed themes from the feedback.
- The participant nominated his or her five potential development areas.
- Group members suggested additions or changes to these developmental areas.
- Using anonymous electronic voting keypads, the group members rank ordered the developmental areas.
- The participant asked clarifying questions and decided – now with the real-time input of his or her team-mates – where to invest energy in development.
We saw significant benefits to this approach. Participants had the chance to receive in-person feedback and to gain clarity on what people really meant. The group got to provide their input quickly and without a lengthy writing assignment (precisely what most leaders like to do least). And the leader of the group got his feedback cycle completed in one sitting.
Granted, this is only one way to cut the cake, but it was seen as an important breakthrough for this client – significantly better quality of feedback for significantly less effort than the traditional method.
What have you done in your organizations to make feedback meaningful instead of just an exercise?
More Planning Games People Play
December 4, 2009
Of the time-wasting, energy-sucking games people play in planning, here is one that I find particularly aggravating. I call it “teeing up the boss.” It tees me off – and if you care about efficient planning , it should tee you off too. Here’s how it often plays out:As I meet with leaders prior to a session or conduct the planning session itself, a leadership team member approaches me surreptitiously with a really good idea. I’ll look across and say, “That’s a really good idea! When we convene with the group, why don’t you share it with everyone.”Right then, I see that look in the person’s eyes. “You don’t understand. It won’t work if it’s my idea. It needs to be the boss’ idea or it will never fly. We have to tee her up.”
How does this look to you?I can’t help looking incredulous at this point. ”You mean, we have to wander around this bush long enough that the nickel drops for the boss – and then we can move on?”You see, I’m usually on very tight timelines when working with leadership teams – they rightly have no patience for my wasting their time with an inefficient planning process. And some of them often have planes to catch at the end of the day… so this behavior drives me nuts.Why do we play this game? In too many groups, there is a subtle competition between members to see who is the smartest, most influential, most “strategic” or whatever. Don’t get me wrong, I think friendly competition in planning is important – it spurs everyone to get the best from their efforts. (For an interesting take on this, see Joni and Beyer’s recent article, How to Pick a Good Fight, in December’s Harvard Business Review).But when the competition isn’t about getting the best ideas but instead about besting others, it becomes personal. And when the one who constantly wants to best others happens to be the boss, get ready to waste some time as team members jockey, “plant seeds,” “position,” and otherwise try to indirectly influence the boss and the group.There are better ways to play:
- The boss can explicitly state that, while everyone on the team is capable (or wouldn’t be on the team anyway), no one has all of the answers – including her!
- The boss can find ways to make brain-storming as inclusive and democratic as possible. Good group process goes a long way here, with thoughtfully prepared open-end questions and the careful inclusion of all group members (especially the quieter ones). One excellent tool for drawing out ideas and getting them down to the best few is an anonymous, computer-aided voting system such as The Innovator system designed by my friend Michael Catello.
- The boss can go on a hunt to recognize and reinforce good ideas from all over the team (and the organization). This takes humility because it requires us to think that others really do have good ideas – and that our leadership position isn’t dependent on monopolizing the idea pool. It also takes real listening (not just being quiet until the other guy shuts up long enough for you to talk). And let’s face it, most leadership teams could stand a little more listening.
Of course, it doesn’t all hinge on the boss. Team members need to demonstrate courage as well, putting ideas out there even if they aren’t immediately accepted and – tactfully – confronting a boss when they’re unwittingly helping people play the “tee up the boss game.” If not, you just might wind of missing that plane – or worse yet, that great market opportunity.
(Planning) Games People Play
November 17, 2009
It’s planning season. And that signals the continuation of several age-old games that leaders and their teams play together. Unfortunately, these are the kinds of games where no one wins and very few have any fun (except for those twisted few – and you know who you are!). You can’t control everyone else, but if you want to avoid being the Dick Cheney of your particular hunting party, this series of posts is for you.While leadership teams have their own particular variety of games they play, I’ll start with one played by leaders much to everyone’s frustration. A friend of mine calls this game, “Bring Me A Rock.” Here’s how it goes:
- A leader asks his leadership team to work on creative ideas for the future. In essence, he says, “We need to build a house. So bring me a rock.”
- The leadership team diligently goes off and thinks about the future. They bring back their recommendations. ”Here’s our rock. What do you think?”
- The leader looks at the rock, maybe a little quizzically. He tells the team what’s wrong with it. ”This rock is grey. I don’t want a grey rock. I want a red one! Bring me another rock.”
- The team (slightly clearer and a tiny bit frustrated) returns to the rock-pile. They re-shape their ideas to more closely resemble what they think the leader wants. “OK, boss. here’s a RED rock.”
- The leader looks at this more-rosy rock, and scratches his head. “You guys aren’t getting it. This rock is rectangular. I want a round rock.”
Here we go again!!!
- The team (slightly clearer and now downright irritated) slogs back to the rock-pile once again. They try again, now spending more time trying to crawl inside the leader’s head than actually being creative. ”Um, here’s a round, red rock. Like that better?”
- The leader, getting a little snippy himself, places the rock on his desk next to the other discarded rocks. ”Let me slow this down for you. This rock isn’t shiny!”
- The team (confused and exasperated) throws the rock out the window. “Get your own #$%#^% rock!”
No leader I know wants to be that guy, but trust me, this game goes on all too often. Here’s the simple antidote: As a leader, provide boundaries for your teams when you challenge them to innovate.These boundaries shouldn’t be too narrow (bring me a shiny, red, round rock) or you may as well just go pick through the rock pile yourself. But the boundaries should describe the attributes of an idea you are willing to support (or conversely that you could never support). With that help, most leadership teams will create options that you might never create yourself and you’ll be able to adopt them.
The Ownership Principle
October 15, 2009
More than ever, leaders are quietly sharing a dilemma. It’s different for each of them, but often sounds something like this:
- We’re stuck.
- We’re in a malaise.
- We’re in a funk.
Yes, the recession is supposed to over. But the unraveling of the past 12-18 months has left many organizations feeling becalmed – and many leaders a little stumped. Intuitively, they know their organizations have to get going again – to regain momentum somehow – and they know that they will more than likely be catalysts. Events have simmered down enough so that some leaders are even gathering their closest colleagues to look a little further out and doing some planning.
It’s right here that these leaders reach a challenging cross-roads.It’s tempting to huddle with the few to get the right answer and then to roll it out to the many. If anything, the events of the last year reinforce this approach. Too many of us have spent too many hours huddled in rooms trying to deal with the crises that have come our way. Many of our solutions have (appropriately) included reducing costs. Many of those cost reductions (unfortunately but often appropriately) required reductions in staff. And most of those staff reduction conversations (appropriately) were done in confidential environments.
But now leaders are left with their trusted inner circle who have walked through this fire with them – and a remaining set of colleagues who probably feel a little on the outside and more than a little insecure about the future.
No wonder things feel a little stalled out…
Here’s a fundamental, proven principle we use in our work with clients:
Those who create things, own them.
The corollary, of course, is that those who own things help turn them into action and results. So when leaders want to increase ownership in their organization, they should look at how to enlarge the circle of those involved in creation.
Lest you think I’m advocating the lunatics running the asylum (as the cliche goes), I’m not. Instead, I’m simply suggesting that each of us looks around to see what we wish others would join us in – and then try to expand the circle of people involved in creating that new (plan, product, solution, structure, whatever!).
Leaders legitimately wrestle with reluctance about enlarging the circle – a subject for a future post – but enlarging the creative coalition just may start the starting point for getting the momentum rolling again.