Natural philosophers have recognized that humans make decisions based on sentiment and habit more than rationality. The irony is that sentiment and habit are both in a way more rational than rationality. Sentiment is a kind of pattern matching technique. We look at a situation in a holistic way and make a decision based on what kind of situation this seems to be. Habit is a kind of evolutionary approach to decision making. We chose options that have survived the test of time.
The irony is rooted in the fact that rationality is not just about pursuing the best decision, but pursuing it through analysis. Analysis is a dangerous technique in complex situations because it involves radically simplifying the problem. The danger is amplified because the solution to the simplified problem may be very clear and hence pursued with great conviction.
This is why it is so important we value humility and ambiguity and doubt. We must also place sentiment and habit as rational tools along with analysis. Recommending an approach that emphasizes the limits of our power to act in the world will never be as easy a sell as an approach that suggests we can determine the best solutions with a high degree of certainty. But then, we've long known the devil has the best tunes. Awareness that the devil has the best tunes is again a reminder of the virtues of humility, ambiguity and doubt.
jeudi 3 septembre 2009
mardi 9 juin 2009
Low Performers
"There is always a high turnover of generals in wartime. Some get replaced because they turn out to be no good at the job, but many others are changed because they have failed at a task that was beyond anybody's ability to accomplish.
They are fired, in other words, because the alternative would be to blame the person who gave them that impossible task.'
Historian Gwynne Dyer from his blog entry Afghanistan: Changing Generals in Midstream
In jobs where you have lots of people doing the same thing (e.g. in a call centre) it reasonably objective to compare one individual with another and rightly label someone a poor performer. However, when it comes to a unique project (like the Afghanistan civil war) one can really only judge someone against expectations. And if the expectations are wrong, whose fault is it: the employee or their boss?
It possible to argue that"poor performance" is always chiefly the boss's fault. Either they had unrealistic expectations, assigned the wrong person to the task or failed to provide them adequate support.
One doesn't want to run with that argument too far becuase it gets ridiculous, but it does remind us that in performance management the responsibility for an employee's success is very much shared between the boss and employee. We should be slow to stick the "poor performer" label on someone's head and instead seek out root causes for failure in the broader system of boss, peers and business processes.
Changing generals in Kabul is unlikely to help and often blaming someone for a performance problem won't help either, in fact placing blame can merely be an excuse not to look more closely at the underlying causes.
They are fired, in other words, because the alternative would be to blame the person who gave them that impossible task.'
Historian Gwynne Dyer from his blog entry Afghanistan: Changing Generals in Midstream
In jobs where you have lots of people doing the same thing (e.g. in a call centre) it reasonably objective to compare one individual with another and rightly label someone a poor performer. However, when it comes to a unique project (like the Afghanistan civil war) one can really only judge someone against expectations. And if the expectations are wrong, whose fault is it: the employee or their boss?
It possible to argue that"poor performance" is always chiefly the boss's fault. Either they had unrealistic expectations, assigned the wrong person to the task or failed to provide them adequate support.
One doesn't want to run with that argument too far becuase it gets ridiculous, but it does remind us that in performance management the responsibility for an employee's success is very much shared between the boss and employee. We should be slow to stick the "poor performer" label on someone's head and instead seek out root causes for failure in the broader system of boss, peers and business processes.
Changing generals in Kabul is unlikely to help and often blaming someone for a performance problem won't help either, in fact placing blame can merely be an excuse not to look more closely at the underlying causes.
dimanche 17 mai 2009
Language in Business
One of the most useful things I’ve ever learned came from David Maister. He said rather than asking “What is the right answer?” we should ask “What is helpful answer?” This simple substation of a word changes everything.
To illustrate Maister’s point, imagine a technical expert sure that the best solution is a certain technology. He rails against the stupidity of the committee which does not accept his advice and simply insists he is right and that’s that what matters (and yes, for the record he is ‘right’). But if someone is always “right”, but never has any impact on what happens then what is the point? If the expert were instead to say to himself “What would be helpful?” then suddenly it opens up a world of choices. Perhaps he should be guiding the group to a compromise or reframing the issue (which may change his own analysis on what is right), or managing their disappointment that the best decision requires them to pass on bad news to staff they care about.
There is little better development you can give to people with a strong technical background than to teach them to replace “right” with “helpful.”
In my own work on HR metrics I’ve found a key substitution is to replace the word “measure” with “assess”. Measurement is a narrow concept, too narrow for the world of business. If we ask “how can we assess the impact of the program” rather than “how can we measure the impact” then we immediately open up a much more helpful set of possibilities.
Henry Mintzberg didn’t suggest as neat a substitution, but he would like us to use the word “leader” less often and instead talk about community or citizenship . Leadership is not a bad word anymore than “right” or “measure” are bad words, however in American management the focus on leadership has distorted into a worship of the elite. The continued talk about leadership blinds us to the importance of the whole community of people who work together in an organization. Whenever you find your organization talking about leadership, try to balance that discussion with a talk about community.
The words we use do matter.
Mintzberg also warns against the misuse of words. When you call something “managed care” how can you possibly be against it? Any time there is a term that you can’t possibly be against then it doesn’t stimulate thoughtfulness. If you find your organization using language that by its nature stifles debate then you ought to challenge that language.
“Leadership sounds wonderful,” says Mintzberg, “but what people don’t realize is that every time you identify a leaders you are also identifying a whole bunch of followers. People might say leadership is about empowering people and engaging them but it isolates the individual. If you create a turnaround by virtue of a leader, then that turnaround may only be good for as long as that leader lasts. We make things dependent on individuals and then they are not sustainable.”
Kenny Moore suggests that instead of asking “How can we solve this problem?” we sometimes should be asking “How can we manage this predicament?” Problems are technical matters, they have a solution. Predicaments are the stuff of human systems, there are no real solutions only compromises, ambiguities and choices of lesser evils. Moore notes that early in his career his job required him to face problems which he solved, leaving him feeling pretty good at the end of the day. Later in his career he was more likely to face predicaments which have no final solution and even after he managed the situation he’d leave conflicted and in doubt. That is the reality of the human experience and we must learn to approach predicaments for what they are and that they demand humility and wisdom not brilliance.
Here are two other useful language substitutions:
• Don’t ask “How can we motivate employees” ask “How can we support employees”
• Instead of “How do we grow this business” ask “How do we create a sustainable business”
Jon Ingham notes the numbing effect of certain phrases. He says, “I'm not keen on certain phrases such as 'you can only manage what you measure', or 'ROI is the holy grail' which people tend to trot out without really thinking about what they're saying and if they really believe in this. HR has got to play a part in bringing a more people focused language into organisations.”
What got this post initiated was a conversation in Fitou with Leif Edvinsson. He pointed out that one term for “management” in Swedish is skötsel which has connotations of “care” and “tending”. Language is not everything, but someone who goes to work to “care for people” or “tend the operation” may well behave differently from some who shows up to work ready to “manage”.
So what does all this mean? Well, I expect marketing people to know all about the desires of customers. I expect accountants to know about the latest subtleties in accounting law. And I expect HR professionals to be sensitive to the role language plays in affecting organizational behaviour.
To illustrate Maister’s point, imagine a technical expert sure that the best solution is a certain technology. He rails against the stupidity of the committee which does not accept his advice and simply insists he is right and that’s that what matters (and yes, for the record he is ‘right’). But if someone is always “right”, but never has any impact on what happens then what is the point? If the expert were instead to say to himself “What would be helpful?” then suddenly it opens up a world of choices. Perhaps he should be guiding the group to a compromise or reframing the issue (which may change his own analysis on what is right), or managing their disappointment that the best decision requires them to pass on bad news to staff they care about.
There is little better development you can give to people with a strong technical background than to teach them to replace “right” with “helpful.”
In my own work on HR metrics I’ve found a key substitution is to replace the word “measure” with “assess”. Measurement is a narrow concept, too narrow for the world of business. If we ask “how can we assess the impact of the program” rather than “how can we measure the impact” then we immediately open up a much more helpful set of possibilities.
Henry Mintzberg didn’t suggest as neat a substitution, but he would like us to use the word “leader” less often and instead talk about community or citizenship . Leadership is not a bad word anymore than “right” or “measure” are bad words, however in American management the focus on leadership has distorted into a worship of the elite. The continued talk about leadership blinds us to the importance of the whole community of people who work together in an organization. Whenever you find your organization talking about leadership, try to balance that discussion with a talk about community.
The words we use do matter.
Mintzberg also warns against the misuse of words. When you call something “managed care” how can you possibly be against it? Any time there is a term that you can’t possibly be against then it doesn’t stimulate thoughtfulness. If you find your organization using language that by its nature stifles debate then you ought to challenge that language.
“Leadership sounds wonderful,” says Mintzberg, “but what people don’t realize is that every time you identify a leaders you are also identifying a whole bunch of followers. People might say leadership is about empowering people and engaging them but it isolates the individual. If you create a turnaround by virtue of a leader, then that turnaround may only be good for as long as that leader lasts. We make things dependent on individuals and then they are not sustainable.”
Kenny Moore suggests that instead of asking “How can we solve this problem?” we sometimes should be asking “How can we manage this predicament?” Problems are technical matters, they have a solution. Predicaments are the stuff of human systems, there are no real solutions only compromises, ambiguities and choices of lesser evils. Moore notes that early in his career his job required him to face problems which he solved, leaving him feeling pretty good at the end of the day. Later in his career he was more likely to face predicaments which have no final solution and even after he managed the situation he’d leave conflicted and in doubt. That is the reality of the human experience and we must learn to approach predicaments for what they are and that they demand humility and wisdom not brilliance.
Here are two other useful language substitutions:
• Don’t ask “How can we motivate employees” ask “How can we support employees”
• Instead of “How do we grow this business” ask “How do we create a sustainable business”
Jon Ingham notes the numbing effect of certain phrases. He says, “I'm not keen on certain phrases such as 'you can only manage what you measure', or 'ROI is the holy grail' which people tend to trot out without really thinking about what they're saying and if they really believe in this. HR has got to play a part in bringing a more people focused language into organisations.”
What got this post initiated was a conversation in Fitou with Leif Edvinsson. He pointed out that one term for “management” in Swedish is skötsel which has connotations of “care” and “tending”. Language is not everything, but someone who goes to work to “care for people” or “tend the operation” may well behave differently from some who shows up to work ready to “manage”.
So what does all this mean? Well, I expect marketing people to know all about the desires of customers. I expect accountants to know about the latest subtleties in accounting law. And I expect HR professionals to be sensitive to the role language plays in affecting organizational behaviour.
mercredi 26 novembre 2008
Spot the Crisis
Reports show the US economy shrank 0.5% in the 3rd quarter. This means if you were used to earning $10,000 / quarter now you would only have $9,950.
Why is this is a crisis?
It's because there is something fundamentally wrong with the type of fiat currency we use.
(see Bernard Lietaer's The Future of Money)
Why is this is a crisis?
It's because there is something fundamentally wrong with the type of fiat currency we use.
(see Bernard Lietaer's The Future of Money)
vendredi 21 novembre 2008
History Majors vs. MBAs
According to an article by Liar's Poker author Michael Lewis, it was Meredith Whitney who on October 31, 2007 recognized that "Citigroup had so mismanaged its affairs that it would need to slash its dividend or go bust." This insight "shaved $369 billion off the value of financial firms in the market."
Whitney is a history grad and this reminds us why we should hire more liberal arts grads and fewer engineers, accountants and MBAs.
People in professional disciplines are taught a small set of powerful analytical tools. They are exposed to many problems in their education, but only those problems that can attacked with those tools. As a result they end up with a very narrow world view and are easily fooled. Why is it that some economists think heroin addiction is a rational choice and trying to discourage it would make people worse off? (see the soon to be published Free Market Madness by Peter Ubel) It's because they've been so highly indoctrinated in a specific analytical method they've lost the ability to think.
Those educated in the humanities/liberal arts are taught to inquire deeply about the nature of very complex and ambiguous things. These are the people you need on your staff.
Now, I'm an MBA so I have seen the dark side (although I went to an MBA school where we learned more about telling jokes and putting hockey sticks across conveyor belts than about obscure financial theory). However, somewhere in my informal education I picked up a fair bit about the humanities as do many engineers, lawyers and perhaps even some accountants.
If you think the future will be uncertain, complex and ambiguous then you want to hire people who through their formal or informal education have been taught to understand such things.
Whitney is a history grad and this reminds us why we should hire more liberal arts grads and fewer engineers, accountants and MBAs.
People in professional disciplines are taught a small set of powerful analytical tools. They are exposed to many problems in their education, but only those problems that can attacked with those tools. As a result they end up with a very narrow world view and are easily fooled. Why is it that some economists think heroin addiction is a rational choice and trying to discourage it would make people worse off? (see the soon to be published Free Market Madness by Peter Ubel) It's because they've been so highly indoctrinated in a specific analytical method they've lost the ability to think.
Those educated in the humanities/liberal arts are taught to inquire deeply about the nature of very complex and ambiguous things. These are the people you need on your staff.
Now, I'm an MBA so I have seen the dark side (although I went to an MBA school where we learned more about telling jokes and putting hockey sticks across conveyor belts than about obscure financial theory). However, somewhere in my informal education I picked up a fair bit about the humanities as do many engineers, lawyers and perhaps even some accountants.
If you think the future will be uncertain, complex and ambiguous then you want to hire people who through their formal or informal education have been taught to understand such things.
mercredi 29 octobre 2008
Taylorization in US Hotels
US hotels are strange places. The staff say all the right things but somehow the service feels second rate—at least compared to Asia. You look into the eyes of US service staff and you don’t really see a person there.
Asia's different. I remember complimenting a staff member at the Ritz-Carleton in Kuala Lumpur and he said, “Well, we see ourselves as ladies and gentlemen, serving ladies and gentlemen.” The way he said it made it sound like it was something he thought up himself, not a corporate slogan. And this reflects a common experience in Asian hotels—staff who seem completely committed to delivering on the hotel’s values.
In the US service quality is mixed but even when the actual service is fine it feels wooden. Someone looks at you, smiles (thinking, “Ok, that was step 1, now step 2”) “Welcome to X hotel, how can I help you today?” If you have a complaint or problem they are nice but it sounds like they’re reading from a script—probably because they are.
There is this idea that smart people in headquarters can study a job and then tell lowly workers how to perform it. That was Fredrick Taylor idea for manufacturing and it has made its way into the service industry. The idea is not without some merit, but there is subtle distinction between providing training to bring out the best in people and trying to turn people into machines.
Starbucks provides the counter-example in the US (and abroad). In Starbucks you get trained staff who offer good service, but you feel like you are dealing with a human following their own volition, not someone following a program.
Taylorization is not the right approach for a society. HR leaders need to make the subtle shifts in training and reward systems so that we don’t turn people into robots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. In Europe it’s quite different. In European hotels the staff are your equals, not your servants. How you are treated depends on their mood and their opinion of you. This is not always a recipe for the best service but it is human through and through.
Asia's different. I remember complimenting a staff member at the Ritz-Carleton in Kuala Lumpur and he said, “Well, we see ourselves as ladies and gentlemen, serving ladies and gentlemen.” The way he said it made it sound like it was something he thought up himself, not a corporate slogan. And this reflects a common experience in Asian hotels—staff who seem completely committed to delivering on the hotel’s values.
In the US service quality is mixed but even when the actual service is fine it feels wooden. Someone looks at you, smiles (thinking, “Ok, that was step 1, now step 2”) “Welcome to X hotel, how can I help you today?” If you have a complaint or problem they are nice but it sounds like they’re reading from a script—probably because they are.
There is this idea that smart people in headquarters can study a job and then tell lowly workers how to perform it. That was Fredrick Taylor idea for manufacturing and it has made its way into the service industry. The idea is not without some merit, but there is subtle distinction between providing training to bring out the best in people and trying to turn people into machines.
Starbucks provides the counter-example in the US (and abroad). In Starbucks you get trained staff who offer good service, but you feel like you are dealing with a human following their own volition, not someone following a program.
Taylorization is not the right approach for a society. HR leaders need to make the subtle shifts in training and reward systems so that we don’t turn people into robots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. In Europe it’s quite different. In European hotels the staff are your equals, not your servants. How you are treated depends on their mood and their opinion of you. This is not always a recipe for the best service but it is human through and through.
mardi 16 septembre 2008
Naivety vs. Experience
We all like to hear stories about how an outsider was successful with an innovative idea and they claim "I was too naive to know my idea couldn't work - ha ha". These stories are common mainly because we like them, but also because they really do happen. Experienced people learn the accepted way of doing things and are hesitant to innovate, in particular they are hesitant to take on wild ideas that will probably fail. So there is value bringing outsiders into projects who can see possibilities experienced people dismiss--and which outsiders can pursue them without ruining an established reputation.
However, let's not be too quick to lionize the outsider. What I see more often than great out-of-the-box ideas is outsiders inventing a mundane approach that experienced people know won't have impact. An outsider is more likely to re-invent an old mediocre idea than a fresh excellent one.
The trick is drawing on the strengths of both insiders and outsiders. For example, getting the experienced people to kill ideas if they are mediocre already-in-the-box ideas and not toss out wild, improbably out-of-the-box ideas that might actually work.
However, let's not be too quick to lionize the outsider. What I see more often than great out-of-the-box ideas is outsiders inventing a mundane approach that experienced people know won't have impact. An outsider is more likely to re-invent an old mediocre idea than a fresh excellent one.
The trick is drawing on the strengths of both insiders and outsiders. For example, getting the experienced people to kill ideas if they are mediocre already-in-the-box ideas and not toss out wild, improbably out-of-the-box ideas that might actually work.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
