Showing posts with label Consensus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Consensus. Show all posts

December 14, 2014

Reach Out To Lead

The New York Times today had an editorial called “Our Unrealistic Hopes for Presidents.”

In this piece, Brendan Nyhan lowers the bar on all leadership, and most importantly on the President of the United States. 

He advocates for us to “give up on the idea of a leader who will magically bring consensus and unity to our politics.”

While I agree that there is no “magic” in leadership or politics, it is precisely a leader's job to see to the vetting of ideas, compromise and consensus, and a way forward for the people, organization, and/or nation.

The leader, especially the president, establishes the vision, motivates and inspires, so that we are elevated from being focused on our own selfish motives  to being “One nation under G-d with liberty and justice for all.” (Pledge of Allegiance)

Or as JFK stated:

“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” 

This is the type of greatness that our leaders can raise us to and it defies race, party, or creed.

Certainly it wasn't easy for the founding fathers of this nation to come together and write the Constitution and Bill of Rights that is not geared to the right or left, but is just plain brilliant and correct!

Yes, this is precisely what leadership is--not blame, finger pointing, go it alone, or defeatism--and that is why NOT everyone is cut out for the “top job" and why we seek the the 1 in 311 million for the job!

Nyhan writes “At election time, candidates seduce us with promises to bring America together, but inevitably fall short and end up leaving office with the country more polarized than when they arrived.”

In plain English...this is called broken promises and failed leadership!

A leader, absolutely, must bridge the divide, create an overall unity, a sense of purpose, bring the commitment of the hearts and minds--whether to feed the hungry, land a man on the moon, or win the war whether against fascism or terrorism.

Nyhan states disparagingly about us that “The public and the news media still want someone…a uniting figure who works across the aisle to build support”—Uh YES, how else will we ever get anything big and meaningful really done?

He tells us to “stop asking who can achieve the unity,” that times have changed, and that instead we should accept the “norm of polarization,” conflict, and disharmony in our nation. 

Sure, there are times of urgency and crisis, when a leader must decide and act in lifesaving haste; however, in most usual cases, decisions and actions can come about by joining together rather than tearing asunder. 

No, we should never stop demanding great leadership--those who can overcome both the petty divides as well as the more substantial differences, to see through to a greater good, common purpose, and a better future for us all. 

We can’t do this as Nyhan proposes by giving up on working together, and trying to go it along, without anyone who thinks differently than us, and “govern well without their support.” 

In corporate America or politics, leadership by decree is known as dictatorship, and that is not what this democracy or for that matter real success is about. 

Whether in the boardroom or the Oval Office, we need to demand leadership that explains their point of view, listens to other perspectives, and is able to form compromise and win-win scenarios.

When one side feels ignored or that they've been worked around instead of with, then the result is sure to be bitterness and prolonged fighting to overturn the "my way or the highway" decision or to poke the other side right back in the eye when they have the chance. 

We don't need excuses, but strong leaders who know how to “work the room" or "reach across the aisle"-- to bring facts to the table, and sentiment to touch people’s hearts, to give clear vision to help us see “the bigger picture” of what can be done, if we only can act deliberately as one.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Niels Linneberg)
Share/Save/Bookmark

December 7, 2014

Everyone Participates

So very infrequently do suggestion boxes actually work. 

In the office, I remember when the suggestion box was put out and the biggest suggestion put into the box was to bring paper towels back to the bathrooms after these had been replaced months before with hand dryers, so the toilets wouldn't get clogged up!

Most of the time suggestions boxes like meetings don't get the participation and input needed. 

Today, in the New York Times, Phil Gilbert says that in the meeting room, "You've got the extrovert, the introvert, the know-it-all and the ambitious steamroller. No matter what the mix, there's always someone who dominates the discussion, and others who defer to that person out of frustration--or worse, complacency."

Truthfully, I think Gilbert misses the point--most people don't speak up not out of frustration or complacency--but rather from fear...fear of sounding stupid, fear of people disagreeing with them, and fear of management retribution for saying the"wrong" thing.

In any case, his reflection on how some at IBM deal with this is helpful (although frankly I've heard this approach before and it was from a strategic planning class I believe, and not from IBM):

- Everyone writes their input on sticky notes.

- You go around the room where everyone contributes an idea and posts their note to the wall or board (and you keep doing this until ideas are exhausted). 

- The facilitator groups like ideas/sticky notes to start to form common theme and direction. 

- The group may go out and come back again for another round of ideas and input.

The point is everyone contributes to the discussion...no idea is a bad idea...and not one in the room is left to sit idly in the corner playing with their smartphone, daydreaming, or picking their noses. 

Through vetting and discussion, the best idea(s) become evident. 

I like how Gilbert ends his article emphasizing the importance of getting everyone's ideas out there..."Once you know something, you can't unknow it--you have to act."

Knowing what everyone really thinks is half the battle. 

The other half is executing on the really great ideas that people come up with (Gilbert doesn't address this). 

And again for that you need EVERYONE to contribute their talents...big mouths, naysayers, and do nothings begone! ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

December 5, 2014

Paper Thin

I took this photo to show something "paper thin."

Did this after my daughter told me a quote she thought was pretty smart and which I immediately liked as well:

"No matter how thin you slice it, there will always be two sides."

- Jewish Philosopher, Baruch Spinoza

I think of the two sides in terms of peoples opinions.

And it's true, no matter how thin you cut the differences, there will always be at least two views about it--usually more! 

It doesn't make it easy to get to consensus, but I guess we all have to give a little. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal, excuse the glare)
Share/Save/Bookmark

March 30, 2014

Corporate Dictators Gone Wild

Interesting book review in the Wall Street Journal on Moments of Impact--corporate strategy meetings. 

The authors, Ertel and Solomon, see strategy meetings as critical for "to confront radical challenges" "cope with fast-changing threats", and confront competition.


It is an opportunity to:


- Look at the big picture, including industry trends.


- Hear different points of view from as broad array of perspectives as possible (instead of the usual "fences and silos" that prevail in corporate life).


- Decide to change ("Creative Adaptation") or to stay with tried and true strategies ("stick to their knitting").


The book reviewer, Adrian Woolridge, though has a much more skeptical view of these strategy sessions calling them "dull, unstructured time-sucks" and "more often than not, [they're] a huge waste of time":


Why?


- They produce "airy-fairy nonsense."


- Rather than abandoning the corporate hierarchy, the sessions anchor in "status hierarchy."


- Outside strategy "experts" brought in "are nothing more than cliche-mongers."


- The "games" are silly and non-impactful.


- Often rather than strategic conversations, we get "lazy consensus," where decisions are driven by senior managers with a bone to pick or a reorganization in mind.


What's the truth...as usual, somewhere in between these 2 states of idealism and cynicism.


We can choose to take planning seriously to bring people together to solve problems creatively and gain consensus and commitment or we can use strategy as bogus cheerleading sessions and to manipulate the sheep to do what the seniors already know they want.


If we really work as a team to press forward then we can accomplish great things through our diversity and strength, but if strategy is nothing but corporate dictators gone wild, then the cause is already lost to the competition.


(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

February 5, 2010

When Commitment is Just a Crowd-Pleaser

In the organization, you can’t really do anything without management commitment and a certain degree of consensus. In fact, management commitment is usually at the top of the list when it comes to a project’s critical success factors.

But when is commitment real and when is it just lip service?

Sometimes, when the boss tells you to do something, he means it and gives you the authority and resources to make it happen. Other times, “go do” is superficial and denotes more of a “this isn’t really important”, but we need to make a good show of it for political, compliance, or other reasons. In the latter case, there is usually no real authority implied or resources committed to getting the job done. But at least we gave it our best (not!).

As an employee, you have to be smart enough to know the difference in what you’re being asked to do (and not do), so you don’t end up stepping in the muck—trying to do something that no one really wants anyway or the opposite, not delivering on a project that others are depending on.

Knowing the difference between what’s real and what isn’t can mean the difference between a successful and rewarding career (i.e. “you get it”) or one that is disappointing and frustrating (because you’re sort of clueless).

It was interesting for me to read in the Wall Street Journal, 5 February 2010, about how looks can be deceiving when it comes to support for someone or some cause: apparently, in certain European countries, such as Ukraine, it is common place for rallies to be attended not by genuine supporters, but by people paid to show up. In other countries, you may not be paid to show up, but instead be punished for not doing so.

The Journal reports that “rent-a-crowd entrepreneurs find people fast to cheer or jeer for $4 an hour…[and] if you place an order for a rally, you can have it the next day.”

So what looks like thousands of people turning out to support someone or something is really just a sham. This is similar to leaders who turn out to support a program or project, but really they are just paying lip service with no intention of actually helping the project make an inch of progress. Their superficial support is paid for by goodwill generated by their apparent support or what one of my friends used to call by “brownie points” (for brown-nosing their boss or peers)—but of course, they aren’t really behind the initiative.

The article summarizes it this way: “For now, people see the same old politicians and hear the same old ideas. If someone fresh brings a new idea, people will come out and listen for free.”

Good leaders need to actually say what they mean and mean what they say, so employees are able to focus on the work that’s really important and get the results the organization needs. This contrasts with ineffectively telling employees to “go do”, but no one is standing with or behind them—not even for 4 dollars an hour.

Of course, leaders must get on board with the direction that the overall organization is going. That is just part of being a team player and accepting that first of all, we are not always right as individuals, and second of all that we live in an imperfect world where sometimes our choices are not ideal.

However, when employees are required to rally for causes they truly don’t believe in or leadership feels compelled to pay lip service to initiatives they will not ultimately fund or commit to, the result is a dysfunctional organization. The outward reality does not match the actual feelings or thoughts of its people. (Sort of like having a diversity initiative headed by all white males over the age of 50.)

Let us commit to a spirit of honesty in all our dealings. If a conflict needs to be addressed, let’s address it directly rather than avoiding or glossing over it. One very basic and simple step toward this end is to recognize and reward the people who are brave enough to say when the emperor has no clothes and who are able to provide alternatives that make sense.

And finally—when we do commit to something—let’s see it through.


Share/Save/Bookmark

September 24, 2009

Creating Win-Win and Enterprise Architecture

We are all familiar with conflict management and day-to-day negotiations in our everyday leadership role in our organizations, and the key to successful negotiation is creating win-win situations.

In the national bestseller, Getting to Yes, by Fisher and Ury, the authors call out the importance of everyday negotiation and proposes a new type of negotiation called "principled negotiation".


“Everyone negotiates something every day…negotiation is a basic means of getting what you want from others. It is a back-and-forth communciation designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed. More and more occasions require negotiation. Conflict is a growth industry…whether in business, government, or the family, people reach most decisions through negotiation.”


There are two standard ways to negotiate that involve trading off between getting what you want and getting along with people:


Soft—“the soft negotiator wants to avoid personal conflict and so makes concessions readily in order to reach agreement. He wants an amicable resolution yet he often ends up exploited and feeling bitter.”


Hard—“the hard negotiator sees any situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes more extreme positions and holds out londer fares better. He want to win yet he often ends up producing an equally hard response which exhausts him and his resources and harms his relationship with the other side.”


The third way to negotiate, developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project, is Principled Negotiation.


Principled Negotiation—“neither hard nor soft, but rather both hard and soft…decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process…you look for mutual gains wherever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the results be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side.”


In principled negotiation, the method is based on the following:

  1. People—participants are not friends and not adversaries, but rather problem solvers
  2. Goal—the goal is not agreement or victory, but rather a “wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably”
  3. Stance—your stance is “soft on the people, hard on the problem”
  4. Pressure—you don’t yield or apply pressure, but rather “reason and be open to reasons”
  5. Position—you don’t change your position easily or dig in, but rather you “focus on interests, not positions”
  6. Solution—the optimal solution is win-win; you develop “options for mutual gain”

In User-centric EA, there are many situations that involve negotiation, and using principled negotiation to develop win-win solutions for the participants is critical for developing wise solutions and sustaining important personal relationships.

  • Building and maintaining the EA—first of all, just getting people to participate in the process of sharing information to build and maintain an EA involves negotiation. In fact, the most frequent question from those asked to participate is “what’s in it for me?” So enterprise architects must negotiate with stakeholders to share information and participate and take ownership in the EA initiative.
  • Sound IT governance—second, IT governance, involves negotiating with program sponsors on business and technical alignment and compliance issues. Program sponsors and project managers may perceive enterprise architects as gatekeepers and your review board and submission forms or checklists as a hindrance or obstacle rather than as a true value-add, so negotiation is critical with these program/project managers to enlist their support and participation in the review, recommendation, and decision process and follow-up on relevant findings and recommendations from the governance board.
  • Robust IT planning—third, developing an IT plan involves negotiation with business and technical partners to develop vision, mission, goals, objectives, initiatives, milestones, and measures. Everyone has a stake in the plan and negotiating the plan elements and building consensus is a delicate process.
In negotiating for these important EA deliverables, it’s critical to keep in mind and balance the people and the problem. Winning the points and alienating the people is not a successful long-term strategy. Similarly, keeping your associates as friends and conceding on the issues, will not get the job done. You must develop win-win solutions that solve the issues and which participants feel are objective, fair, and equitable. Therefore, using principled negotiation, being soft on people and hard on the problem is the way to go.

Share/Save/Bookmark

September 4, 2007

Groupthink and Enterprise Architecture

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating [alternate] ideas. A variety of motives for groupthink exist, such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions. (Adapted from Wikipedia)

Why is the concept of groupthink important?

If the enterprise allows conditions to flourish where groupthink tends to occur, then poor decision are made and these decisions may have disastrous consequences for the organization. Some examples of this are the following:

- Space Shuttle Challenger exploded because of the faulty o-rings, which engineers discovered prior to launch.

- The Bay of Pigs Invasion, which was a flawed plan, but which Kennedy’s advisors remained mum about.

Social psychologist Clark McCauley's identifies three conditions, under which groupthink tends to occur:

  • Directive leadership
  • Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology
  • Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis

User-centric EA can be a valuable tool for thwarting groupthink and improving decision making in the organization in the following ways:

  • Consensus-driven: User-centric EA is consensus driven, not directive. Input from subject matter experts is not only desired, but also is required and strongly encouraged at all phases. While the chief architect does provide structure and direction, the architecture must reflect the expertise of the business and technical experts. Thus, the architecture, plans, and governance for the enterprise are driven by accord and not any autocratic process.
  • Diversity: EA is a diverse discipline, which by definition spans multiple business and technical domains. EA is an example to the organization of how variety of thought and expertise, as well as individual and cultural diversity is valued and necessary for the organization to grow and mature.
  • Idea-friendly: EA looks at both internal and external factors affecting the organization. These are inputs to the EA process, which integrates and assimilates the information, analyzes and catalogues it, and serves it up as information products and governance services to the end-users. EA is a prime source for bringing in external inputs, best practices, and innovations and using this to drive the plans for the enterprise. This is especially relevant in terms of identifying new technology products and standards, new IT systems, and new and improved business processes.

EA is the antithesis of groupthink and should spark creativity and “next generation” thinking in the organization. In User-centric EA, there are no stupid questions—it’s only stupid not to ask, not to challenge the status quo, and not to raise viable alternatives.


Share/Save/Bookmark