Innovation Made Easy

Innovation is not something that can be mandated to succeed like a quota system, but rather it needs to be nourished with collaboration, motivation, and giving people the organizational freedom to try new things. 

While many organizations have played with the idea of giving employees "tinkering time"--from a few hours a week to 20% of their time--to explore their creativity and work on new ideas, according to the Wall Street Journal (18 January 2013), "it rarely works" or pays off.  

The reason--most employees have "enough to do already" and most tinkerers are free thinkers and amateur experimenters--and "they aren't the kinds of employees most big companies like adding to the payroll in the first place."

The WSJ suggests "better ways to spark innovation" through:

- External partnerships that can "inject the verve of a promising startup into a big company."

- Public-private partnerships that can leverage government-funded research and development. 

- Providing a profit motive for tinkerers to be successful by allowing them "to profit more from their innovations." For example, tinkerers may "own the rights to anything they develop," while the company retains "the right of first refusal to invest" in it. 

Harvard Business Review (15 January 2013) has a compact guide on "Nine Rules for Stifling Innovation" by Rosabeth Moss Kanter. 

These are the absolute don'ts when it comes to innovation:

1) "Be suspicious" of--or I would say competitive with--"any new idea from below"; everyone in the organization can have good ideas, not just the wise owls at the top!

2) "Invoke history"--such as we tried that already and it didn't work or do you think you're the first person to think of that? Just because something didn't work previously under one set of circumstances, doesn't mean the idea is doomed forever--timing may be everything. 

3) "Keep people really busy"--I would call that "make work"--where we treat people so that if they have time and effort to question the status quo, then they have too much free time on their hands. Or as was written by the Nazis on the sign at the entrance to the infamous Auschwitz concentration camp: "Arbeit Macht Frei"--[brutal harsh enslaving] work will set you free.

4)  "Encourage cut-throat competition"--organizational innovation is not about critiquing others to death or creating win-lose scenarios among your staff, but rather about sharing ideas, refining them, and collaborating to make something great from the combined talents and skills of the team. 

5) "Stress predictability"--innovation while encouraged with best practices is not something you predict like the weather, but rather is based on trial and error--lot's of effort--patience, and even a measure of good luck.

6) "Confine discussion...to a small circle of trusted advisors"--I would say that strategy is top-down and bottom-up--everyone can provide valuable input. Almost like agile development, strategy gets refined as more information becomes available. 

7) "Punish failures"--while we generally celebrate success (and not failure), we must still give people an opportunity to fail and learn. That doesn't mean incompetence or laziness is given a free pass, but rather that hard work based on good common sense is acknowledged and rewarded.

8) "Blame problems"--while the blame game can just make heads spin or fall, it is far better to hold people accountable in a fair and unbiased way and coach, counsel, mentor, and train professional learning and growth. 

9) Be arrogant--we all started somewhere--I served frozen yogurt in a health food store as a teen...we all go through the cycle of life--and everyone has their time. 

I would add a tenth, don't...

10) Mistreat your greatest asset, your people--Treat people, as you would want to be treated: listen, at least, twice as much as you speak, empathize with others, and try to treat people ethically and with heart. 

So can innovation really be made easy? 

It's never easy to do something new, we all have to crawl before we can walk--but we can foster an organizational environment that promotes innovation, sharing, collaboration, transparency, and teamwork rather than one based on fear, bullying, intimidation, and punishment. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal with attribution of the beautiful "Dream" art to Romero Britto)

Innovation Made Easy

When All Is Not Green

It's tough to get the truth from people in the organization as to how things are really going.

Are their programs successful or not, is everything okay on their staff, will they--without fudging the numbers--meet their performance goals and targets (if they have any), and so on. 

People are afraid if they made a mistake or something isn't working as intended that they will be in trouble.  

Maybe they will be yelled at, lose authority and power, be sidelined, demoted, or even fired; and their organizations may be downsized, outsourced, consolidated with another, or outright eliminated. 

So people hide the facts and the truth--as if, what they don't know, can't harm me.

So everything appears copasetic in organization-land!

But the truth is we need a solid guidepost to know where we are going, which paths are safe, and which are fraught with danger--and that is anchored in open and honest communication. 

There is a great story about this in Bloomberg BusinessWeek (15 November 2012) about how in 2006, when ex-Boeing executive, Alan Mulally took over as CEO of Ford--and Ford was bleeding red ink, facing their largest loss for automobiles in history of $17 billion, that at the executive Thursday morning meetings, the performance scorecard for their initiatives "was a sea of green."

Here the company is bordering on financial collapse, but the executives are reporting--all clear!

The story goes that Mark Fields, head of Ford's North American business stepped up and showed the first red revealing a problem with a problem tailgate latch on their new Edge SVU that would halt production. 

With the room filled with tension, Alan Mulally rather than get mad and castigate or punish the executive, what did he do--he clapped!

Mulally said: "Great visibility. Is there anything we can do to help you?"

And what ultimately happened to Mark Fields, the executive who told the truth about problems in his area of responsibility?  

Last month, "Ford's board elevated him to chief operating officer," which analysts read as a sign that he will be the next CEO when Mulally is supposed to retire at the end of 2014.

The bottom line is that we cannot fix problems if we can't identify them and face up to them with our people. 

While we need good data and sound analysis to identify problems in the organization, problems will remain illusive without the trust, candor, and teamwork to ultimately come to terms with them and solve them.

I love this story about Ford and think it is a model for us in leadership, communication, and performance management. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

When All Is Not Green

Dealing With Change Resistance

In leadership class, I learned that in performance management, there are two major types of issues--conduct and performance. 

In conduct issues--people willfully do not follow the rules of the workplace. Conduct issues are those of "won't."

However, with performance problems--people cannot meet the expectations for quantity and/or quality. Performance problems are issues of "can't."

On Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, I wonder whether these same types of performance management issues apply to our lives as human beings and as children of G-d.

- Some people just won't do the right thing, instead willfully choosing to lie, cheat, steal, and mistreat others. They prefer the monetary or egotistical rewards of doing the wrong thing over the spiritual and relationship hardships and challenges to do the right thing.

- Other people can't do the right thing--they are too scarred by hurt, abandonment, loneliness, being told they are not good enough and can't compete, and so on. For these people, sometimes, no matter how hard they try, they feel that they cannot meet expectations.

Of course, willfully doing something wrong is worse than not being able to do something right. 

That is why for the first type of people--those with conduct problems--there is disciplinary action.

For the second type of people--those who have performance issues--we recognize their commitment and try to help them through things like coaching, mentoring, training, and counseling.

Performance issues may be linked to change resistance to change--and there are 3 dimensions of this:

1) Cognitive--"I don't get it"--the person doesn't fully understand and therefore agree with the rules. 

2) Emotional--"I don't like it"--a person emotionally rejects the rules of change, because they are afraid of the loss it will cause to them, personally and/or professionally.

3) Interpersonal--"I don't like you"--when people are not resisting an idea, but rather they are resisting you, personally. 

Great leadership is the ability to sense when any of these dimensions are off and help to course-correct them: 

- When people don't get it--we can inform, create awareness, and educate.

- When they don't like it--we can listen to them and show empathy, get them involved in the process, and maybe show them the "what's in it for me" (WIIFM).

- And when they don't like you (the most difficult one)--we can try to win people over by taking responsibility for the things we have done wrong, demonstrating over time that we are trustworthy, spending time together to better get to know each other and build the relationship, and maybe even give in on some issues, where appropriate.

Like on Rosh Hashanah, where we seek G-d's mercy on us and ask that he work with us, so too, we can learn to work with others to try and help them, where possible.  

(Source Photo: Minna Blumenthal)

Dealing With Change Resistance

Words Have Meaning

Recently, I heard a very smart mentor tell a crowd that "words have meaning."

The context was that even in relation to giving criticism, it is important to be constructive, and not destructive to those receiving it. 

Some are not good at giving criticism and others can be downright sadistic--humiliating, embarrassing, marginalizing, verbally abusing, and even throwing things. 

Words can really hurt people, and the kids song about "stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me"--is just not true for children or adults. 

From a work perspective, I relate this to what I learned earlier in my life about being not only balanced with people and their performance, but also seeing the whole human being--listening to them and being empathetic. 

In performance terms, it's as important to say what people are doing well, as well as to point out areas where their is room for improvement--and yes, it's hard to admit it, but no one of us is perfect, and at the same time, no one really likes to be criticized. 

So it takes a special talent, but one that can be learned--if you have an open mind--to have a heart-to-heart with others, and show that you are not just criticizing to be an S.O.B., but that you genuinely accept the person for who they are, and want to help them learn and grow--and do even better in the future. 

We all have strengths and weakness, and with kindness, we can help others to rise above their limitations and break new barriers in their lives. 

I came across a different example of where words have meaning in terms of people looking for opportunity. 

I heard a story about this person who when asked why they should get a job, responded because they are a "good person."

Word do have meaning and we don't give opportunities to people because they like the person they are, but rather because they have "earned it" professionally--life is competitive and opportunities are not just handed out. 

One more example of how words have meaning, happened when I heard one lady ask another what her son was doing for the summer (given all the unemployment). The other lady replied, "oh, he's busy--sleeping and eating."

Ouch. Yes, times are tough out there, but to hear the mother say it--in that way--about her own child, just sounded perhaps a little harsh and judgmental, but who really knows their particular circumstance. 

Words have meaning--they can bring lovers together, hurt those you love the most, damage reputations, destroy lives, and tear nations apart or bring unity to them and determination to their cause. 

Watching what we say and how we say it--is important for us in growing as decent and thoughtful human beings and in becoming good leaders--in both, we have to have heart and treat others well in both word and deed. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Words Have Meaning

Big and Small--Who's Who?

Yesterday, I go into a store with my daughter to shop for a new iPhone case.

A clean-cut kid--maybe 13 years old--comes out from behind the counter and asks me what I'm looking for.

I chat with the boy for a few minutes about their products and the prices of the various items--and I was genuinely impressed with this kid's "business savvy."

Sort of suddenly, a larger man emerges, whom I assume to be the boy's father.

Making conversation and being friendly, I say to the man, "Your son is a very good salesman."

The father responds surprisingly, and says, "Not really, he hasn't sold you anything yet!"

Almost as abruptly, he turns and stumps away back behind the counter.

I look back over at the kid now, and he is clearly embarrassed, but more than that his spirit seems broken, and he too disappears behind the counter.

My daughter and I look at each other--shocked and upset by the whole scene--this was a lesson not only in parenting gone wrong, but also in really poor human relations and emotional intelligence.

As a parents, teachers, and supervisors, we are are in unique positions to coach, mentor, encourage, and motivate others to succeed.

Alternatively, we can criticize, humiliate, and discourage others, so that they feel small and perhaps as if they can never do anything right.

Yes, there is a time and place for everything including constructive criticism--and yes, it's important to be genuine and let people know when they are doing well and when we believe they can do better.

I think the key is both what our motivations are and how we approach the situation--do we listen to others, try and understand their perspectives, and offer up constructive suggestions in a way that they can heard or are we just trying to make a point--that we are the bosses, we are right, and it'll be our way or the highway.

I remember a kid's movie my daughters used to watch called Matilda and the mean adult says to Matilda in this scary way: "I'm big and your small. I'm smart and your dumb"--clearly, this is intimidating, harmful, and not well-meaning.

Later in the day, in going over the events with my daughter, she half-jokingly says, "Well maybe the kid could've actually sold something, if they lowered the prices" :-)

We both laughed knowing that neither the prices nor the products themselves can make up for the way people are treated--when they are torn down, rather than built up--the results are bad for business, but more important they are damaging to people.

We didn't end up buying anything that day, but we both came away with a valuable life lesson about valuing human beings and encouraging and helping them to be more--not think of themselves as losers or failures--even a small boy knows this.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Allen Ang, and these are not the people in the blog story.)

Big and Small--Who's Who?

Making Change Probable

An article this week in the Wall Street Journal (15 May 2012) called us "a nation of whiners."

The national insult aside, what was more important was that the author lamented that whining doesn't help, but problem-solving does!

According to the article, whiners can be treated therapeutically by:

1) Mirroring--letting people see/hear themselves in this state of learned helplessness.

2) Challenging--confronting whiners and asking them what they are going to do about their situation.

3) Encouraging--providing positive reinforcement when people make positive steps to taking control of their lives. 

Similarly, there are those who get stuck in a sort of professional rut, complaining about the status quo, but they have trouble working incrementally to try and change things.

A strong leader can help their people move on from the status quo, applying the therapeutic techniques above, but also by doing the following:

1) Inquire--talk with your people and find out what they think is working, isn't, and how things can be improved.

2) Envision--together, set a vision for a better future that addresses people's genuine concerns in the aggregate.

3) Empower--delegate specific actions so everyone can be a part of the solution; give them the authority along with the responsibility to make change possible.

4) Observe--monitor progress and review whether the changes being made are having a positive impact and where adjustments in strategy need to be made.

These are really fundamental leadership skills, but applied to people who are feel helpless, hopeless, or are just plain resistant to change, the key is how we exemplify forward momentum and help others feel they too can make a genuine difference. 

Bad situations are generally not life sentences, if we can but imagine positive change, break it down into incremental steps, and then put one foot in front of the other, and we are on our way. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Rifqi Dahlgren)

Making Change Probable

Goldman Sachs Reputation Sacked?

When Greg Smith published his editorial in the New York Times (14 March 2012) on the alleged debased culture and greedy exploits at Goldman Sachs, this was far from surprising after the many misdeeds of Corporate America over the last decade that saw the rise of Sarbanes Oxley in 2002 and the massive financial bailouts in 2008, which does not represent who we really are and can be. 

It's not that Corporate America is bad, it's just that they frequently get rewarded for doing the wrong things. 

All too often, promotions, corner offices, year-end bonuses, and stock options are the rewards for racking in profits, but are not necessarily tied to innovation and/or customer satisfaction.

I believe over the years this has taken many word forms from snake oil salesman, charlatans, spoilers, and many others.
Greg Smith who worked for a dozen years at Goldman--in of all things "recruiting and mentoring"--described the venerable Goldman Sachs as a place where:

- "Interest of clients continue to be sidelined" 

- "Decline in the firm's moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to it's long-term survival."

- If you make enough money for the firm...you will be promoted."

- At sales meetings, "not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients." 

- Leaders callously "talk about ripping off clients" and call their clients "muppets," a British slang terms for "idiots."

The funny-sad thing is that after all these horrific accusations, Goldman has not come out and full-on-full repudiated these claims. 

On March 15, the Wall Street Journal reported "Goldman Plays Damage Control" saying that "it will examine the claims."  

Rather than denying the accusations in specific ways and pointing out their true moral fiber, the Chairman in a memo to employees chose to downplay the accuser calling him only one "of nearly 12,000 vice presidents" of 30,000 employees. In other words, this is just the opinion of a lone wolf. 

More generally, the Chairman wrote coyly that this does "not reflect our values, our culture, and how the vast majority of people at Goldman Sachs think of the firm and the work it does on behalf of our clients."

In another article, in Bloomberg BusinessWeek (19-25 March 2012), it states similarly that "Goldman Sachs would have you believe it's learned from the financial crisis. Don't be fooled."

The article goes on to list a scathing history of scandal from Goldman Sachs Trading Corporation that "blew up" after the stock market crash of 1929 to Goldman's settlement with the SEC for a whopping $550 million in 2010. Further, it describes a current conflict of interest case with El Paso and Kinder Morgan that they call a Goldman "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose approach."

While I have always respected the likes of Goldman Sachs for their unbelievable brainpower and talent, the accusations against them and by extension against others in Corporate America is very concerning.  

The notion that customers are but idiots for Corporate America to pillage and plunder is not democracy and capitalism, but greed and evil.  

When we no longer value a creed of service above pure profiteering then moral bankruptcy is just a prelude to financial bankruptcy. 

No company can stay afloat and be competitive over time, if they do not work to strengthen their balance sheets, income statements, and cash flows.

However, at the same time, no competitor can thrive for long on a culture of greed and duplicity that sees people as victims to spoil, rather than as customers to serve.

While I do not know the details of Greg Smith's accusations, this last part I know in my heart to be truth. 

(Source Photo: here)

Goldman Sachs Reputation Sacked?

If We All Just Pay It Forward

Pretty much everyone knows the Ripple Effect when it comes to a pond of water, but we don't think of this principle as much when it comes to how we treat people.
With water, when you drop, say a rock, into a pond, the water ripples outward in waves extending seemingly endlessly beyond the original point of impact in the water.
Similarly, with people, the way you treat someone, impacts them and others way beyond the original act of kindness or meanness.
I was reminded of this the other day by a colleague who told me about workers she knows that are so mistreated and they themselves suffer not only emotionally, but also in terms of health effects and so on. But more than that she told me, how when these people go home at night from work, it affects their relationships with their spouses who they fight with, with their children who they act abusively to, and even to their pets, as the old saying goes about going home and "kicking the dog."
But like the waves in the Ripple Effect, it doesn't end there, because then the spouse perhaps goes out and abuses drugs or alcohol, the kids get in a fight in school, and the dog goes and bites the neighbor, and so on.
While this is not a new concept, I think it's something we don't always have in mind when we interact with others, at work or otherwise.
We get so caught up in the moment, of whose right and wrong, of our own ambitions and honor, of the use and abuse of power, and so forth that we act out on others without listening to them, really empathizing with them, or generally giving a hoot what affect our actions have on them and those around them.
Too many people act like it's the old paleolithic "us versus them" world, and in that world, where only one person walks away from a confrontation, people make sure that it is them and not the other guy.
But we are not cavemen any longer, and while there is nothing wrong with a little competition or managing a fair performance management system, we need to do it with a kind heart to others, being constructive, making sure others are really okay, and generally with respect and gratitude.
Nobody is perfect--not our staffs and not us, and the way we treat them may not seem all that important in the realm of the mission and our success, but it really is incredibly important because feeding people with good comes back many times over in terms of their loyalty, hard work, improved performance and how they in turn treat others.
Please don't think that I am lecturing from a soap box, but I really see this as a struggle, especially for people in the workplace, where politics and power play an important role every day.
(Source Photo: here by Sergiu Bacioiu)

If We All Just Pay It Forward

Where The Biggest Nuts Rise To The Top

According to an article in Mental Floss (November/December 2011) engineers at the Advanced Dynamics Laboratory in Australia in 1996 researched how to mitigate The Muesli Effect, which describes the paradox of how, for example, cereral in boxes tend to separate with the smaller stuff lingering on the bottom and the large chunks rising to the top. This is the opposite of what you'd expect in terms of the larger, heavier pieices falling to the bottom--but they don't.

This is also known as The Brazil Nuts Effect, because the largest nuts (the Brazil Nuts) can rise to the top. While in physics, this may be good, in leadership it is not.

With leadership, the Muesli Effect can led to situations where cut-throat, unethical, workplace operators push their way to the top, on the backs of the masses of hardworking individuals. Unfortunately, these workplace "bullies," may stop at nothing to get ahead, whether it means manipulating the system through nepotism, favoritism, outright descrimination, or political shinanigans. They may lie, steal, kiss up, or kick down shamelessly disparaging and marginalizing coworkers and staff--solidying their position and personal gain, which unfortunately comes at expense of the organization and it's true mission.

Some really do deserve their fortune by being smarter, more talented, innovative, or hardworking. In other cases, you have those who take unjustifiably and ridiculously disproportionately at the expense of the others (hence the type of movements such as 99% or Occupy currently underway). This corruption of leadership begs the question who have they "brown-nosed," what various schemes (Ponzi or otherwise) have they been running, how many workers have they exploited, suppliers squeezed, partners shafted, and customers and investors have they taken advantage of.

Countless such ingenious leaders (both corporate and individual) rise by being the organizations false prophets" and taking advantage of the "little guy"--some examples whether from Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth, Tyco, MF Global, and Bernie Madoff are just a few that come to mind. These and other examples can be found as well in government, non-profit, as well as educational institutions.

Interestingly, the Museli Effect occurs when you shake a box vertically. However, if you rock it side-to-side, then you reverse the effect and larger and heavier pieces of chaff fall to the bottom letting the precious kernels rise to the top.

This is similar to organizations, where if you focus on working horizontally across your organization and marketplace--on who you serve, your partners, suppliers, investors, and customers in terms of breaking down barriers, building bridges, and solving customer problems--then the real gems of leadership have the opportunity to shine and rise.

In the age of social networking, information sharing, collaboration, and transparency, the reverse Muesli Effect can help organizations succeed. It is time to stop promoting those leaders who build empires by shaking the organization up and down in silos that are self-serving, and instead move to rewarding those that break down stovepipes to solve problems and add real value.

(Source Photo: here)

Where The Biggest Nuts Rise To The Top

Can't Live With Them, Can't Live Without Them

I remember years ago, my father used to joke about my mother (who occasionally got on his nerves :-): "you can't live with them, and you can't live without them."

Following the frequently dismal state of IT project performance generally, I'm beginning to think that way about technology projects.

On one hand, technology represents innovation, automation, and the latest advances in engineering and science--and we cannot live without it--it is our future!

On the other hand, the continuing poor track record of IT project delivery is such that we cannot live with it--they are often highly risky and costly:

• In 2009, the Standish Group reported that 68% of IT projects were failing or seriously challenged--over schedule, behind budget, and not meeting customer requirements.


• Most recently, according to Harvard Business Review (September 2011), IT projects are again highlighted as "riskier than you think." Despite efforts to rein in IT projects, "New research shows surprisingly high numbers of out-of-control tech projects--ones that can sink entire companies and careers."


• Numerous high profile companies with such deeply problematic IT projects are mentioned, including: Levi Strauss, Hershey's, Kmart, Airbus, and more.


• The study found that "Fully one in six of the projects we studied [1,471 were examined] was a black swan, with a cost overrun of 200% on average, and a schedule overrun of almost 70%."


• In other words there is a "fat tail" to IT project failure. "It's not that they're particularly prone to high cost overruns on average...[rather] an unusually large proportion of them incur massive overages--that is, there are a disproportionate number of black swans."


• Unfortunately, as the authors state: "these numbers seems comfortably improbable, but...they apply with uncomfortable frequency."

In recent years, the discipline of project management and the technique of earned value management have been in vogue to better manage and control runaway IT projects.
At the federal government level, implementation of such tools as the Federal IT Dashboard for transparency and TechStats for ensuring accountability have course-corrected or terminated more than $3 billion in underperforming IT projects.
Technology projects, as R&D endeavors, come with inherent risk. Yet even if the technical aspect is successful, the human factors are likely to get in the way. In fact, they may be the ultimate IT "project killers"--organizational politics, technology adoption, change management, knowledge management, etc.

Going forward, I see the solution as two-pronged:

• On the one hand we must focus on enhancing pure project management, performance measurement, architecture and governance, and so on.


• At the same time, we also need to add more emphasis on people (our human capital)--ensuring that everyone is fully trained, motivated, empowered and has ownership. This is challenging considering that our people are very much at a breaking point with all the work-related stress they are facing.

These days organizations face numerous challenges that can be daunting. These range from the rapid pace of change, the cutthroat global competition at our doorsteps, a failing education system, spiraling high unemployment, and mounting deficits. All can be helped through technology, but for this to happen we must have the project management infrastructure and the human factors in place to make it work.

If our technology is to bring us the next great breakthrough, we must help our people to deliver it collaboratively.

The pressure is on--we can't live with it and we cannot live without it. IT project failures are a people problem as much as a technology problem. However, once we confront it as such, I believe that we can expect the metrics on failed IT projects to change significantly to success.

(Source Photo: here)

Can't Live With Them, Can't Live Without Them

Helping Employees Find The Right Job Fit

I have a new article in Public CIO Magazine (August 2011) on the topic of how to handle poorly performing employees.

"Finding the right candidate for a job is much like finding a spouse -- it requires the right chemistry. There's a critical difference between having great qualifications and being the right person for a particular job, which is a concept that organizational behavior specialist refer to as 'person-job fit.'"

"When you see employees struggling, try to bring them up to speed in every possible way. If that doesn't work, help them find a better position to continue their path of professional and personal development."

Read the rest of the article at Government Technology.

(Source Photo: here)

Helping Employees Find The Right Job Fit

When Butterflies Sting

Stage freight (aka "performance anxiety") is one the most common phobias.
While often attributed to children, this is really a fear that everyone experiences--to a greater or lessor extent.
Organizations like Toastmasters help people overcome their fear of public speaking by having them practice regularly in front of the group.
Yet even the most experienced speakers and performers still get that knot in their stomach before a really big performance.
We are all human, and when we go out there and open ourselves up to others, we are vulnerable to ridicule and shame and being seen as shysters and charlatans.
So it really takes great courage to go out there and "do your thing" in front of the world--for better or worse.
As the child poet, Rebecca says, "when I go on stage, it's me, myself, and I."
What a wonderful perspective in being yourself and doing your best.
Here's what she has to say--in a poem called Butterflies.
(Credit Picture: scienceray.com)
________________________________
Butterflies
By Rebecca



Butterflies, that’s what I feel before the poetry slam.

It's 2 minutes before I read my poem.

I feel them tickling around my stomach making me want to puke.




My mom always tells me just imagine the audience in their underwear but it makes me feel even worse.

I told myself when I came up here you’ll do fine but, I know I’ll just stumble on a word.

Buzzing noises start in my ear.

I feel like I want to just go up on the stage and conquer my fear.

I shouldn’t care what people say because it’s my thoughts that matters.

When I go onstage it’s me, myself, and I.

1 minute till showtime.




Finally I hear my name.

I walk up to the stage unsteadily and all the lights are on me.

Everyone’s eyes beam towards me, almost as if they are watching a movie and I’m the show.



I read my poem.

I’m shaking.

I’m sweating like a dog running in the heat of summer.




I stumble upon a few words, but I survive it.

I am almost done. Just be done, already.

I read the last sentence but the time when I’m reading that sentence feels the longest.

My life is not going to end.

I’m done and I feel accomplished.

When Butterflies Sting

TechStat For Managing IT Investments

TechStat is a governance model to "turn around or terminate" underperforming projects in the IT portfolio.

This is one of the key tenets in the 25-Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal IT.

The training video (above) is an introduction to the TechStat model.

The goal is improved IT investment management and accountability for IT programs.

More information on TechStat, and in particular the toolkit for implementation, is available at the Federal CIO website.

TechStat For Managing IT Investments

Human Capital = Job 1

Not only in word, but in deed, that what great leaders do with human capital....

Here's an interesting anecdote, that I came across, that brings this point home:

"If managers say that employees are their greatest assets, why do they-

- Read their emails DAILY

- Pay their bills MONTHLY

- Check their inventory QUARTERLY

- Service their machinery HALF-YEARLY

- Check engagement and performance of their employees only once a YEAR?

Impact:

Human capital practices have not caught up with financial management practices and are still tuned to the industrial age.

And yet, human capital represents 77% of total expenses."

Source: Did You Know? Human Capital Edition (2009)

Human Capital = Job 1

Is It "A Message To Garcia" - Or To Us?

There is an inspirational essay by Elbert Hubbard written in 1899 called “A Message to Garcia” that is about taking initiative and getting the job done.

Here is an abstract:

“When war broke out between Spain and the United States, it was necessary to communicate quickly with the leader of the insurgents. Garcia was somewhere in the mountains of Cuba—no one knew where…the President must secure his co-operation, and quickly…Rowan was sent for and given a letter to be delivered to Garcia…[he] strapped it over his heart…landed by night off the coast of Cuba…disappeared into the jungle, and in three weeks came out the other side of the Island having traversed a hostile country on foot, and delivered his letter to Garcia.”

Garcia is held up by Hubbard as an iconic worker who can “act promptly, concentrate their energies: do the thing.”

And the right way for a worker to perform, according to Hubbard (in my words) included:

- Attention and care to the job

- Independent action/autonomy

- Cheerfulness (or a good attitude)

- Integrity to carry out their work with or without supervision

Elbert Hubbard emphasizes a strong work ethic that can be best summarized when he states:

“My heart goes out to the man who does his work when the ‘boss’ is way, as well as when he is at home [interesting that this was written before modern telework!]. And the man who when given a letter for Garcia, quietly takes the missive, without asking any questions, and with no lurking intention of chucking it into the nearest sewer, or of doing aught else but deliver it.”

Hubbard’s essay sold over 40 million copies and was translated into 37 languages. It was also made into two movies. The message of Garcia as a model employee obviously resonates far and wide.

Reading the essay, which is written in “Old English,” it was surprising to me that the management challenges we face today are the same ones that were apparently confronted already 100 years ago.

It seems that the search for great employees – meaning those who can generate results, are accountable for delivering value, and are customer-centric - is timeless!

“A Message for Garcia” is truly a call to action for all. No matter what level on the career ladder we occupy, and no matter what organization we serve, what we do for our jobs does matter. Let us “own it” and own it well, just as if we were delivering the President’s message to Garcia.

Is It "A Message To Garcia" - Or To Us?

Simplifying IT Performance Measures

There is the old adage that you can only manage what you measure.

The problem is that most IT organizations either aren’t measuring much, aren’t measuring meaningful indicators, or aren’t measuring in a way that is aligned to the business.

Hence, we have organizations that can’t articulate, get their arms around, or seem to improve their IT performance—because they don’t really even know what their performance is—can anyone even spell p-e-r-f-o-r-m-a-n-c-e? While other organizations, turn out 32 page weekly performance reports in 10 point font that brings no true sense of “are we hitting or missing the mark” to anyone.

There is an interesting article in InformationWeek on a simple method for doing performance metrics for IT called “A Simple Scoring System for Complex Times.”

Obviously nothing is so simple, but the basic premise is that the IT organizations uses a scoring system of -1, 0, and +1 to capture the following:

- “Screw-ups” (-1)—This includes systems or network that goes down, projects that go bad, etc. While we want to minimize these, we don’t necessarily want to drive this category to nothing, since the cost for eliminating every possible error likely outweighs the benefits.

- “Doing the expected” (0)—This means keeping operations running or delivery projects on time and within budget. While this does not usually win the IT department lots of kudos, this category of operations is critical because it is about “keeping everything working smoothly.”

- “The wins” (+1)—This is where we innovate for the organization and encompasses adding new functionality and enhancements that create tangible business improvement. “+1 are what it’s all about. They’re why most of us got into this profession in the first place.” Clearly, not everything we do can be +1’s, since we have to maintain basic IT operational functions and not just add the new proverbial “cool stuff”, and also practically speaking because, the organization “can’t absorb the pace of change.”

So to some extent there is a healthy balance between making some mistakes from which we learn and grow (-1), creating an environment of operational excellence (0), and driving innovation for true business impact (+1).

In addition to measuring the indicators that IT organizations set out in their IT strategic and operational plans, this high-level scoring method could add a summary perspective for a straightforward CIO dashboard.

Simplifying IT Performance Measures

Timeouts for Professionals—Ouch

Experts have been teaching parents for years to discipline children, when needed, with timeouts. This is seen as a combined rehabilitative and punitive method to deal with “bad” behavior. The idea is that the child has time to reflect on what they did “wrong” and how they can do better in the future. It also functions as a way to sort of “punish” the child to teach them that there are consequences to their actions, like having to sit in inaction for a period of time. Of course, time-outs also serve the purpose of a “cooling off” period for both parent and child when things are heating up.

Interestingly enough, like many things in life, adults, in a sense, are just big children. And the time-out method doesn’t end in childhood. This method of discipline is used in the workplace as well.

I have seen and heard story after story of people at work who do something “wrong” (whether as defined by objective policy or more often it seems by some subjective management whim) and they get sidelined. They get moved off into a corner—with the proverbial dunce cap on their heads—where they can do no harm. They are for all intensive purposes ignored. They are not assigned any meaningful or significant work. They are neutered.

Unlike a child’s timeout though, an adult timeout may be for a period of time or this may be permanent—no one knows in advance.

Just as with a child, the adult timeout is both punitive and possibly rehabilitative. Punitively, it is supposed to take the “problem” worker out of the larger workplace equation, and it therefore hurts their career, personal and professional learning and growth, and their self-esteem. In terms of rehabilitation, I imagine some may think that like a child, the adult will have time to reflect on what they did wrong—if they even know what they did—and commit to never doing it again—to be a better employee in the future.

Well, why don’t employers just help the employee to do better in their jobs by coaching, mentoring, training, providing constructive feedback, counseling and if necessary taking other corrective actions--why the childish timeouts?

Perhaps, managers think it is easier to just “ignore” a problem—literally—or to handle it quietly and subtly, rather than “confronting” the employee and having to work with them over time to improve.

Unfortunately, this erroneous thinking—the desire to handle it the “easy way out”—is reinforced by often-archaic performance management systems that do not distinguish between employee performances. They neither meaningfully reward or recognize good performance nor discourage poor employee performance.

Certainly, it is important to have fairness, objectivity, and controls in any performance management system, but this needs to be balanced with managing our human capital in a way that is good for the organization and good for the employee.

We cannot continue to manage our employees like children. We cannot punish people for honest mistakes at work that were unintentional, not malicious, and done in good faith and best effort in performance of their jobs.

Instead, we need to manage people with maturity. We need to identify where the issues are, emphasize where appropriate, understand what can be done to correct problems, and work with employees on how they can learn and grow.

Alternatively, we need to handle true performance issues and not bury them indefinitely in timeouts. Our organizations and our employees need to move past childish modes of performance management and handle people decisively, with measured intent, and with absolute integrity.

Timeouts for Professionals—Ouch

Constructive Truth Hurts, But Helps

It is pretty hard to give and to get honest feedback.

It is often acknowledged that performance reviews are one of the most difficult task for managers to perform. Managers don’t like to “get into it” with the employees, and employees often can’t deal with a straightforward evaluation from their supervisors. Plenty of sugarcoating seems to go on to make the process more digestible for all.

Similarly, people tend not to say what they “really think” in many situations at work. Either, they feel that saying what they mean would be “politically incorrect” or would be frowned upon, ignored, or may even get them in trouble. So people generally “toe the line” and “try not to rock the boat,” because the “nail that stands up, gets hammered down hard.”

An article in the Wall Street Journal, 5 October 2009, reports a similar pattern of behavior with ratings on the Internet. “One of the Web’s little secrets is that when consumers write online reviews, they tend to be positive ratings: The average grade for things online is about 4.3 stars out of five.” On Youtube, the average review for videos is even higher at 4.6.

Ed Keller, the chief executive of Bazaarvoice, says that on average he finds that 65% of the word-of-mouth reviews are positive and only 8% are negative. Likewise, Andy Chen, the chief executive of Power Reviews, says “It’s like gambling. Most people remember the times they win and don’t realize that in aggregate they’ve lost money.”

Some people say that ratings are inflated because negative reviews are deleted, negative reviewers are given flak for their “brutal honesty,” or the reviews are tainted with overly positive self-aggrandizing reviews done on themselves.

With product reviews or performance reviews, “it’s kind of meaningless if every one is great.”

I remember when I was in the private sector, as managers we had to do a “forced rankings” of our employees regardless of their performance rating, in an effort to “get to truth” across the organization.

Generally speaking, performance systems have been lambasted for years for not recognizing and rewarding high performers or for dealing with performance problems.

Whether it products, people, or workplace issues, if we are not honest in measuring and reporting on what’s working and what's not—fairly and constructively—then we will continue to delude ourselves and each other and hurt future performance. We cannot improve the status quo, if we don’t face up to real problems. We cannot take concrete, constructive action to learn and grow and apply innovate solutions, if we don’t know or can’t acknowledge our fundamental weaknesses.

“Being nice” with reviews may avert a confrontation in the short-term, but it causes more problems in the long-term.

Being honest, empathetic, and offering constructive suggestions for improvement with a genuine desire to see the person succeed or product/service improve—and not because the manager is "going after" someone—can be a thousand times more helpful than giving the nod, wink, and look-away to another opportunity for learning, growth, and personal and professional success.

Constructive Truth Hurts, But Helps

How to Strengthen the Office of the CIO - Part II

Punlished at Government Technology

[Editor's Note: This article is the second in a series that explores the CIO Support Services Framework in government.]

In Part 1 of The CIO Support Services Framework, I presented the six major components needed to support the public CIO in managing IT strategically and proactively. In this article, I will explain what IT best practices framework inform these six components and propose a structure for implementing it.

The six CIO Support Services Framework (CSSF) functions are distinct areas that require subject-matter expertise and need to be managed based on the various IT best practice frameworks. While I am not endorsing any particular best practice government or industry framework, below is a sampling according to CSSF functional area:

Enterprise Architecture (EA) -- Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF), and The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF).

Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) -- Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130--"Management of Federal Information Resources" and the Control Objectives for Information and related Technologies (COBIT) by the Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) and the IT Governance Institute (ITGI).

Project Management Office (PMO) -- the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK) by the Project Management Institute is the de facto standard project management best practices from initiation through project closeout.

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) -- the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) by the United Kingdom's Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and International Standards Organization (ISO) 20000--"IT Service Management." While both are very much operational frameworks, they can also be used to guide service and support at a strategic level in the OCIO.

IT Security (ITS) -- the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), various Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) from the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), and International Organization for Standardization ISO/IEC 17799 -- Information Technology Code of Practice for Information Security Management.

Business Performance Measurement (BPM) -- the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) by Kaplan and Norton from Harvard Business School -- examines financial, customer, internal business process, and learning and growth measures for the organization.

Although each of the six main functional areas and their supporting best practice frameworks are unique, they can and will overlap, and it is imperative that the OCIO develop a simple and streamlined process for managing these, so that IT and business personnel are not confused or burdened by redundant or circuitous IT processes that hinder, rather than spur innovation and agility. For example, while EA planning guides CPIC IT investment decisions, those decisions inform the next round of EA planning -- it is inherently cyclical. Nevertheless, we must ensure that the overall process flow between all six areas is as clear and simple as possible.

I like to use the example of a Monopoly game board as an analogy for how IT processes should ideally progress from "Go" all the way through -- logically, and more or less sequentially -- without project mishap, ending up on the OMB Watch List for risky IT projects, the equivalent of landing in Monopoly "jail."

The CSSF provides the functional resources to fully support the OCIO and provide the capability to move from simply fighting day-to-day operational problems to strategically managing IT service provision, improving performance and increasing program and project success, through:

Planning (EA)

Investing (CPIC)

Executing (PMO)

Servicing (CRM)

Securing (ITS)

Measuring (BPM)

Each of these OCIO component functions is helpful in managing IT by providing the CIO the capability to better plan, invest, execute, service, secure and measure -- but these are not stand-alone functions -- they are all necessary and complementary.

An organization can have the best EA plan, but without the structured investment processes of CPIC, the plan will not drive, guide, influence and shape IT investment decision-making. In fact, I would propose that CPIC is an enforcement mechanism for carrying out the EA plan.

Similarly the organization can have a wonderful CPIC process for making IT investment decisions, but without a PMO to develop and enforce sound PM policies and practices, IT projects will continue to fail miserably. With an effective PMO, we will have more successful project execution, but without CRM to manage customer requirements and service and support issues, we run a very high risk of rolling out IT capabilities that the customer neither wants nor is happy with. Further, CRM will increase customer satisfaction, but without ITS, CIOs will not ensure the security of the information and systems that the users are depending on.

Finally, with ITS, CIOs will provide users for information security, but without BPM, will miss the opportunity to perform structured performance measurement and management, so that the CIO has visibility to how IT is performing in all areas and on an ongoing basis and can take timely corrective action as needed.

CIO Support Service Framework - Implementation Structure

View more documents from ablumen.

Most organizations either don't do any of these CSSF functions well or they don't do them all. The six components need to be executed together -- the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Further, I would propose that the six CSSF functions be implemented under the auspices of the CTO of the organization in order to centralize and holistically manage the functions in support of the CIO.

The result is that the CIO is better supported, without being overwhelmed, and the CTO has a clear mandate for strategically implementing the CIO's vision for the organization.

Of course, one of the biggest challenges to implementing the CSSF is finding and allocating the needed funding to support these OCIO functions. IT operations tend to be underfunded already and stuck in the perpetual firefighting mode. Executives often fearf siphoning the needed money or people away from the short-term firefight to work on long-term strategy and implementation. This is a serious mistake!

Firefighting is a losing battle if you attack only the symptoms, but never address the cause or core strategic issues. Moreover, in the fast-paced technology environment of the 21st century, no IT leader can afford to be looking backward -- managing legacy systems that do not leverage modern technologies, techniques and methodologies for information sharing, collaboration and business intelligence.

If you are spending close to 100 percent on IT operations today, is it really unreasonable to allocate 3 to 5 percent of this to strategy, planning and control? Of course, this needs to adjust when IT budgets get extremely large or small and as the complexity of the organization shifts.

As the prior chief enterprise architect of the U.S. Coast Guard and of the United States Secret Service, I have always been a deep proponent of EA and CPIC to drive better IT investment decision-making. However, now as the chief technology officer (CTO) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, I more fully understand how the CSSF functions and interplay are needed for the CIO to perform effectively.

Clearly EA and CPIC are not enough to adequately support the CIO's needs, and thus, they need to be extended with PMO, CRM, ITS and BPM. Moreover, these areas function best that function together for the reasons I mentioned prior -- it's a clear domino effect, where astute planning, sound governance, skilled project management practices, competent customer service, solid IT security and meaningful performance measurement are all necessary for the CIO to manage IT more strategically and effectively.??This is why I firmly believe that the CIO Support Services Framework is how we are going to have to manage IT to achieve genuine success for the CIO in the 21st century and beyond.

_______________________________________

Andy Blumenthal is chief technology officer at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. A regular speaker and published author, Blumenthal blogs at User-Centric Enterprise Architecture and The Total CIO. These are his personal views and do not represent those of his agency.

How to Strengthen the Office of the CIO - Part II