This Passover, let us recommit to doing good in this world and in helping to move all our people from the Diaspora to "Next Year in Jerusalem" and the speedy rebuilding of the Holy Temple. Oh G-d, please complete our final redemption and let it be!
From Destruction to Rebirth
If you don't say good morning to the tree, it won't say happy new year to you.
According to you work is your reward.
Reaping What You Sow
"Cream may float to the top, but other things float too!"
It Rises To The Top
Manage As A Mensch
Who's Da Boss
A Richy Rich Reward
It's Friday
Eulogy For My Beloved Mother, Gerda Blumenthal
10 Ways To Improve Federal Technology
Life, Cartoonish And Not
Performance and Transparency - 2gether 4ever
Recognition Inspires
Go Safe or Go For It?
Everyone's A Backseat Driver
People are selfish; they think in terms of win-lose, not win-win. The cost of this kind of thinking is increasingly unacceptable in a world where teamwork matters more than ever.
Today, the problems we face are sufficiently complex that it takes a great deal more collaboration than ever to yield results. For example, consider the recent oil spill in the Gulf, not to mention the ongoing crises of our time (deadly diseases, world hunger, sustainable energy, terrorism).
When we don’t work together, the results can be catastrophic. Look at the lead-up to 9-11, the poster child for what can happen if when we fail to connect the dots.
A relay race is a good metaphor for the consequences of poor teamwork. As Fast Company (“Blowing the Baton Pass,” July/August 2010) reports, in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the USA’s Darvis Patton was on the third leg of the race, running neck and neck with a runner from Trinidad when he and his relay partner, Tyson Gay, blew it:
“Patton rounded the final turn, approaching…Gay, who was picking up speed to match Patton. Patton extended the baton, Gay reached back, and the baton hit his palm. Then, somehow it fell. The team was disqualified.”
Patton and Gay were each world-class runners on their own, but the lack of coordination between them resulted in crushing defeat.
In the business realm, we saw coordination breakdown happen to JetBlue in February 2007, when “snowstorms had paralyzed New York airports, and rather than cancel flights en masse, Jet Blue loaded up its planes…and some passengers were trapped for hours.”
Why do people in organizations bicker instead of team? According to FC, it’s because we “underestimate the amount of effort needed to coordinate.” I believe it’s really more than that – we don’t underestimate it, but rather we are too busy competing with each other (individually, as teams, as departments, etc.) to recognize the overarching importance of collaboration.
This is partly because we see don’t see others as helping us. Instead we (often erroneously) see them as potential threats to be weakened or eliminated. We have blinders on and these blinders are facilitated and encouraged by a reward system in our organizations that promotes individualism rather than teamwork. (In fact, all along the way, we are taught that we must compete for scarce resources – educational slots, marriage partners, jobs, promotions, bonuses and so on.)
So we think we are hiring the best and the brightest. Polished resume, substantial accomplishments, nice interview, solid references, etc. And of course, we all have the highest expectations for them. But then even the best employees are challenged by organizational cultures where functional silos, “turf wars”, and politicking prevail. Given all of the above, why are we surprised by their failure to collaborate?
Accordingly, in an IT context, project failure has unfortunately become the norm rather than an exception. We can have individuals putting out the best widgets, but if the widgets don’t neatly fit together, aren’t synchronized for delivery on schedule and within budget, don’t meet the intent of the overall customer requirements, and don’t integrate with the rest of the enterprise—then voilá, another failure!
So what do we need to become better at teamwork?
Teamwork has become very cliché, and we all pay lip service to it in our performance appraisals. But if we don’t put aside our competitiveness and focus on the common good soon, then we will find ourselves sinking because we refused to swim as a team.
TEAM: Together Everyone Achieves More
Harvard Business Review (HBR), April 2010, has an article entitled “Envy At Work” by Menon and Thompson that describes research that shows that “people want to learn more about ideas that come from other companies than about ideas that originate in their own organizations.”
The reason that we value outside opinions over inside ones is that we fear elevating the person whose opinion we espouse. In other words, if we endorse an idea of a person in the organization, then we risk being seen as not only supporting the idea, but the person, and then having our power potentially being subsumed by that person.
The HBR article states: “When we copy an idea from an outsider, we’re seen as enterprising; when we borrow an idea from a colleague, we mark that person as an intellectual leader.”
This kind of thinking harms the organization. For rather than seeing our colleagues as teammates, we see them as competitors. We work against each other, rather than with each other. We spend our time and energy fighting each other for power, influence, resources, and rewards, instead of teaming to build a bigger pie where everyone benefits.
According to Menon and Thompson, “The dislike of learning from inside rivals has a high organizational price. Employees instead pursue external ideas that cost more both in time (which is often spent reinventing the wheel) and in money (if they hire consultants).”
I’m reminded of the saying, “You can’t be a prophet in your land,” which essentially translates to the idea that no matter how smart you are, people inside your own organization will generally not value your advice. Rather they will prefer to go outside and pay others to tell them the same thing that it cannot bear to hear from its own people.
Funny enough, I remember some consultants telling me a few years ago, “That’s what we get paid for, to tell you what you already know.”
Remember the famous line by Woody Allen, “I wouldn’t want to belong to a club that would have me as a member”? The flip side of this is that as soon as the organization brings you into their club, they have contempt for you because you are now one of them.
How do we understand the capability of some people to overcome their natural tendency toward envy and be open to learning from others inside the organization? More specifically, how do we as leaders create a culture where such learning is facilitated and becomes a normal part of life in the workplace?
One way to start is by benchmarking against other organizations that have been successful at this—“Most Admired Companies” like Goldman Sachs, Apple, Nike, and UPS. When one starts to do this, one sees that it comes down to a combination of self-confidence, lack of ego, putting the employees first, and deep commitment to a set of core values. It may not feel natural to do this at first – in a “dog-eat-dog” world, it is natural to fear losing one’s slice of the pie – but leaders who commit to this model can delegate, recognize, and reward their people without concern that they personally will lose something in the process.
The leader sets the tone, and when the tenor is “all for one and one for all,”— the organization and its people benefit and grow. This is something to be not only admired, but emulated.
Overvaluing the Outsider
Here we go.
Our stereotypical organization, let’s call it ABC Company has a talented group of enterprise architects. They have worked hard, built partnerships, learnt the organization and its needs, and have done a remarkable job working with leadership, subject matter experts, and other stakeholders in identifying an accurate baseline, determining a promising target, and have helped the organization navigate a well thought out transition plan. The organization reaches its target—success—and the process continues.
Hooray for the architects. Praise and promotion be upon ABC company’s enterprise architects.
Wait. Not so fast. Let’s back up. Rewind and see what often really happens when architects or anyone else for that matter tries to change the status quo:
R—E—S—I—S—T—A—N—C—E!!
Research shows that change agents are often scorned by their organizations and their peers. In immature organizations that do not embrace constructive change, change agents like enterprise architects are often not looked upon favorably.
Remember what happened to Socrates more than two millennium ago (and countless others innovators, inventors, and thought leaders since)?
Strategy + Business Magazine, Issue 53, has an article called “Stand by Your Change Agent.”
The article states: “research shows that most transformation leaders go unpromoted, unrecognized, and unrewarded. And their companies suffer in the long run.”
In a study of 84 major change initiatives at Fortune 500 companies between 1995 and 2005, “some 70 percent of executives who led these major transformations went unrewarded or were sidelined, fired, or spurred to leave.”
Why are change agents treated adversely?
The research shows that “deep down, a great many people and organizations fear change. People do not like to move out of their comfort zones. Powerful institutional forces help maintain the status quo. In such companies, change simply has no constituency.”
In these change-averse organizations, change agents often “find their efforts impeded, undermined, or rejected outright. Change agents may also suffer from the delusion that others see the urgent need for action just as they do, and may be frustrated to discover how little key stakeholders care about the initiatives and outcomes they hold dear.”
What is the impact to companies that treat their change agents this way?
Both the companies and people suffer. Change initiatives remain unfinished. Investments do not see their payback. Highly talented change agents are lost. And worse, other potential leaders will think many times over before taking on a change effort that “could derail their careers.”
Well, which companies did best with change?
“Companies that scored highest in leadership development and embracing change were most likely to improve performance.”
The lesson is clear: If companies want to grow, mature, and improve performance, then they need leaders who are visionaries and change agents to step up to the plate.
Those organizations that recognize this truth will embrace their change agents—encourage, recognize, reward, promote, and retain them.
Talented and motivated change agents (like enterprise architects) are an organization’s best hope for innovation, energizing creative potential, and long-term organizational success.
Change Agents--Poisoned or promoted?