Robert I. Sutton is a professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University, where he cofounded the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design and the Stanford Technology Ventures Program. He is the author of Good Boss, Bad Boss (Business Plus, 2010), on which this article is based.
William Coyne, head of research at 3M, knew that the performance of his employees—as well as his career and the company’s success—depended on shielding them from threats. This notion that management “buffers” the core work of the company from uncertainty and external perturbations is an old theme in organizational theory, going back at least to James D. Thompson’s 1967 classic Organizations in Action. The best bosses are committed to letting their workers work—whether on creative tasks such as inventing new products or on routine things such as assembling computers, making McDonald’s burgers, or flying planes. They take pride in being human shields, absorbing or deflecting heat from inside and outside the company, doing all manner of boring and silly tasks, and battling idiots and slights that make life harder than necessary on their people.
Read the full text of this illuminating article (The Boss As Human Shield) in our business library. Click here to go there.
Seven Myths About Nice Teams
Posting Date: August 07, 2010
By: Brian Cole Miller
Nice teams mistakenly believe that playing nice is what cooperation and teamwork are all about. They believe that getting along requires people to be nice to each other—all the time. They collectively believe the seven most common myths about nice teamwork.
Read the Seven Myths. Then read the sad truth about each of the myths in the full article available in our publication library. Click here to go to our library.
Myth 1: We only praise each other, and we do it often! We have nothing but positive, uplifting things to say to each other. We don't waste time and energy criticizing each other or finding fault. Constructive feedback and developmental feedback are negative, and we don't need that stuff pulling us down.
Myth 2: We stay focused on the task and don't get sidetracked by talking about things that aren't directly related to the task that needs to get done! Positive and optimistic, we come to agreement quickly and efficiently. We don't let negative thinking get us down. We are quick to take action!
Myth 3: Our clients love us because we always find a way to say "yes!" We're not here to say "no" to them. It may be tough, but we'll find a way to include everyone's request on our master work plan. We'll do anything to keep them happy!
Myth 4: We respect each other and the strengths each team member brings to the team! As acknowledged professionals, we don't doubt, challenge, or second-guess each other. Our leader is especially revered and respected. When our team leader makes a decision, we are saved the time and trouble of working out which way to go.
Myth 5: We refrain from unnecessary conflict and confrontation! There's no place here for fighting and arguing. We get along well, and we all play NICEly together. Everyone likes each other and cooperates for the good of the team!
Myth 6: We are open and flexible and freewheeling! We are always open to new information whenever it is available. We don't allow ourselves to be tied to agendas and timelines in meetings. We don't bind each other with roles and responsibilities but remain flexible in how each of us approaches work.
Myth 7: We are efficient! We don't waste time talking about feelings and emotions. We focus on the task, not on each other. When interpersonal relationship issues come up, we move to resolve them as quickly as possible so that they don't get in the way of the real work we're doing.
Excerpted, with permission of the publisher, from Nice Teams Finish Last by Brian Cole Miller. Copyright 2010, Brian Cole Miller, 2010. Published by AMACOM, American Management Association. www.amacombooks.org
About the Author(s): Brian Cole Miller is the principal of Working Solutions. Inc. He’s author of Nice Teams Finish Last, published by AMACOM.
Read the Seven Myths. Then read the sad truth about each of the myths in the full article available in our publication library. Click here to go to our library.
By: Brian Cole Miller
Nice teams mistakenly believe that playing nice is what cooperation and teamwork are all about. They believe that getting along requires people to be nice to each other—all the time. They collectively believe the seven most common myths about nice teamwork.
Read the Seven Myths. Then read the sad truth about each of the myths in the full article available in our publication library. Click here to go to our library.
Myth 1: We only praise each other, and we do it often! We have nothing but positive, uplifting things to say to each other. We don't waste time and energy criticizing each other or finding fault. Constructive feedback and developmental feedback are negative, and we don't need that stuff pulling us down.
Myth 2: We stay focused on the task and don't get sidetracked by talking about things that aren't directly related to the task that needs to get done! Positive and optimistic, we come to agreement quickly and efficiently. We don't let negative thinking get us down. We are quick to take action!
Myth 3: Our clients love us because we always find a way to say "yes!" We're not here to say "no" to them. It may be tough, but we'll find a way to include everyone's request on our master work plan. We'll do anything to keep them happy!
Myth 4: We respect each other and the strengths each team member brings to the team! As acknowledged professionals, we don't doubt, challenge, or second-guess each other. Our leader is especially revered and respected. When our team leader makes a decision, we are saved the time and trouble of working out which way to go.
Myth 5: We refrain from unnecessary conflict and confrontation! There's no place here for fighting and arguing. We get along well, and we all play NICEly together. Everyone likes each other and cooperates for the good of the team!
Myth 6: We are open and flexible and freewheeling! We are always open to new information whenever it is available. We don't allow ourselves to be tied to agendas and timelines in meetings. We don't bind each other with roles and responsibilities but remain flexible in how each of us approaches work.
Myth 7: We are efficient! We don't waste time talking about feelings and emotions. We focus on the task, not on each other. When interpersonal relationship issues come up, we move to resolve them as quickly as possible so that they don't get in the way of the real work we're doing.
Excerpted, with permission of the publisher, from Nice Teams Finish Last by Brian Cole Miller. Copyright 2010, Brian Cole Miller, 2010. Published by AMACOM, American Management Association. www.amacombooks.org
About the Author(s): Brian Cole Miller is the principal of Working Solutions. Inc. He’s author of Nice Teams Finish Last, published by AMACOM.
Read the Seven Myths. Then read the sad truth about each of the myths in the full article available in our publication library. Click here to go to our library.
Ever Get That Sinking Feeling?
Bill Bott
August 13, 2010
Earlier this week, the Department of Defense quietly announced the impending closure of the Business Transformation Agency. Yes, you heard it right, the office that opened with the mission of fostering efficiency is closing its doors due to cuts. Ironic, sure. But it's also completely predictable.
This post is not intended to make light of the growing number of public servants who have lost their jobs in this economy. But these things do have a life cycle all their own, and an early demise is as easy to predict as the end of the movie Titanic. (Spoiler alert: The ship sinks.)
All Aboard!
When the Business Transformation Agency opened in 2006, I'm sure it was with a lot more fanfare than the closing announcement on page 9 of the Federal Times. Like the Titanic, there was a lot of enthusiasm for the journey ahead, people vying for tickets for the 360 seats and a $340,000,000 budget aimed at the promise of modernization and a bright future of continuous improvements.
Smooth Sailing
When the ship left the dock, it seemed to have all the comforts and amenities needed for an adventurous trip. From a budget estimate report in 2007, officials at the Business Transformation Agency described their open waters like this: "As the single agency responsible for DoD Enterprise business transformation functions, the BTA will establish and enforce requirements, principles, standards, systems, procedures, and practices governing business transformation."
Not quite a successories poster, but we've all seen these mission-type statements in the past. They seem air-tight, like a double-bottomed ship that "God Himself could not sink." The engineers had designed an office that combined functions from across the Department of Defense. The new agency had congressional mandates and an acronym. People were happy, the sea was calm. All was good.
Of course, improvements — real changes — don't happen in the engineering of new offices, or in mandates. They happen in the pipes, and it's rare that the pipes can all be managed by a centralized office. Even one that gets to play with the most powerful weapons mankind has ever known.
Bill Bott is a GOVERNING contributor. Best known for his work consolidating the IT functions and staff in Missouri, he was recognized as a GOVERNING Public Official of the Year in 2007, and one of Government Technology's 2008 Doers, Dreamers, and Drivers.
Read the entire article in our article library.
August 13, 2010
Earlier this week, the Department of Defense quietly announced the impending closure of the Business Transformation Agency. Yes, you heard it right, the office that opened with the mission of fostering efficiency is closing its doors due to cuts. Ironic, sure. But it's also completely predictable.
This post is not intended to make light of the growing number of public servants who have lost their jobs in this economy. But these things do have a life cycle all their own, and an early demise is as easy to predict as the end of the movie Titanic. (Spoiler alert: The ship sinks.)
All Aboard!
When the Business Transformation Agency opened in 2006, I'm sure it was with a lot more fanfare than the closing announcement on page 9 of the Federal Times. Like the Titanic, there was a lot of enthusiasm for the journey ahead, people vying for tickets for the 360 seats and a $340,000,000 budget aimed at the promise of modernization and a bright future of continuous improvements.
Smooth Sailing
When the ship left the dock, it seemed to have all the comforts and amenities needed for an adventurous trip. From a budget estimate report in 2007, officials at the Business Transformation Agency described their open waters like this: "As the single agency responsible for DoD Enterprise business transformation functions, the BTA will establish and enforce requirements, principles, standards, systems, procedures, and practices governing business transformation."
Not quite a successories poster, but we've all seen these mission-type statements in the past. They seem air-tight, like a double-bottomed ship that "God Himself could not sink." The engineers had designed an office that combined functions from across the Department of Defense. The new agency had congressional mandates and an acronym. People were happy, the sea was calm. All was good.
Of course, improvements — real changes — don't happen in the engineering of new offices, or in mandates. They happen in the pipes, and it's rare that the pipes can all be managed by a centralized office. Even one that gets to play with the most powerful weapons mankind has ever known.
Bill Bott is a GOVERNING contributor. Best known for his work consolidating the IT functions and staff in Missouri, he was recognized as a GOVERNING Public Official of the Year in 2007, and one of Government Technology's 2008 Doers, Dreamers, and Drivers.
Read the entire article in our article library.
Creating Results Culture Change
By Mark Friedman, originator of Results Based Accountability
People talk about culture change the way they talk about magic. We know this wonderful transformation is needed and will somehow happen, but we're not sure how.
Let's take a shot at a definition of organizational culture. Organizational culture is the range of accepted norms of for what people in an organization think and how they act. An organization might have a dominant culture and numerous subcultures. Subcultures might vary by program, profession, or organizational role. Organizational culture also includes a story line or mythology about why the norms exist the way they do.
Culture change then is any significant variation in or deviation from organizational culture or subculture. Culture change can be positive or negative. Sustained culture change is any culture change that survives some defined degree of turnover in key positions. It is worth noting that culture change is not a smooth transition. There are holdouts. Some parts of the organization go ahead of others. Some people never get it.
It is arguable that there are three elements needed for culture change to take place. This is a kind of hypothesis that might be tested with regard to creating a results culture.
1. Leadership: No culture change happens without leadership. It may be possible to talk about the evolution of organizational culture without leadership direction. But any form of deliberate change requires leadership.
2. Vision and small steps: Culture change requires the odd combination of vision and small steps. First, a vision of what the organization culture should be, that is a picture of destination. Deliberate or directed change also requires a well defined series of small steps that can begin the process and move it forward. Massive overhauls are often not practical and usually don't work. So culture change requires a pathway of small steps that lead to bigger change. One guide to these small steps is the RBA Self Assessment Questionnaire new version (available on resultsaccountability.com). Start with one supervisor identifying and using performance measures. Then two supervisors, and so forth. After the accumulation of enough small steps, it is possible to reach a tipping point where change happens much more rapidly. It is worth noting here that among the seemingly small steps to take is the change in forms and formats for strategic plans, budgets, RFP's and contracts. Forms are the skeleton of any organizations culture. They can live for decades. And if you can change them the change can last for decades.
3. Finally, feedback. Any change process requires a feedback loop to see if you are making progress. Two types of feedback are needed. Information is needed on the extent of implementation. One can use the RBA Self Assessment Questionnaire to calculate a score on the extent of implementation. The second type of feedback is on whether curves are turning on key measures.
People talk about culture change the way they talk about magic. We know this wonderful transformation is needed and will somehow happen, but we're not sure how.
Let's take a shot at a definition of organizational culture. Organizational culture is the range of accepted norms of for what people in an organization think and how they act. An organization might have a dominant culture and numerous subcultures. Subcultures might vary by program, profession, or organizational role. Organizational culture also includes a story line or mythology about why the norms exist the way they do.
Culture change then is any significant variation in or deviation from organizational culture or subculture. Culture change can be positive or negative. Sustained culture change is any culture change that survives some defined degree of turnover in key positions. It is worth noting that culture change is not a smooth transition. There are holdouts. Some parts of the organization go ahead of others. Some people never get it.
It is arguable that there are three elements needed for culture change to take place. This is a kind of hypothesis that might be tested with regard to creating a results culture.
1. Leadership: No culture change happens without leadership. It may be possible to talk about the evolution of organizational culture without leadership direction. But any form of deliberate change requires leadership.
2. Vision and small steps: Culture change requires the odd combination of vision and small steps. First, a vision of what the organization culture should be, that is a picture of destination. Deliberate or directed change also requires a well defined series of small steps that can begin the process and move it forward. Massive overhauls are often not practical and usually don't work. So culture change requires a pathway of small steps that lead to bigger change. One guide to these small steps is the RBA Self Assessment Questionnaire new version (available on resultsaccountability.com). Start with one supervisor identifying and using performance measures. Then two supervisors, and so forth. After the accumulation of enough small steps, it is possible to reach a tipping point where change happens much more rapidly. It is worth noting here that among the seemingly small steps to take is the change in forms and formats for strategic plans, budgets, RFP's and contracts. Forms are the skeleton of any organizations culture. They can live for decades. And if you can change them the change can last for decades.
3. Finally, feedback. Any change process requires a feedback loop to see if you are making progress. Two types of feedback are needed. Information is needed on the extent of implementation. One can use the RBA Self Assessment Questionnaire to calculate a score on the extent of implementation. The second type of feedback is on whether curves are turning on key measures.
Scenario Planning
by Eric Britten
“Scenario planning is a discipline for rediscovering the original entrepreneurial power of creative foresight in contexts of accelerated change, greater complexity, and genuine uncertainty.” —Pierre Wack, Royal Dutch/Shell, 1984
Scenario planning is a process in which managers develop and then consider, in depth, several varied scenarios of equally plausible futures. The scenarios are based upon substantive information gathering and data development. The objective is to bring forward surprises and unexpected leaps of understanding. Scenario planning derives from the observation that, given the impossibility of knowing precisely how the future will play out, a good decision or strategy to adopt is one that plays out well across several possible futures (scenarios). To develop that "robust" strategy, several scenarios are created such that each scenario diverges markedly from the others. Strategies are then developed from identifying similarities or trends within or among the scenarios.
The most significant concept is not whether the planning team is "right" or "wrong". Rather, it is that the team digs deeply down to understand and remove the artificial constraints and limitations that affect their assumptions and perceptions about the future. Then they can objectively evaluate the plausibility and exponential relationships of the elements that comprise each of the scenarios.
No matter what future takes place, a company and its management team is much more likely to be ready for it and influential in it, if it has engaged in serious discourse and discovery surrounding possible situations or environments in which the organization may find itself.
In brief, the steps of the scenario planning process are:
• Develop the information that will drive the process
• Identify external factors that can significantly influence the industry
• Bring the issues and influencers together into a viable framework
• Produce multiple initial mini-scenarios; reduce to 2 or3
• Analyze the scenarios for the most important connections and relationships
• Determine what actions will be taken to address the most significant issues discovered
Read more interesting and helpful business articles in our article library. Click here.
“Scenario planning is a discipline for rediscovering the original entrepreneurial power of creative foresight in contexts of accelerated change, greater complexity, and genuine uncertainty.” —Pierre Wack, Royal Dutch/Shell, 1984
Scenario planning is a process in which managers develop and then consider, in depth, several varied scenarios of equally plausible futures. The scenarios are based upon substantive information gathering and data development. The objective is to bring forward surprises and unexpected leaps of understanding. Scenario planning derives from the observation that, given the impossibility of knowing precisely how the future will play out, a good decision or strategy to adopt is one that plays out well across several possible futures (scenarios). To develop that "robust" strategy, several scenarios are created such that each scenario diverges markedly from the others. Strategies are then developed from identifying similarities or trends within or among the scenarios.
The most significant concept is not whether the planning team is "right" or "wrong". Rather, it is that the team digs deeply down to understand and remove the artificial constraints and limitations that affect their assumptions and perceptions about the future. Then they can objectively evaluate the plausibility and exponential relationships of the elements that comprise each of the scenarios.
No matter what future takes place, a company and its management team is much more likely to be ready for it and influential in it, if it has engaged in serious discourse and discovery surrounding possible situations or environments in which the organization may find itself.
In brief, the steps of the scenario planning process are:
• Develop the information that will drive the process
• Identify external factors that can significantly influence the industry
• Bring the issues and influencers together into a viable framework
• Produce multiple initial mini-scenarios; reduce to 2 or3
• Analyze the scenarios for the most important connections and relationships
• Determine what actions will be taken to address the most significant issues discovered
Read more interesting and helpful business articles in our article library. Click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)