Taking Advantage of "Good Conflict"

In an October 25, 2010 post on AMA's Thinking Management Blog, there's a short blurb about good conflict:

What Is "Good" Conflict? How Can I Take Advantage of It?

Conflict is natural. However, a lot of the time when individuals clash, they can become so concerned with defending their turf that mutual distrust replaces basic communication techniques like “listening”.

Many people don’t realize that conflict can be an excellent way to find effective, efficient solutions. Here are some quick and easy ways to turn a potentially volatile situation into a “good conflict”:

Identify common goals. As differences arise, remind the parties of their common goal or mission. Ask them to review their goals to focus solely on shared or compatible ones. Once the goals have been identified, the group can move on to discuss how these goals can be shared. Make sure to keep the conflict away from personal issues.

Clarify, sort, and value differences. While contrasting viewpoints will surface, so will evidence that the participants have much in common. This commonality should be emphasized.

Gain commitment to change. Goals may be shared but the means of reaching them may vary. You want to reach consensus on the best way to reach a shared goal. Reconciling conflicting visions forces people to think creatively and put everyone in a position to move forward.

Your goal as a manager is to prevent a conflict from becoming a disruptive force, not to prevent conflicts. Whereas positive conflict can come up with new solutions to existing problems, disruptive conflict can create problems.

 Click here to go to AMA's Thinking Management Blog.

Business Intelligence Data & Metrics, A Focus Experts Briefing

by Eric Britten

If you're not familiar with FOCUS as a resource for business information, you should check it out.  (Click here to go there.)  Here's the introduction from the site:

Focus provides millions of professionals with the expertise they need to make better business decisions. At the heart of Focus is a network of world class business and technology experts. These experts power the real time Q&A, world class research, and personalized support that so many businesses now depend on. Best of all, Focus is free and available to anyone who wants to make better business decisions, faster.


Recently, Focus published an expert's briefing on business intelligence (BI) and key performance indicators (KPIs).  Contributing authors to the briefing are Kirsty Lee, Wayne Kernochan and myself.  You can view the briefing in our Article Library.  Click here to go there.

The Top 3, 5, 7 or 10 Reasons Why Businesses Fail

by Eric Britten

OK.  So, I Googled "why small businesses fail".  My screen filled with links to sites across America and around the world explaining the top 3 or the top 5 or the top 7 or the top 10 reasons why small businesses fail.  Well, management professionals are like everyone else - they all have their opinion.  In general, all the lists were variations on most of the same reasons. 

One post said that Dun & Bradstreet said 88.7% of businesses fail due to management mistakes.   Now there's a truly erudite explanation.  Actually, it's probably a true statement, but the lack of detail renders it fairly useless when trying to understand anything that might help a small businessperson.   So, I dug deeper and found there were three groups of causes that made it to most everyone's list:

• There was the largest bucket of all, poor management.  Within that category were specifics such as lack of experience and knowledge about procurement, finances, hiring and firing, managing employees, internal controls, etc.
• Next was the bucket we could call marketing and customer expertise.  Those reasons had to do with issues such as not knowing how to market their product or service, not being able to define their market segment, not understanding their customer's needs, and being out of touch with their customers.
• Finally, there was the bucket we'll call lack of planning.  That covers lack of a basic business plan, creating strategic and annual operating plans, and, in general, setting aside time to think about the business, how to manage it, and where it's headed.

List completed, I sat back and thought about the three buckets.  It didn't take me long to realize that lack of expertise in these three areas didn't just lead to the demise of small businesses.  These are also some of the top contributing factors to why business of any size either fail or just muddle along.

Thinking about the list some more, I also realized it was the answer to a question that I've been wrestling with for a while.  Alaska Business Monthly recently asked me if I would write a column for them next year.  They have named it "Business Basics".   They left it up to me to decide what to write about.  Now I know what I will write about.  I'll write about  management, marketing and customer management, and business planning.  I'll work hard to develop some unique and interesting approaches to these subjects.  If you want to see if I can do that, check out the column.  It will run in the January, March, May, July, September and November issues of ABM next year.

Meanwhile, you can check out two articles in the management library on my website: (1) The Seven Pitfalls of Business Failure, and (2) Top 5 Reasons Why Small Businesses Fail.  Click here to go there.

Since When Is Strategy Development Only The Domain of The C-Suite?

by Eric Britten

A recent article in the Harvard Business Review, Can You Open-Source Your Strategy, by Barry Newstead and Laura Lanzerotti, describes how The Wikimedia Foundation (the non-profit that operates Wikipedia) open-sourced a good part of its strategy development between 2009 mand 2010.  Senior executives ultimately set the priorities and synthesized the final initiatives into a business plan, but their customers, suppliers and colleagues contributed a significant amount of the input up to that point.

That may be a radical approach for many traditional planners, but it seems to me that it's just a continuation of the philosophy that has opened many corporate plannng processes to the rank and file, customers, suppliers and even other organizations in the same industry group.

True strategy development that takes a hard look at the future landscape has to be driven by ideas, perspective and opinions of those that are often external to the organization.  Why would you engage in strategic planning if you weren't attuned to what your customers were thinking about the future, particularly as it relates to your products or services?  The same goes for your suppliers and other partners.  Gathering that data is a critical initial phase in a modern day heads up planning process.  Letting others munch the data and begin to think about where that might take an organization is a natural next step in the evolution of planning. 

Strategic planning processes that incude external data gathering and interpretation are scenario, mission-based , and outcome-based planning.   Even in more traditional planning processes, these outside resources could add dynamic ideas to the S-W-O-T analysis.  Those who think strategy development is a secret process that only the top echelon should dabble in probably should keep their VCR players and Selectric typewriters.  A CEO I once worked for had it right when he said, "I don't care who knows our strategy.  Only we can execute it."

You can read Can You Open-Source Your Strategy in our business article library.  Click here to go there.

Citizen-Driven Budgeting

Katherine Barrett & Richard Greene ((In "Governing")

September 23, 2010
 
People talk about "citizen-driven" budgeting. It's certainly a phrase that's hard to argue with, at face value. Who better than the citizens to decide where their money is spent? But life is complicated. How many married couples have difficulties coming to a meaningful consensus about how to spend their income? (Years ago, we wrote an article for Ladies' Home Journal that argued that money, not sex, was the single biggest cause of marital discord.)

All that said, Larisa Benson, director of performance audit in Washington, shared some thoughts about the subject with us, and we think she makes a whole lot of sense. Here, some excerpts:

"I believe in citizen-driven budgeting for outcomes, but I remain convinced that posing the 'what should we cut?' question to citizens will never work. It's impossible to have a 'tradeoffs' discourse if you start with the cutting proposition. Is $4 billion too much to spend on Medicaid? What would be the right amount to cut (or add?). Who can answer that question?! Even among the Medicaid budget experts, I find few who can wrap their mind around that question (much less the $4 B figure — it's enough to blow anyone's fuse).

"By contrast, engaging citizens in a dialogue of contrasting priorities is not only effective, it's wondrously fun. Those hard-boiled government types who think 'the average citizen can't grasp the complexity of government' are seriously underestimating just how smart and caring most citizens really are. I have found 'regular Joe' citizens are quickly and constructively engaged if you pose the right questions and provide enough summarized concise results data to spark their natural curiosity. I think this question/frame works equally well in good revenue and bad economic times."

The Boss As Human Shield

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.

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.

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.

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.