Can I Get A Copy of That Recipe?

I’ll bet you’ve heard that question asked around the Thanksgiving table. I did last Thursday. What prompted the recipe request? My daughter’s pumpkin cheesecake.

Her desert was delicious. Naturally people wanted ‘in’ on how to make it….and perhaps secretly hoping to get the types of kudos my daughter did when they make theirs.

This type of thing happens all the time in organizational life—that is, managers shopping for recipes. After all, why re-invent the wheel? On the surface, the approach seems to make sense. Trouble is, in organizational life recipes (think: things like best practices) don’t always transfer well. Sometimes they fall flat on their face—even after being wildly successful in a different environment.

Do this, add that, wait two weeks…and voila, you get the elusive desired result you’ve been desperately seeking. Recipes are tempting. Busy managers succumb to recipes all the time.

The trouble with adopting recipes in organizational settings is that when they’re adopted blindly they require little, if any, critical thinking. Seeking recipes and adopting them blindly is akin to outsourcing your thinking. Too many managers don’t take the time and energy to engage in the type of critical thinking that will enable their organization (let alone their newfound recipe) to flourish. In the case of the recipe they don’t consider how it fits into the unique circumstances (think: culture) of their organization.

Managers should be asking themselves questions like:

  • What assumptions are we holding about why the recipe worked for others and what are our own assumptions about why we think it will work for us?
  • What is different about our situation than others situation that have had success with this recipe?
  •  After successfully adopting (and adapting) the recipe, how else can we benefit from the fruits of this recipe?

Managers: don’t outsource your thinking. It’s one of your most important responsibilities. There’s nothing wrong with seeking out recipes that others have had success with. Just be prepared to do the critical thinking of what it’ll take to make that recipe successful for you.

In the meantime, I gotta give a shout-out for my daughter’s pumpkin cheesecake. Great recipe, even better daughter.

Culture’s Influence on Performance—Greater Appreciation Abounds

It was John Bogle, the founder and former chairman of Vanguard, that noted that ‘the most important things in life are often the most difficult to measure’.

How true—especially things like trust. In the work world, culture is another ‘thing’ that is really important but is often difficult to quantify. Culture (which some have characterized as how we think and act) is not only a vague notion for some but one that Is next to impossible to put on a balance sheet. Rest assured though that culture (which is inseparably linked to trust) effects the balance sheet and other facets of organizational performance.

This weekend two articles ran on the East Bay Times (a San Francisco Bay Area paper) editorial page (Sunday edition) that highlighted the dysfunction of two public-sector cultures that have had a significant impact in terms of degrading public trust. In my experience, it’s rare for two investigative reporters (on the same day, on the same editorial page) cite culture as the major culprit of discord in their stories. I was harkened by the two investigative reporters, acting independently, that were speaking forcefully about the pervasive nature of culture. For ‘culture deniers’ (whom I run into somewhat regularly, are prone not to give the influence of culture it’s due) these types of articles help put a ‘real-world’ context to the impact of culture. In other words, the two articles give a hard edge (albeit with imperfect measurement) to a supposedly soft subject.

The first public-sector culture under the microscope in Sunday’s article was Caltrans (California’s transportation department) for their contribution in the new eastern span of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Daniel Borenstein, the article’s author, refers to Caltrans culture as unprofessional—with senior leaders routinely using heavy-handed intimidation, secrecy, and denial as means to the meet the leaders ends. As the article points out, the costs for the eastern span skyrocketed from $1.4 to $6.4 billion. The project suffered significant construction delays and is now is under scrutiny for safety concerns. Not all of these issues have ‘culture’ as the sole cause, but certainly culture is considered a significant contribution. For the complete story see:
Daniel Borenstein Gov. Brown Must Fix Caltrans Culture

The second culture under scrutiny is the Veterans Association (VA). In the VA’s case, it is believed that the silence and secrecy embedded in the culture led to patient deaths. How sad. As author Kate Scannell’s article points out, the VA culture has other troubling issues as well. See:
Dr. Kate Scannell: VA scandal shows we must speak up about the deadly silences in health care

Both of these examples illustrate the very real consequences of a dysfunctional culture. In both instances, trust is on life support. Plus, key performance targets have failed miserably. In the case of the VA, people died. Edgar Schein, an early pioneer in the field of organizational development, may have put it best: ‘culture is to the organization what character is to the individual.’ Both of these examples have been well chronicled in articles beyond the two highlighted here. It’s clear that both these organization’s cultures were by-products of their leadership—in this case inadequate leadership.

Schein also wrote ‘there is a possibility that the only thing of real importance that leaders do is create and manage culture’. Given the era in which Schein made that statement, it was difficult to justify that point-of-view. Today it’s much easier, especially given these two examples.

Professionals: Not What, But How

In our August 30, 2011 post we illustrated why it’s a bad idea to think an organization should automatically be considered ‘professional’ because it produces technically sophisticated products developed by really smart people. A recent article in Fortune couldn’t have been more timely or effective in complimenting that earlier post. The story–based at the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer–is outstanding.  It’s one of the best business articles I’ve read in a really long time. Here’s the link: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/28/pfizer-jeff-kindler-shakeup/

There is perhaps no greater threat to an organization than dysfunction in the top team. And when that top team leads the world’s largest drug company, the potential consequences are huge. ’Inside Pfizer’s palace coup’ is the title of the article. Trust me–it’s aptly titled. In terms of bad behavior, these people had nothing on Machiavelli. Revenge, betrayal, power-grabs…it’s all there. If this story would have taken place in the military, it would have been described as ‘behavior unbecoming’.

Pfizer’s historical performance has largely been impressive….they make technically sophisticated stuff….they have exceptionally bright people. Yet ‘professional’ is a term that most reasonable people would find hard to use in describing Pfizer’s top team after reading this article. And, of course, the whole organization takes a big ‘hit’ because of that. It’s simply unavoidable. Remember—most people define an organization as ‘professional’ not by what the organization delivers but by how they go about their business. Pfizer’s experience should always be a reminder of that.

Loose Threads

Resisting the urge to pull on a loose thread can be tough for some of us. Lest you think today’s post is about fabric, it isn’t. Loose threads are interpersonal teases.

They occur in meetings when someone:

  • makes an innocent error on an inconsequential fact
  • pauses for a moment to gather their train-of-thought
  • says something provocative in a well-intended attempt to challenge people’s thinking

What do you do when this occurs? Pull on the thread or leave well-enough alone? Some pull on the thread—interrupting the speaker, asking an inappropriate question, filling a void in the meeting with our own ‘stuff’, or taking the conversation in an unhelpful direction. We tell ourselves we’re being helpful…

…but closer to the truth is we’ve been unable to resist having the last word or getting in our two cents. In other words, it’s about us—often a not-so-veiled attempt to show how smart or important we are.

In meetings this can be death—especially for the inexperienced or ineffective leader/presenter. How many times have we all seen meetings completely unravel because one or more attendees couldn’t resist the urge to pull on a loose thread or two? This is not only frustrating, but expensive too.

Professionals resist the urge to pull on loose threads, largely because they:

  • quickly turn from one into eight (people pile on)
  • knock the leader/speaker off their train-of-thought
  • are a catalyst in derailing a meeting’s momentum
  • are a sign of disrespect

Professionals aspire to master their emotions—especially when it comes to pulling on loose threads.

Should I Say What I Know?

That’s a question that some of us constantly ask ourselves.

Most of us wouldn’t:

  • tell our friends how the new blockbuster movie ends.
  • speak up in a meeting on an arcane point if we believed doing so would derail the meeting.
  • share an innocent, but little-known, fact about a colleague that, when revealed, might be used against them.

Sometimes knowing when (and when not) to speak up is a matter of judgment. In other instances, it’s a matter of character. Either way, the fact that we’re asking ourselves the question as to whether to speak up or not is evidence that we should tread carefully.

I once had a manager who always ran in the right circles.  He hung out with the ‘big dogs’—the ‘A’ list crowd. He was always “in the know”.  And he couldn’t wait to demonstrate that he was “in the know”.  Initially, it was just awkward…the information he’d tell me about.  I initially suspected he was revealing information he shouldn’t.  After awhile it was obvious that was exactly what he was doing. It seemed he just couldn’t help himself—revealing confidences that is.

It’s really tempting to be ‘in the know’….tempting to say what we know. In most business cultures,  the more information we possess, the greater our standing in the eyes of others. For some being ‘in the know’ is a (self) validation of one’s own self-importance.  Being ‘in the know’ can be intoxicating, because with knowledge comes a form of power–perceived or otherwise.

It also means that someone has taken us into their confidence…they’ve extended trust. That’s the trouble…my manager was violating confidences.  He had broken the trust that had been extended to him.

When this happens it’s typical:

  • for people to share only the information that’s absolutely essential with the offender (especially if that person is higher up in the food chain than we are).
  • that the offender develops a reputation for having ‘loose lips’ …which translates to a blemish on their character – eventually undermining their own effectiveness.
  • for the offender to lose the respect of others – the polar opposite of the enhanced ‘standing’ they may have originally hoped for.

So when you’re tempted to say what you know…remember, discretion is the better part of valor.

This Place Is A Joke

One of the helpful by-products of people reading The Power of Professionalism is raising their hopes and expectations for their own organization in becoming more professional. They raise the bar, I don’t. But when things fall short, don’t be surprised when people express disappointment—or worse.

Case in point: the title of this blog comes from the subject line of an e-mail someone recently sent me. Here’s a partial list of some of things people have shared with me — experiences that they not only find unprofessional, but truly disturbing.

A.   A supervisor asked one of their employees to upload the supervisor’s resume to a competitor’s website for potential employment purposes.

B.    A busy-body assistant spills the beans on someone’s salary—which is higher than most other employees. Worse yet, the employee was new to the organization. So right out of the gate the new employee is ostracized– creating animosity across the entire organization.

C.   The organization’s value of meritocracy is compromised when a vice president promotes his best friend—someone whose performance (let alone capabilities) were hardly worthy of promotion. The promotion is viewed as a blatant act of cronyism on the part of the vice president.

You, no doubt, have your own examples. Let’s face it, no organization is perfect. Yet most people (top performers especially) expect their organization to strive in adhering to professional ideals.

It isn’t criminal for people NOT to take pride in their organization. But feeling your organization is a joke is sad…really sad. Each of the individuals who shared their experiences with me was (at some level) was thinking of leaving. These are precisely the types of people that organizations can least afford to lose. And even if they don’t leave, their disgust leaves a wake of cynicism in its place.

It’s a price that few organizations can afford….no joke!

Next week, the other side of the story…

An Abundance of Professionals ≠ A Professional Organization

To what degree does ‘professional’ describe your organization?

That’s a question that I frequently ask of senior leaders. Naturally, they’ll bend into a pretzel to answer in the affirmative.  After all, the answer reflects on them—for better or worse.

Most of the senior leaders justify their affirmative responses by the nature of the service or product that the organization provides (or attempts to provide).  In other words, the senior leader considers their organization ‘professional’ because, at the end of the day, it delivers an innovative technology or sage business counsel.  You know, these are organizations with big-brain scientists, highly-trained marketers, time-tested engineers, etc as a core part of their staff. Some are considered experts. In other words, the senior leaders justify their affirmative answer because of what the organization ultimately produces (e.g. a serum, sophisticated advice, a bridge).  It’s true that specialized expertise was required to produce each—specifically technical expertise.

But what’s not so obvious was that the serum was late to market (beaten out by a competitor who was first to market by six months). This development ultimately undermined the serum’s competitive advantage in the marketplace. The bridge was 30% over budget and took twice as many internal resources as once thought. Heads rolled as a result of the cost over-runs and client dissatisfaction.

Let’s look at it from the trenches.  If people inside the organization…

  • Don’t know what the organization’s priorities are (e.g. ever-changing or unclear priorities)
  • Can’t count on internal resource commitments to be honored (e.g. downward pressure on budgets become commonplace…decision surrounding budgets become capricious)
  • Have lost confidence in the organization’s ability to meet production deadlines (e.g.  the unwillingness of management to stick with commitments is often the culprit here)
  • Have become accustomed to whimsical decision-making on management’s part (e.g. “Just hold tight.  Wait five minutes, things will change.” )
  • Don’t know what’s going on in the greater organization (e.g. inadequate or ineffective communication)
  • Don’t understand what business they’re in (e.g. yes, this really happens!)
  • Haven’t fully bought-in to the current initiatives advanced by management (e.g.  the case for why these initiatives warrant special attention and support has been ineffective by management.)
  • Realize that customers/clients are being disadvantaged (e.g. the bill gets maximized, client value doesn’t.)
  • Don’t see their management defending the organization’s professional ideals (e.g. explicit or implicit)
  • Don’t feel connected to their colleagues (e.g. they may as well be strangers in the night)

…few will say that the word ‘professional’ describes their organization…even if their organization delivers sophisticated products or services…even if they employ ‘big-brained’ people who have advanced training….even if their individual specialists exude superior technical proficiency.

This may seem counter-intuitive and even painful to hear. But consider David Maister’s experience. David, now retired, was once the world’s leading authority on the management of professional services firms.  He observed, “I rarely meet individual professionals who believe their firm, as an institution, is built on such [professional] principles.”

Most people define an organization (white collar or not) as ‘professional’ not by what the organization delivers (technical stuff developed by really smart people) but by how they go about their business. This is outlined in great detail in Chapter Two of The Power of Professionalism. And make no mistake, how they go about their business is a by-product of their mind-sets.

In the end it’s about confidence and trust. So when I hear senior leaders say, especially in the face of great chasms of trust, that the word ‘professional’ describes their organization I realize we’ve still got a ways to go.

Real Artists Ship

Today’s post was inspired by a colleague friend of mine–Sally Helgesen–a gifted author and management consultant.

Sally was reminiscing that her favorite Steve Jobs quote was “ Real Artists Ship”.   I can’t help but relate this quote to Mind-Set #1–Professionals Have A Bias For Results.

By ‘ship’, Jobs means produce…get your stuff to market….get people to try your stuff, weigh-in on it…all the while taking a risk.  Of course, your stuff may well be a product, but also could be a service–doesn’t matter.

Big ideas are fine…partially-designed  products on a drawing board may temporarily inspire…but until you ‘ship’, it’s all theory.  Results begin with ‘shipping’.

Do it and you’ll show the world why you matter–just as Jobs did!

When To Take A Pass…

There’s an important prevention I sometimes use when facilitating critical group meetings. It’s a ground rule I call ‘No Me-Too Stories’. You’ve probably all experienced it. Someone tells a story in a group meeting. The story helps make the person’s point. Next thing you know, another person chimes in with their story. Then another. Rarely do the subsequent stories add much value—not adding much new perspective or insight. It’s just people expressing themselves—in the form of ‘me-too’ stories—that largely serve the storytellers own personal needs. The intentions behind the stories may be good and it may make the person telling the story feel good, but rarely does it help the group advance its objectives.Continue reading