Improving Mid-level Management - part #2

THEME: Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Improving Mid-level Management - part #2

Monday morning: May 24, 2010

Dear friends,

Every week, someone in mid-level management wants to improve day-to-day operations, maximize efficiency, and get a lot things done in an orderly manner. When they struggle doing this, their organization often hires a consultant. This individual will arrive on-site, interview a variety of people to find out what is the problem, and, nine times out of ten, they will deliver the following solution: “In order to be more successful, the organization needs to empower more people, listen to more people, include more people, and support more people.” If the consultant is someone who reads the latest management best sellers, then they also state that “senior executives need to show that they care, and work hard to create a "no-spin" zone characterized by candid, frequent communication about strategic issues.” While I have tremendous respect for consultants and I know they can make a big difference, at times, I am frustrated by the quality of their answers.

When we seek to improve mid-level management, we have to realize that we often hire smart people and insert them into really dumb situations driven by even dumber systems. The solution is not to change the person, but to examine the systems that cause them immense frustration and poor performance. The first step is to review and more likely upgrade the current performance management systems.

Mid-level managers live in a world of goals, metrics and expectations. Some are realistic and some are so far out in left field and unrealistic that they are comical. Some goals are just not clear and never communicated well. Therefore, in the beginning, analyze how goals, expectations and metrics are developed, communicated, measured and utilized. Routinely, this is the source of many problems.

Second, mid-level managers need and deserve effective coaching. When I encounter problems in the performance of mid-level management and the goals, expectations and metrics have been clearly communicated, then recently I have discovered that many mid-level managers are receiving situational coaching instead of proactive coaching. As a mid-level manager passes a senior executive in the hallway, they ask a question or share a problem. Standing side by side, the issue is resolved. However, the learning and performance of those involved may not have been improved. In proactive coaching, time and space is reserved so a senior executive and a mid-level manager can focus on improving both skill set and strategic mindset rather than simply revolving the majority of their working relationship on emergency problem solving.

Third, we need to reframe execution by all managers. Earlier this spring (see Monday Thoughts Weekly E-mail for 4/5/10 at my blog link: http://chartyourpath.blogspot.com/), I advocated for a more holistic training and development model where we recognized that once an employee is hired, national statistics indicate there is a 33% chance of turnover in the first six months. Therefore, rather than thinking of on-boarding as filling out of paperwork and attending mandatory HR/Risk Management training, it is time to comprehend that this on-boarding process is where people learn about how to work effectively.

However, “... flawless execution cannot guarantee enduring success in a knowledge economy,” notes Amy C. Edmondson in her article “The Competitive Imperative of Learning”, July-August 2008, Harvard Business Review. As she explains, “great execution is difficult to sustain, not because people get tired of working hard but because the managerial mind-set that enables efficient execution inhibits employee’s ability to learn and innovate.”

There are two choices when it comes execution, namely to focus on execution-as-efficiency or to focus on execution-as-learning. In the former, execution-as-efficiency focuses on discipline, respect for systems, and an attention to detail. To make this happen, managers need to motivate employees using “carrots”, i.e. pay more for work completed, or “sticks”, i.e. reprimand or threaten job loss. The result of these choices is simple, controllable production and controllable employees. The major problem is an undercurrent of fear. To remove the fear, we need to not penalize any one who asks for help or admits a mistake. Otherwise, employees will go out of their way to pick easy tasks to show competence and avoid all challenges. Next, we need to acknowledge the lack of answers to the tough problems that employees face. Instead, we need to help mid-level managers learn to ask better questions which generate clarity and perspective.

This week, do not put smart people to work within dumb systems, improve your proactive coaching, and rethink execution.

Have a great week,

Geery

Geery Howe, M.A.Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer inLeadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational ChangeMorning Star Associates319 - 643 - 2257

Improving Mid-level Management - part #1

THEME: Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Improving Mid-level Management - part #1

Monday morning: May 17, 2010

Dear friends,

I almost had an accident this winter from laughing so hard while listening to the radio. Someone was explaining the need to get rid of supervisors and mid-level managers in order to save money. They explained that if kindergarden teachers could supervise 25 children, then an adult should be able to supervise 14 - 20 adults, especially with the benefit of the internet to help them. Once I regained control of myself, I realized that we truly have a love/hate relationship with mid-level management.

In the 1980’s, mid-level managers were disempowered and often disengaged. The result was a bloated bureaucracy in most corporations, where everything had to be run up the organizational chart before a decision could be made. In the early 1990’s, empowering mid-level managers to make decisions and act according to mission, vision and core values was a huge push. By the mid to late 90s, we began to eliminate mid-level managers and flatten the organization for speed, growth and profitability. At the turn of the century, the process continued and the focus was on efficiency and cost savings. Then, in the mid 2003-2005 range, we started hiring mid-level managers again. We recognized that they were actually helpful and a key to success. Through the decades, we came to understand that effective mid-level managers were the translators of strategy who operationalized the big ideas, and also were a critical conduit for feedback from the senior team to the front line and vice a versa.

If we seek to improve the effectiveness of mid-level managers while recognizing the aforementioned history, then we truly have to grasp that mid-level managers need to master two different and opposing skill sets. First, they must be strategic in nature and help position the organization for the future. This will involve learning how to plan ahead and to take the long view or big picture perspective. They also must purse growth and innovation which will involve knowing how to question status quo while encouraging new thinking.

At the exact same time that they are strategic, they also must be operational in nature. Here the focus is on achieving short term results. In this part of their job, they need to manage day to day details related to implementation, maximize efficiency by cutting costs and being selective about priorities, and finally, but not least, maintain some degree of order by getting things done using set policies, procedures and processes.

These opposing dualities are never easy to manage. The conflict between operations and strategy happen on a daily basis. Each moves at a different rate of speed. Before we hire any more mid-level managers and before we let go of any more mid-level managers, sit down with a single sheet of paper and write out what you expect a mid-level manager to do. Once the list is complete, define the skill sets needed to be successful. More times than not, you will discover that many mid-level managers struggle because they do not have the capacity to meet these expectations.

Have a marvelous week,

Geery

Geery Howe, M.A.Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer inLeadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational ChangeMorning Star Associates319 - 643 - 2257

Translating Innovation into Reality - part #2

THEME: Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Translating Innovation into Reality - part #2

Monday morning: May 10, 2010

Dear friends,

In an effort to translate innovation into reality, we need to remember that there are three levels happening within a company on a day to day basis. The first is the cash generating part of the business which is reliable and lucrative. The second is the R&D level which is inspirational and critical to long term strategic success. The third level is the most difficult because it competes for resources from the other two.

First, we need to understand that it is normal for new innovations to compete for company resources with the cash generating part of the business during any fiscal cycle. Company resources, e.g. time, talent and management attention, etc., along with the company’s budget, reporting and management processes are all focused on the current fiscal year. Even compensation and incentives systems are focused on accountability to the current fiscal year’s goals which are mostly attuned to the cash generating part of the business. Furthermore, if people look ahead during the current fiscal year, they look to R&D and their long range strategic options. By reviewing research, data and trends, they hope to create a better way for future profitability.

Nevertheless, if an idea moves out of R&D and toward the cash generating part of the business, it often ends up in the the Bermuda Triangle of projects that are strategic but not yet fully implementable. In this unique no man’s land, we need to understand that these “new projects” often struggle because they can not deliver like cash generating parts of the business. Furthermore, these new projects take resources, i.e. time, money and people, from cash generating improvements without generating ROI as regular products and services. The upshot on these “new projects,” given they are not fully operational is that they become “demo bait” for selling more of the cash generating projects and services.

With this in mind, first we need to generate a realistic timeline which includes exceptions to standard operating practices if we want these new projects to be successful and not die in the Bermuda Triangle. Second, we need to deploy an experienced, make-it-happen leader to new projects rather than to high revenue projects. This way they are positioned for sustainable growth. Third, we need to insulate these new projects from cash generating performance expectations. This may include the development of customized metrics and performance targets rather than use the current cash generating metrics and targets. Finally, we need all involved to understand that for innovation to become a reality “new projects” are not really projects but the development of a new business model. For more information on this subject, I encourage you to read the following article: “To Succeed in the Long Term, Focus on the Middle Term” by Geoffrey A. Moore, July-August 2007 issue of the Harvard Business Review.

This week, help your team understand the normal challenges of new projects and how to overcome them. As William Gibson reminds us, “The future is here. It’s just not widely distributed yet.”

Have a wonderful week,

Geery

Geery Howe, M.A.Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer inLeadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational ChangeMorning Star Associates319 - 643 - 2257

Translating Innovation into Reality - part #1

THEME: Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Translating Innovation into Reality - part #1

Monday morning: May 3, 2010

Dear friends,

If we seek to translate innovation into a profitable reality, then we need to examine what is happening within our organizations on a deeper level.

First, every day the sales force within your company is focused on serving your existing customer base. Furthermore, your supply chain is focused on supporting your sales force and delivering your product or service in a timely manner. In essence, the majority of your day to day operations is attempting to be an efficient, cash generating business.

However, every day your organization runs into a problem, namely your customer. While most businesses are focused on their current customers within their current markets, they, at times, forget that each customer enters into a relationship with the company to fulfill an existing need. The goal of many executives is to change employee behaviors related to production and service delivery so as to meet this specific customer need. This may translate into the development of better skills, structure, goals, and systems in order to improve how to serve existing customers within existing markets.

And here is where the problem surfaces. Customers change over time. The need they have today as a customer may or may not be the need they have tomorrow or the next day. The key is for the company to meet the customer’s existing needs as well as their new needs. But, most cash generating parts of the business are not focused on meeting new needs. Their systems are only focused on fulfilling existing needs.

Therefore, companies invest in research and development divisions. Here, they try to figure out what are the customers current needs and what will be their new or emerging needs. These divisions are also looking into how to serve new customers in new markets. In essence, these divisions are attempting to position their organizations for future business.

With one level of the company focused on cash generation and another level focused on generating a sustainable future, we come to the most complex level of any company, namely how to prepare the organization for the market of tomorrow. At this level, we are on-boarding the next generation of high growth opportunities that are coming from the R&D pipeline. By commercializing the innovations and innovative systems generated from the R&D level of the company, we hope to position the company for future cash generating business.

However, we do run in to one simple but difficult hurdle when we do this, namely how to close the gap between the current competitive strengths and tomorrow’s competitive requirements. When confronted with cash generation, R&D, and ramping up new ideas, the first two will always take precedence over the last one. Therefore, the major question before executives this spring is how to build new core competencies into the company when it is so focused cash generation and R&D?

This week, remind your team that there are three levels to every successful company and each one is different and challenging to manage.

Have a good week,

Geery

P.S. I recently found some very good articles in the May 2010 issue of the Harvard Business Review. I enjoyed the very short article by Jocelyn R. Davis and Tom Atkinson called “Need Speed? Slow Down” about the differences between strategically fast companies and strategically slow companies. It is delightful to find an article that shows how firms that slowed down to speed up improved their top and bottom lines, “averaging 40% higher sales and 52% higher operating profits over a three year period.” I have been advocating for people to differentiate between operational speed and strategic speed for quite some time. Nice to see a study that proves it.

Next, in the same issue, I enjoyed Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s short column called “Block-by-Blockbuster Innovation” which points out that “blockbuster products don’t spring to life or work in the marketplace without incremental change.” Delightfully thought-provoking and a good place to start a discussion on change with a senior team.

I was very happy to see an article in this issue called “How to Keep Your Top Talent” by Jean Martin and Conrad Schmidt. As they explain, “One-quarter of the highest-potential people in your company intend to jump ship within the year.” We explored this topic at the Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Executive Roundtable and it is great to see an article on this topic. These authors explain that one should not assume that high potential people are engaged and not to mistake current high performance for future potential. They also advocate for not delegating down talent development to line managers. Given the current economy and the need to retain top talent, this is one article I would put on the spring reading list.

Finally, I was pleased to see another article by Tamara J. Erickson in this issue called “The Leaders We Need Now.” Here, she focuses on how Generation X will produce executives who will “bring a distinctive sense of realism to the modern corporation.” I liked how this article explained how Xers view Boomers and how Xers currently view their place in corporate life. For those who are managing and/or coaching Xers, this will be an article that could provide some interesting perspective. For those who want to retain excellent Gen Xers managers, then this is a must for spring reading.

As always, if you discover something good in your adventures and travels, please do not hesitate to share it with me. Thanks and Happy Reading!

Geery Howe, M.A.Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer inLeadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational ChangeMorning Star Associates319 - 643 - 2257

Building an Adaptive Organization - part #3

THEME: Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Building an Adaptive Organization - part #3

Monday morning: April 26, 2010

Dear friends,

Building an adaptive organization takes time and attention. It also requires senior leaders to differentiate between urgency, complacency, and false urgency.

As John Kotter wrote in his marvelous book, A Sense of Urgency, Harvard Press, 2008, complacency is a “feeling of contentment or self-satisfaction, especially when coupled with an unawareness of danger or trouble.” It is the product of success or perceived success. Those who are complacent virtually never think they are complacent; they are just content with the status quo. The best way to identify the complacent is by what they do instead of what they say. Kotter also notes that false urgency is almost always the product of failures. It is built on a platform of anxiety and anger.

On the other hand, he explains that a true sense of urgency comes with a “pressing importance.” Those with it want to make real progress every single day. Underlying a true sense of urgency is a set of feelings: a compulsive determination to move, and win, now. Jim Collins in his book, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap. . . and Others Don't. HarperBusiness, 200, notes that part of building a sense of urgency comes when we “confront the brutal facts” and yet “remain optimistic.”

However, my recent experiences have shown me one simple fact, namely we don’t know what we do not know. This has particularly clear to me because once we have a clear sense of urgency, we must also have a clearly defined mission. Since the Fall 2009 From Vision to Action Executive Roundtable, I have been asking many people what is the mission of their organization. The answers have ranged from “I haven’t a clue” to something that resembles gibberish, i.e. words that have no meaning but are strung together in an unintelligible sequence. Upon reflection, I have found one source of this confusion.

Most current organizational mission statements can trace their roots back to the writings of Tom Peter’s book, In Search of Excellence, or Stephen Covey’s book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Based on the material presented, many people began writing mission statements in the early 90’s. A second wave of mission and core value statements were written in the late 90’s and early part of the turn of the century.

Here is where the current problem gets interesting. When these first mission statements were written, there was a high degree of personal interest, urgency and commitment to what was generated. Those involved were passionate about the result. Now, nearly twenty years later, these mission, vision and core value statements have little passion and/or utilization in the organization because the original people involved are no longer employed, moved on, or retired. In short, the original commitment, passion and urgency has been watered down to such a degree that these core documents are, in many organizations, symbolic but not integrated message.

Still, in the midst of this situation, there are very interesting developments. For example, when working with Systems Unlimited on strategic planning, a non-profit in Iowa City, Iowa that offers personalized services to persons with disabilities within their local communities that help people improve and maintain the quality of their life, we discovered that a dialogue about mission and core values amongst key leaders has not only generated a new draft of a mission statement, but also resulted in all key divisions and departments writing their own mission statements. While at first, this may appear to be nothing more than a time consuming activity, the resulting clarity and focus has increased the level of urgency and yielded tremendous new levels of understanding and focus. As one who has been involved in processes like this for quite some time, it was delightfully refreshing to witness people become energized and engaged like those who created the first drafts back in the early 90’s. It is now something that I have recommended to other clients. Those who have done this report to me that this process is generating similar results.

The other thing I have observed about adaptive organizations recently is that they have the ability to understand how decisions are made. Many years ago, I remember sitting with Chris Ahoy, Associate Vice President for Facilities at Iowa State University, and discussing this very subject. We generated a chart that recognized the importance of integrating a trends analysis, capacity analysis and a strategic nexus review before making a strategic decision. He has further refined this chart in his book, Customer-Driven Operations Management: Aligning Business Processes and Quality Tools to Create Operational Effectiveness In Your Company , McGraw-Hill, 2009. As leaders, we have to recognize that we may personally discount certain factors in the rush to make a fast decision. However, if we are to be effective as a senior executive, then this is not an option.

Finally, adaptive organizations understand and define accountability; they know how it is done. There are days when senior executive forget that accountability is a learned behavior. Recognizing that accountability means having a willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions, we need to remember that accountability in adaptive organizations requires us to balance the desire for “perfect” action with the need for experimentation that results in improved performance.

This week, recognize true urgency, understand mission better, and help more people learn what is accountability.

Have a tremendously successful week,

Geery

Geery Howe, M.A.Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer inLeadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational ChangeMorning Star Associates319 - 643 - 2257

Building an Adaptive Organization - part #2

THEME: Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Building an Adaptive Organization - part #2

Monday morning: April 19, 2010

Dear friends,

Last week, I wrote about the importance of doing a better job of diagnosing our problems before creating a solution to them. In particular, I explained how technical problems start with a high level of disequilibrium which goes down over time. Thus, when an executive is facing a technical problem, he or she will often work to define the problem and the right solution, protect the organization from external threats, orient people to current roles, restore order, and maintain organizational norms.

I also pointed out that adaptive problems move in the opposite manner. Adaptive problems often start with a low level of disequilibrium. They do not always impact immediately the cash generating part of the business like a technical problem. Leaders typically respond to an adaptive problem by doing the following: identify the adaptive challenge, frame key questions and issues, identify external threats, redefine roles, resist orienting people to new roles too quickly for fear of reducing adaptive behavior, expose conflict or let it emerge so the solution is not influence by issues being left unresolved, and often challenge norms or let them be challenged given adaptive change requires people to rethink how they are working.

One critical element that Ron Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky point out in their book, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, Harvard Business Press, 2009, is that leaders dealing with adaptive problems need to be observing events and patterns around them constantly and collecting this data as part of the processing. This observation made me remember the work of Noel M. Tichy and Warren Bennis in their article called “Making Judgment Calls: The Ultimate Act of Leadership”, Harvard Business Review, October 2007. Here, these two authors note that the first step in decision-making is what they call the “Preparation Phase.” They point out that leaders need to do a better job of sensing and identifying what is going on with in and around the company. From this information, they need to frame up the problem and name it. Once this is done, they then can mobilize others to work on it and make sure the appropriate resources are available. The key is constant environmental scanning so one can better understand what is happening and look for patterns within the events.

For example, we know today that there are 38.6 million people born between 1925 - 1945. They are often called the Traditionalists generation. Next are the Baby Boomers, born 1946 - 1964, and there are 78.3 million of them. The following generation is called Gen Xers, born 1965 - 1979, and there are 62 million of them. Finally, there are the Millennials, born 1980 - 2001, and there are 92 million of them. As we all know there are vast difference between each of these generations.

As I scan the environment, here are a couple of things I note. First, Gen Xers, who are new to mid-level management, have no experience in delegating. For them, it is easier to do it alone than include others. They also often lack the capacity to coach mostly because they never experienced it except in high school sports and because no one ever taught them. Finally, everything in the book, The One Minute Manager, is new material for them.

On the hand, Trophy Kids or Millennials are loyal to those they work with, not the faceless organizations that pay their salaries. They love positive feedback because it builds confidence and makes them feel secure. Millennials often have a complete disregard for positional leadership, and will react to positional leaders as if they are parents to be argued with when a decision has been made. Finally, most Trophy Kids or Millennials are being coached by people who have no coaching experience and are not very good at giving feedback. By the way, I still believe that the following book is the best one for understanding Millennials: Alsop, Ron. The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the millennial generation is shaking up the workplace, Jossey-Bass, 2008.

This week, scan your environment more closely and share your observations with your team. This will be the first step in preparing them for handling adaptive problems and challenges.

Have a great week,

Geery

Geery Howe, M.A.
Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in
Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change

Morning Star Associates
319 - 643 - 2257

Building an Adaptive Organization - part #1

THEME: Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Building an Adaptive Organization - part #1

Monday morning: April 12, 2010

Dear friends,

Recently, after a morning meeting on strategy with a client, I stood up, left the room to get another bottle of water, and then came back in. When I returned, the tension and worry in the room was palpable. The senior executive explained to those gathered that there was a high probability the organization was going to have to lay-off people this June. The goal of this next meeting was to determine how to do it right.

From coast to coast, the number one concern amongst executives is whether or not they have the quality and skill level within their personnel at all levels in the organization to cope with the on-going pressures of this current economy. The second concern is how to manage their organization and continue to deliver positive outcomes, i.e. profit and growth, when their funding streams and budgets are decreasing. Everything else is secondary.

The standard solution to such concerns is to do the following: keep people informed, listen, set clear objectives, match the person with the job, and create meaningful work. While I recognize that all of these are good management activities, I think we need to explore these concerns at a deeper level, recognizing that the goal during challenging times is to create an adaptable delivery model.

The first step in this process is to understand the differences in your problems. Referencing the work of Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky in their book, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, Harvard Business Press, 2009, we need to remember that there basically two kinds of problems. The first is a technical problem whose solution already lies within the organization's repertoire. The second is an adaptive problem which forces the organization to change lest it decline.

A technical problem falls within our range of current problem-solving and expertise. The problem is clearly defined and known solutions can be implemented by accessing current know-how. A leader needs to apply the right person or tool to the problem to create the right solution. Again, the critical part is to realize that the problem can be fixed by applying existing skills, resources and processes.

An adaptive problem, on the other hand, requires new perspective, expertise and solutions. Here, it may be difficult to actually define the problem. Those involved may need to learn new information and confront issues that call into question fundamental assumptions and beliefs. Furthermore, the solution to this problem can only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits and loyalties. In short, it may require a whole new ways of thinking.

Having worked on many of these kinds of problems since the Fall 2009 From Vision to Action Executive Roundtable, I have learned a few things. First, when facing an adaptive problem, people do not know where to start. Typically, their diagnosis of an adaptive problem comes from past technical reference points which are not always helpful.

Second, they attempt to define the problem, determine a solution, and try to implement the solution in a rapid manner. However, as Hieftz and others have noted, “... the common factor for generating adaptive failure is resistance to loss.” The authors of the above mentioned book advise that a key to leadership when dealing with adaptive problems is “the diagnostic capacity to find out the kinds of losses at stake in a changing situation from life and loved ones to jobs, wealth, status, relevance, community, loyalty, identity and competence.” This helps those involved work from a more holistic perspective.

Third, working on an adaptive problems means working at a different pace of change. While a technical problem may cause quite a bit of disequilibrium to status quo in the beginning, an adaptive is typically the opposite. Yet, as the problem is defined, it will cause a raise in the disequilibrium of status quo. Therefore, while a technical problem can be quickly defined and delegated to people to solve, an adaptive problem may need on-going leadership attention and involvement throughout the solution process.

This week, spend more time diagnosing the problem before you rush out to fix it. As Albert Einstein explained, “If I had an hour to save the world, I’d spend 55 minutes defining the problem.”

Have a fantastic week,

Geery

Geery Howe, M.A.
Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in
Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change

Morning Star Associates
319 - 643 - 2257