Status quo and innovation

One of the best management philosophies to put in place in any organization is the allowance for challenging existing business practices.  As a matter of fact, it should be incorporated into every job description.  There is a reason for doing things a certain way, but time and circumstances will change the foundation for those reasons, sometimes making them moot and irrelevant - not a very good standing for moving forward.

There's a story by Zig Ziglar that paints a caricature of status quo thinking; it's paraphrased here:

One Saturday morning a good ol' boy hunkered down in his favorite chair to spend the afternoon watching college football on TV.  His wife soon appeared and asked him if he could go to the store to pick up a ham.  "Sure, I'll go at halftime" he said, "I need some more beer anyway."  On his way out his wife reminded him, "Honey, make sure the butcher cuts off the ends of the ham."  "Yep, got it" and he was on his way.  When he got back he asked his wife, "Honey, I've always wondered, why do you have the butcher cut off the ends of the ham?"  "Because that's how my mama taught me."  He was still curious, "Well, why did your mama cut off the ends of the ham?"  "I don't know honey, but let's ask mama when she's over for dinner tonight."  That night as they finished dinner the wife asked her mother, "Mama, why did you cut off the ends of the ham?"  "Well, sugar, that's the way Nana taught me."  "Well, why did Nana do it?"  "I don't really know.  Let's give her a call and find out."  They called up Nana and asked her.  Nana replied, "Oh dear, my pan was too small for the whole ham, so I cut off the ends."

"Nana had her reason, what's yours?" 

This story is a perfect example of status quo thinking and not challenging the foundation of why something is done a particular way.  You can probably think of dozens of instances in your organization where the status quo doesn't make sense, but has never been challenged.  How do we move beyond the current state when we can't get past the status quo?

The only way to move forward is to constantly challenge the current state of affairs.  This isn't to say that we should purposely mess up a perfectly good brand or change just to change, but it is to say that we should always look for new ways of doing things.  By new, we mean effective and up to date.  

 

For example, before spreadsheets were commonplace, cost accounting was very departmentalized, done by the "green eye shade" people with calculators running overtime against pages and pages of ledgers.  Information was fed manually or through mainframe systems that produced data which couldn't be ported to any useful application.  The information was extracted manually and formulated by the cost analysts and accountants.  Spreadsheets changed everything.  Now data could be manipulated in almost any fashion so desired by the consumers of the information.  Data could be presented in ways that made sense to non-accountants and the data could be ported to and from relational databases with ease.  From this came integrated financial systems that pulled information from every quarter and worked seamlessly with other enterprise applications.  Financial data was no longer the domain of the "green eye shade" people, it belonged to everyone.  Data was at everybody's fingertips and could be used however they needed it to be used.  Spreadsheets, in essence, "democratized" data - there was no reason to stick with the old systems.

Challenging the status quo comes with its own challenges as does innovation.  People will resist innovation for a variety of reasons.  It may be that they don't understand the rationale behind the need for change, they may have a political stake that they don't want uprooted, or they are afraid of the unknown.  In order for innovation to become a norm, a culture of change must be present.  A manager must instill a mindset that innovation will be rewarded; it needs to become part of the formal goal setting and review process in addition to the compensation structure.  Individual and team goals must reflect continuous improvement through innovation and change.  If the goals reflect this, then the work itself will become a conduit for change.
                       

Risk is inherent to change and innovation.  A culture of change goes hand in hand with a culture that accepts risk.  Again, this is not a blind risk, but an environment where calculated risks are normal and will be rewarded. 

Are you a traveler or a tourist?

The late Daniel J. Boorstin is my favorite historian, not only because he gave an accurate portrayal of American history that was unblemished by political correctness, but he was also an engaging writer with a wonderful wit.  The America that Boorstin illuminated is generally hidden from view for most of us because of revisionism and just plain bad scholarship.

Boorstin artfully explains that innovation in America was generally not the product "inspired genius", but a product of practicality.  For example, the modern factory that brings in raw materials and yields a finished product ready for market is an American invention - not because someone saw it as more efficient, but because, unlike Europe, the American colonies were more diffuse and logistically the old European guild system could not work here.  The modern industrial age began with this platform of practicality.  

Up until the middle of the 19th century, foreign travel required planning, a lot of money, a great deal of time, and sometimes risk to life and limb.  Travelers were active, they sought adventure, they pursued the experience.  And then...

Modern railroads and ocean going steamships started to make long distance practical, if not comfortable.  The huge investments in these technologies and infrastructure required that the travel now needed to be sold in large quantities, making it more affordable to the growing middle class.  With the advent of packaged tours the active traveler became the passive sight seer.  Instead of seeking adventure and experiences, the experiences now came to the "tourist."  The pursuit of adventure now became the pursuit of leisure.

If you applied the traveler/tourist metaphor to your life, both personally and professionally, which would you be, a traveler or a tourist?  The old English noun "travel" (journey) was originally the same word as "travail." [Boorstin].  To travel then was something that required labor and was sometimes troublesome - a traveler worked and was active.  Does this sound familiar, kind of like life?

So, which is it?  Do you actively seek adventure, experience, and people...or do you just want those things to come to you?  Are you a traveler or a tourist in your life?

Steve Jobs

I usually write my own material in this space; however, I recently came across a commencement speech given by Steve Jobs at Stanford University in 2005.  It's been a few years since I first watched this video, but it still has an impact on me; it's message is timeless for anyone at any stage of their career/life. 

I've held up Steve Jobs in curriculum that I've authored as THE bar for a speaker or presenter - and I still do; however, in this commencement speech, he's reading from notes, so a bit of his dynamism is missing.  This commencement speech is the best 15 minute counseling session that you'll ever receive.

Steve Jobs Stanford University commencement speech - 2005 

DON'T SETTLE...!

Over reaction

One of the most damaging behaviors that all of us exhibit is the tendency to over react to circumstances and conditions.  

Ignoring context and our bias toward recency results in an exaggerated and questionable perspective of events that leads to flawed conclusions, thus flawed reactions.  Case in point - the recent NFL playoffs produced a couple of surprising results that led pundits to declare that these teams are suddenly the "hot" teams and so on.  The teams went on to the next round and promptly lost.  This happens every year without fail.  Instead of looking at long-term fundamentals, key match-ups, etc., the media weight their opinions on very recent emotional events that result in very flawed conclusions.  This is a benign example; however, we create hype in other areas that are far more consequential.

We over react in our personal and business relationships.  We over react as organizations and as nations.  We tend to form opinions with incomplete context.  We don't have the patience to explore the facts dispassionately before reacting.  We react emotionally rather than intellectually.  We treat everyday situations as if they were crises.  You get the picture. 

When we react with emotion, we do so mostly out of fear.  We need to react less and proact more (yes, I just made up a word).  Don't let others' over reactions cause you to over react.  Take the time to study the situation, to critically think through the issue rather than fall prey to emotional antagonism.  Learn to pull back and assess the playing field.  Look at every possible frame of reference to gain perspective.  Impetuousness causes mistakes. 

A word of caution - don't over analyze, get the facts and make the best decision that you can given the circumstances and information available.  You can get paralyzed waiting for 100% of the information you need, but, in reality, that information never comes.  Assess the situation thoroughly and then be decisive.  Will you make mistakes?  Absolutely, but you're guaranteed to make mistakes if you over react, and worse, the magnitude of the mistakes will be much larger. 

Creating missions and objectives

The mission and objectives of an organization are the touchstones around which everything else revolves.  Before we get into a discussion on creating missions and objectives, we must first differentiate between them.  The mission of an organization is its essence, its purpose - it's the core business of the organization.  The objectives are what is to be accomplished, the intent, the goals.  Think of objectives in terms of the objective lens in a microscope or telescope; it gathers light coming from the object being observed (the mission) and focuses the light to produce a real image (the goals). 

To begin, the mission needs to be defined by what success looks like.  Once success is defined and clear, it needs to be articulated so that there is no room for interpretation.  Let's use a military analogy as an example.  The mission of any nation's military is to win wars, that's what the organization is about, that is their core, their essence.  So a country's military mission may be to "defend the country from its enemies by fielding and maintaining a fighting force that will win all engagements, battles, and wars."  That's a solid mission with no ambiguity; one doesn't have to guess as to its meaning.  With the stated mission of the military force in place, the country will inevitably have multiple objectives on the world stage that further define the military's role under the auspice of its mission.  Here are examples of what a country may be trying to accomplish with its military force:

• Maintain a well trained army, air force, and navy that can project power on short notice.
• Defend allies and alliance partners against aggression by common enemies.
• Defend trade routes and commerce that are in the country's strategic interest.
• Use its infrastructure and logistics capability to offer humanitarian aid where needed.
• To follow the civilian government's commands and never act on its own authority.
• To affect foreign policy decisions through the threat of necessary and appropriate force.

The list could go on and on, but these are good examples of how a military's mission can be activated.  A business or non-profit organization can use the same methodology to define its mission and objectives.  Its mission may be to "make the best widgets in the marketplace and sell them at a price that is fair for the customer and profitable for the company."  It could accomplish this through various objectives:

• Recruit, train, and retain the most competent workforce in our industry.
• Offer widgets that are of higher quality and of better value than our competitors.
• Run the company openly and honestly with the highest degree of diligence possible.
• Use our resources effectively and always create value while eliminating waste.
• Treat our employees, customers, and partners with the utmost of respect.
• Be a good corporate citizen and neighbor, always giving back to the community that we serve.

And so on and so forth, you get the picture.  The objectives will become far more specific and detailed as they propagate down line through the organization into functional levels.  As long as each division's, group's, unit's, and team's goals and objectives are in concert with the organization's, there will be consistency in purpose.  One note, the objectives should use the old SMART principle (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely).  If the objective is too broad, there is room to misinterpret.  The objective must become part of the key performance indicators for the team, so it must be quantifiable in a way that makes sense.  An unobtainable objective is a disaster waiting to happen and will result in morale problems.  The objective must be relevant to the organization's objectives and the team's function.  The objective must also have a definitive time frame in which it's to be accomplished and it must sync with the organization's time frames.   

This exercise can be done from the bottom up if needed.  For example, a manager takes over a failing business unit that seems out of sorts and is not performing well.  The first task of the manager is to assess how the team matches up against the organization's mission and objectives.  If there is dissonance, it's probably due to misaligned goals and, subsequently, misaligned talent.  The manager can then sit with the team and realign team goals and objectives to fit the mission and objectives of the organization and the division or group that the unit is part of. 

An organization will shift focus from time to time to meet external demands, this is normal and necessary.  The mission and objectives need to shift also.  No organization can survive and thrive by blindly sticking to an outdated business model, to outdated products, to outdated processes, or to outdated resources.  It must continually evolve to stay competitive.  It can do this by maintaining a mission based on capability rather than circumstance.  Regardless of where the market takes the organization, it can stay current and competitive if its core mission is rooted in capability and competency.    
        

Ask the right questions

Often we don't get the clarity we need because we're asking the wrong questions.  We can't get to the crux of the issue in this environment.  Ask a question that is too broad and you're sure to be disappointed.  "What is the meaning of life?" is way too big of a story for most of us to understand, but "what is the meaning of my life?" starts to get to the real issue; however, it can be asked more concisely to get the results that most of us seek - "What are the chain of events and circumstances that brought me to where I am now?" 

In business, we do the same thing, we ask broad and irrelevant questions, mostly out of habit.  Here are some examples of wrong and right questions to ask:

Wrong - “Where do I cut costs?”
Right - “Where are my dollars most effectively spent to achieve my goals?”

Wrong – “Do I have the right staff?”
Right – “Have I effectively matched my staff’s talent, skills, training, education, willingness, and philosophy with the goals of my company?”  

Wrong – “What are the risks?”
Right – “Everything else being equal, what is the consequence of failure and can I assume it?”

Competing interests - our constant companion

If there's ever a given in any organization, it's that there will be competing interests at all levels.  Your priorities will rarely sync with others' and theirs with yours, so how do we manage to stay on point as a team and as an organization when everyone has competing interests?

Clear missions and objectives are the best way to get everybody on the same page - not in daily tasks, duties, roles, responsibilities, etc., they will always vary widely, but in priorities.  When the end result is unequivocal, then all efforts toward that goal are easier to sync regardless of role and function.  Though the information flow within an organization, within groups, and within teams may be contradictory, the mission and objectives need to be in agreement. 

More often than it should, competing interests wind up being of the political type which have zero value to the team and to the organization.  Be able to discern what is political versus that which is necessary.  If it feels like someone's ego needs to be assuaged, then it's political.  There are hierarchical, process, and policy demands in which we have to comply and follow that will be quasi-political activities, but they are mainly cultural versus personal.  A true political roadblock needs intervention by up line stakeholders to avoid the obligatory warfare and fallout that will ensue.  There is no way to avoid politics, but we can mute it by involving dispassionate moderators.  It is far better to swallow your pride and ask for assistance than to have a critical endeavor blow up in your face because of political chicanery. 

Day to day priorities are very common competing interests that are just the result of differing roles and responsibilities.  A branch manager who is responsible for customer service and branch profitability may not have the warmest regard for an IT audit.  These types of competing interests are, at once, the easiest and the most difficult to manage.  It's very easy to understand the common goals and objectives and want to cooperate to that end, but on the other hand, the time constraints caused by business as usual activities impinge upon the appetite to collaborate on unrelated endeavors.  There needs to be a structural change to accommodate this balancing act.

The way that the organization is structured will weigh heavily on how well its groups and teams manage competing interests.  To use a military analogy, the organization needs to be structured for war, but be able to quickly adapt to peace.  An organization must reflect its missions and objectives within its structure so that each down line group and team has the same focus as one another regardless of function.  The best structure will be malleable to meet current missions.  This is difficult to achieve within a mature organization, especially one that is very large with thousands of employees and many products and services sold worldwide.  That said, individual managers can structure their teams around the current mission, create and maintain cross skill sets that can be ported to any part of the team or organization, and task organize around specific situations and objectives.  By doing so, a manager can build a nimble instrument from which to respond and adapt to competing interests while managing the day to day business as usual.              

           

Complexity requires maintenance

We tend to add complexity to our lives rather than taking the simple path.  The most insidious effect of complexity is that it steals our time - complexity requires maintenance causing us to create needless activities.  We write overly complex reports at work when a brief summary would suffice, we create a 30 slide presentation when 5 or 6 slides would do, we over detail simple processes and procedures when a simple set of instructions will do, and so on...

Complexity, by nature and definition, means that for something to be complex:

there are many interconnected parts, there are intricate arrangements of parts, there are complicated relationships between parts, and the arrangements are difficult to understand.

Why do we do this to ourselves?  Well, modern life inclines us to do so.  We feel that if a solution is simple rather than complex, that we haven’t added value, therefore we have somehow short changed ourselves and our bosses/customers/clients.  We feel that we haven't put in enough work if the product of our work is simple rather than complex.  Granted, building a space shuttle, bioengineering a new genetic therapy, or constructing a modern skyscraper all are complex endeavors which require sophisticated tools and processes; however, most situations in our lives don't require complexity, they actually beg for simplicity.

 
I’m reminded of the story of the Gordian Knot.  In a nutshell, Gordias had tied an intricate knot that could not be unraveled, ostensibly since there were no visible ends to the rope.  Alexander supposedly took out his sword and cut the knot in half enabling it to be unraveled, solving a heretofore unsolvable problem.  Though legend, the story is an apt metaphor of how simple solutions can trump even the most intractable of problems – or what seems to be intractable.

   
Here's an engineering example of how simplicity won the day:

The new Hong Kong International Airport (Chek Lap Kok) was built on reclaimed land and was one of the most complex engineering undertakings of the late 20th century.  Reclaiming land from the sea is a major task in of itself, not to mention the fact that they built an airport on the reclaimed land as well as an integrated transportation infrastructure to get to and from the airport.  This project could not have been successfully completed had there not been some fairly creative solutions to daunting problems.

 
When land is reclaimed from the sea it tends to sink over time unless water can be drained from underneath the soil.  Couple this with the stringent ground compaction standards required for building airport runways and you’ve got quite a dilemma – how do you drain the water from beneath millions of tons of rock and soil?  The engineers on this project used simple physics rather than intricate pumping methods to solve the problem.  They designed porous tubes that were inserted into the ground.  The weight of the dirt and rocks pushed the water into the tubes which naturally forced the water up and out of the tubes.  This solution was simple and did not require complex designs or technology to accomplish the task.  In addition, though requiring a more creative approach, the solution was far less expensive.

Try making your life more simple by dealing with the core issue(s) only and not adding undue layers of complexity to the situation.  We tend to give too much time to the peripheral issues.  Focus on what really matters, the core question(s) to be answered.

When writing a report, 1) frame the issue(s), 2) present specific solutions, and 3) state the specific decision(s) that management or team members need to make.  When marketing a product or service, 1) identify the need, 2) clearly state the value and benefit(s) of your product/service, and 3) give a call to action for your potential customer/client.

Simple and concise.

Timely decisions in an uncertain environment

Today's for profit organizations operate in a fast paced environment of conflict, uncertainty, instability, malleability, disorder, and information overload.  Managing against this backdrop requires rapid decision making, often in situations where not all of the information needed is available.  Managing in this ambiguous arena requires the ability to get to the essence of an issue quickly.

Most people are not comfortable making important decisions until they have all of their "ducks in a row."  This is quite normal and it's a behavior that keeps us from taking undue risks.  The problem that we face in the modern business environment is that we need to take calculated risks and in doing so, we need to make decisions with some of the information that's needed missing.  The U.S. Marine Corps , which has a history of moving quickly and decisively, has a philosophy called "the 70% solution."  It's been put to practice in the business world with a credible pattern of success.  The 70% solution is essentially making an imperfect decision now rather than waiting for the perfect solution (which doesn't exist).  This is done in an atmosphere where not all of the information is available, but of the information that is available, an actionable plan that has a good chance of working can be developed and implemented.  Don't mistake this for "shooting from the hip" or a cavalier decision making process, it just removes the need to make a perfect decision based on 100% of the information needed being available.

In business, the 70% solution can be used in marketing, product design, new product implementation, software design, strategic planning, project management, and on and on.  Where it can't be used is in quality control where specifications and tolerances can't be breached.  There is no "perfect" decision, there will always be variables that are fluid, essentially moving targets.  Organizations and managers who chase these moving targets will invariably lengthen the decision making process unduly and will put themselves at a competitive disadvantage vis-á-vis those firms than can make decisions more rapidly.  In order to have a greater business velocity than your competitors, you'll have to accept a greater degree of uncertainty. 

The key to making decisions in an ambiguous environment is simplicity; breaking down complex and sometimes confusing concepts and ideas and getting to the essence, or core, of the notion.  If the essence is defined and clear, then everything else is superfluous.  With the essence clear, there is far more room for flexibility in tactics and strategy.  As long as the actions support the essence of what is being done, then ideas that aren't explicit early on in the plan can be entertained.  This helps managers and organizations to change course when tactics aren't working out and need to be modified.  Changing circumstances require the ability to make quick course corrections. 

Even when the action is happening in real time and speed becomes necessary, decisions can be made within the framework of a process.  A basic SWOT analysis can be quickly put together, even as a tabletop exercise.  A SWOT analysis involves the identification of your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.  You must then determine your assumptions and the veracity of your assumptions; do your assumptions make sense and do they match the playing field and conditions?  You need to determine what the parameters of the engagement are.  The best way to do this is by exception - what is out of bounds and can't be breached under any circumstance?  Most of the time these constraining factors will be budgetary issues, resources (or lack of resources), and policies/regulations.  If you define the parameters this way, then everything else not explicitly forbidden is permissible - again, flexibility being the goal.  After all is said and done, there needs to be a concerted effort to think through anything that's being left out of the decision.                            

Failure...or just hard work?