Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts

Friday, December 29, 2023

To lead and to follow



A mark of effective leadership is recognizing that following advice, sometimes tactically off the main beam of your strategy, is not a weakness of leadership but rather an indicator of personal security and  strong character. 

About a leader somewhat infamous for stubbornness it was said:

Once again [our leader] had demonstrated his uncommon ability both to lead and to follow, to stand firm and to give way. This was the hallmark of his early years [of professional development] in the teeth of expectations that he would be professorially rigid and dogmatic. He made a point of treating [sponsors] with respect, as partners in a common cause

James MacGregor Burns

Over managing; under leading:

Sometimes confusion arises when leaders take the advice of managers -- the people who know how to get things done. Has leadership been submerged and management become dominate? Needless to say -- but I'll say it anyway -- management is focused on measurable results, metrics of performance, and predictability-reliability. 

We don't usually put a lot of measurable metrics around leadership. We know it when we see it: vision, inspiration, motivation, innovation. When present, these attributes drive business and organization success, and that is measurable. 

But when a leader loses their way, or has a mind-blank of vision, regression to management is often where they go. And you'll know it when you see it: an unusual, or even inappropriate, focus on management metrics.  In such situations your project is "management rich" and "leadership poor". 

What to do about it?

Task 1: Speak truth to power. Point out the slip, perhaps inadvertent, from leadership to management.
Task 2: Make leadership demands that will push your inadvertent manager back into the right sandbox.




nfus Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Wednesday, July 19, 2023

"Command Presence"


I once had a colleague, who I admired greatly, be demoted from a vice-president position for lack of "command presence" (his telling of the reason)

And, so what is "command presence" and is it something to strive for? Can it be learned? Can it be taught?

Here's a few ideas on the topic:

It's about personal qualities and behaviors
Command presence refers to a set of qualities and behaviors that encompasses the ability to project confidence, assertiveness, and control over a situation, as well as to inspire respect, trust, and obedience from others.

Perhaps the phrase brings up an image of a military leader. Rightly so. But it's evident wherever leadership and the ability to influence others are important.

Is it "command and control" dressed up to be more palatable? It can be, but it shouldn't be. Command presence can be felt effectively in horizontal organizations as well as more vertical structures.
Judge for yourself as you read on:

You've got it when you've got:

Confidence: In a project situation, individuals with command presence exude a sense of self-assuredness and belief in their abilities, bordering on arrogance. They display confidence in their decision-making, communication, and problem-solving skills, which if directed toward objectives understood by all,  helps to instill trust and reassurance in others.

Calmness under pressure: Command presence involves the ability to remain composed and level-headed in challenging and stressful situations. 

Assertiveness: Command presence requires individuals to assert their authority and communicate their expectations clearly and firmly. 
Saying "no to power" is often part of the job jar. So is picking your moments to say 'yes'.

Individuals make decisions decisively, without hesitation, and are not easily swayed by external pressures. Of course, that can be borderline stubbornness, but one can be assertive and still be convinced by new evidence (Bayesian thinking) 

Physical and vocal presence: This is not about the big-guy small-guy syndrome. And it's not about being the verbal bully in the room. Be aware of your non-verbal cues which play a significant role in command presence. Maintain an upright but casual posture without being rigid, maintain eye contact, and use strong and confident body language. Speak with a clear and authoritative voice, commanding attention and conveying a sense of purpose.

Knowledge and expertise: Leaders with command presence possess a high level of knowledge, skill, and experience in their field. But, at the same time, they are respected for their respect of others who have the expertise in the moment.

Respect and empathy: While command presence requires a certain level of assertiveness, it is important for leaders to also demonstrate respect and empathy towards their subordinates. By showing understanding and consideration for others' perspectives, leaders can foster a positive environment and build stronger relationships.

Can it be learned? Can it be taught?
Yes, and yes
Developing command presence is a lifelong journey.
It's a learning exercise that involves honing one's communication skills, emotional intelligence, self-confidence, and expertise. 



Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Monday, January 23, 2023

Leadership by link and buffer



"Link and Buffer" is a leadership concept for a leader positioned between a governing board, to whom they must link the project, and a project team which must be buffered from the whims and biases of the board.

Fair enough
But it's not that easy.
In the "link and buffer" space live various skills:
  • Vision and practicality: to the board, the project leader talks strategically about outcomes and risks; and about the strategic direction of the project. But, to the team, the leader talks practically about getting on with business. All the tactical moves are effectively smoothed and buffered into a strategic concept which the board can grasp

  • Tempers and angst: When there's trouble, tempers fly. Buffering is a way to decouple. The board's angst does not directly impinge on the project if properly decoupled by the project leader.

  • Personality translation: Few on the project team will know or understand intimately the personalities on the board. Taking the personality out of the direction and recasting instructions into a formula and format familiar to the project team is part and parcel of the buffering.

  • Culture translation: In a global setting, the board may be culturally removed or distant from the project team. Who can work in both cultures? That of the board, and that of the project team? This is not only a linkage task but a translation task to ensure sensitivities are not trampled.

Examples of "link and buffer" abound in military history. Perhaps the relationship between Admiral Ernest King and Admiral Chester Nimitz is most telling. King was in Washington during WW II and was Nimitz superior in the Navy chain of command. Nimitz was in command of the Pacific Ocean Area from his HQ in Hawaii.  
 
King was responsible for a two ocean Navy in a world war; Nimitz more limited. Nimitz was the link and buffer from the tactical fighting admirals at sea, and the strategic war leaders in Washington.  No small matter!




Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Thursday, December 22, 2022

Are you accountable?


Are you accountable?
Most of us want to answer 'yes, of course!'; how could it be otherwise? 
Most of us would endorse these ideas:
I'm always accountable for what I do. 
I'm accountable for that which I am responsible.
(Subtext: this can only be true if my personal integrity does not allow me to push blame on to others for failures and missteps, or claim false credit for what others actually did)
Accountability attaches credit and blame.
In popular culture, it seems to be more about attaching blame: A common refrain: "Who's to be held accountable for this!?"

Actually, being accountable means accepting blame or consequences when valid, but also stepping up and accepting accolades when earned.

I like this from Henry Evans, the author of Winning with Accountability, who says accountability is “clear commitments that in the eyes of others have been kept.”

Evans has set the frame: the final judgment about accountability is with others
In this sense, the concept of personal accountability is somewhat of an "earned value" idea: 
  • You have a 'planned' set of responsibilities to get things done.
  • You 'earn' accolades or consequences as you account for your actions
  • Others judge the earnings and apply the credit or debit
Thus, in all schemes of accountability, you have a part to play: It's on you to commit to your responsibilities. So, even though Evans' statement is not explicit about being responsible, the holistic idea of accountability stemming from commitment embraces responsibility.

But what I don't like about Evans' statement is that it could be interpreted as requiring 'achievement' (in the sense of a commitment kept) when, of course successful achievement is not a requirement for accountability. Only a commitment to execute responsibly is.

And so in the context I've laid out it's common to encounter these questions:
  • What is accountability, or what is it to be accountable?
  • Can there be accountability without responsibility?
  • Can there be responsibility without accountability?
  • Are you given accountability, or do you grab it and take it on?
  • Is the apex of the pyramid always accountable for anything down in the pyramid? (See: Captain of the ship is accountable ..... )
I don't want to dig too much more deeply into the psychology of 'accountability', and realistically that would be a fools' errand because project and business culture drive a lot of the answers to the questions above.

So, without making a big thing out of the answers, I'll offer my thinking here:
  • As Evans puts it, accountability is about taking personal responsibility for outcomes: "I got this!" "I'm the one you can count on to get it done" "I will be there to see it through". All statements of commitment.
    And with Tom Petty in mind: "I won't back down!".

  • The accountability/responsibility questions are ageless; they've been around since forever! The usual answer is: 'If you want me to be accountable for outcomes, then give me the responsibility for plans and resources. If you crater my plan and matrix out my resources, then you're accountable and not me!

  • If you're not the apex (most senior executive) of the pyramid, you might be 'assigned' accountability: 'This is your mission and no one else's;  go get it done, and tell me when you're finished'.

    Actually, if you're low to mid in the pyramid, there's probably a backup to you. If it's a big pyramid, you may be an interchangeable cog in the mechanism. Nonetheless, grab it and go!

  • Most of time, 'seniors' are always happy to have accountability 'grabbers' in the mix. It makes it easier to allocate the mission requirements. And, you may quickly earn and retain the leadership label.

    But the 'grabbers' are sometimes seen as more interested in climbing the ladder than actually advancing the mission. So, some balance of eagerness and opportunity is required.

  • Traditionally, the 'apex' is accountable for the performance of everything done in the name of the pyramid. This is accountability without personal responsibility for outcomes. The "commitment" embedded in the concept of accountability is interpreted as 'committed to ensuring a responsible person is found, assigned, and expectations for outcomes established".

    In the military particularly, and certainly on ships at sea, this idea is deep culture.

    But, that idea often gets lost. One chief executive famously said that success has many fathers, but a failure is an orphan.

    Worse is the chief executive who denies accountability for all but successes. That is morally corrupt and a morale killer.



Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Thursday, December 15, 2022

Utility maximalist


Is your instinct to be a 'utility maximalist'?
If so, you are someone who wants to ring every dollar of functional effectiveness out of every dollar spent.
And why not?
Is the alternative just a waste of money?

About Utility
Utility, for this discussion, is the value placed on a functionality or feature or outcome compared to its actual cost input. 
Ideally, you would want more utility value than cost input, or at worst, 1:1. But sometimes, it goes wrong, and you get way less out than you put in. (*)

Show me the money
Here's the rub: Utility value is not always monetized, and not always monetized in conventional ways, though the cost input certainly is. So because utility usually has subjective components ... in the  eye of the beholder, as it were .... utility value often comes down to what someone is willing to pay.

As a PM, you can certainly budget for cost input
But you may have to take in a lot from marketing, sales, architects, and stylists about how to spread that cost to maximize utility and thereby maximize the business value of each input dollar spent. 

Kano is instructive
If you are a utility maximalist, you may find yourself pushing back on spending project dollars on "frills" and "style".
 
If so, there is something to be learned by by grabing a "Kano Chart" and looking at the curves. They are utility curves. They range from a utility of "1" (cost input and value output are equal) to something approaching an exponential of value over cost. 

The point is: investing in the "ah-hah!" by investing in the utility of a feature or a function will pay business benefits.

Art, beauty, and other stuff
Utility brings in art, beauty, and non-functionality in architecture, appearance, and appeal. Some call it "value in the large sense", or perhaps "quality in the large sense".
But utility also brings in personality, tolerance, and other human factors considerations

Utility maximalist leadership
It's not all about style, feature, and function.
Some leadership styles are "utility maximalist"
  • Short meetings
  • No PowerPoint
  • Bullets (like these!) over prose
  • Short paragraphs; one page
  • Impersonal communications (social media, email, text)
  • No 'water cooler' chat
Wow! Where's the 'art' in that list? Not much collegiality there. How do innovation and radical ideas break through?
How effective can that culture be across and down the organization (yes, some organizations have hierarchy)

On the other hand ....
  • Tough decisions with significant personnel and business impacts may be more effectively made with high utility
  • High utility does not rule out an effective leader soliciting and accepting alternatives. 
  • High utility does not mean bubble isolation; that's more about insecurity. 
But high utility in management does mean that you give (or receive) broad directives, strategic goals, resources commensurate with value, and authority. The rest is all tactics. Get on with it! 
 
_________________________________

(*) The classic illustration of utility is the comparison of the poor person and the wealthy person. Both have $10 in their pocket. The utility of $10 is much greater for the poorer person. In other words, the value of $10 is not a constant. Its value is situational. There are mostly no linear equations in a system of utility value.

And for the 'earned value' enthusiast, utility is not a measure of EV. In the EV system, all $ values have a utility of 1; value is a constant. And all equations are linear. 
For instance, the cost performance index, CPI, is a monetized ratio of the intended (planned) cost input and the actual cost realized, where "value" is held constant. 
EV is that part of the value to be obtained by the intended cost that can be considered completed or achieved at the point of examination.



Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Saturday, November 26, 2022

A leadership doctrine



When applying the principle of "calculated risk", leaders should pick subordinates with the intellectual subtlety to evalutate strategic and operational problems in their full context.

They should be given the latitude to judge just how much risk is appropriate given the value of the objective and the balance of resources.

Paraphrased from the writings of historian
Craig L. Symonds



Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Friday, November 11, 2022

Leading from the bottom of the funnel



This is about funnels, but we start with the concept of an apex.

In every book written about project management, the PMO is at the apex of a pyramid. Sometimes, as in Agile project methodology, the pyramid is flatter than most, but always there is an identifiable top figure.

Fair enough.

But Robert Gates, former Defense Secretary [and holder of many other government titles] writes that he often felt like the pyramid was inverted and thus took the look of a funnel. In the funnel model, the 'decider' is at the bottom of the funnel, with others pouring stuff in. 
 
Funnel v. Pyramid
How can it be that the top person is at the bottom, figuratively?

Gates explains: 
In the pyramid model, stuff is either pushed up for political cover, or because protocol demands that the decision lies higher, or because the apex person is pulling stuff up that they want control or inspection of it.

But in the funnel model, the top person is like the paper at the bottom of the bird cage: everything is pouring in from the top; and everybody on the project is busy doing the pouring. 
Fortunately, only a bit funnels all the way through, but gravity seems to be in charge. 
It's inexorable.

Filters in the funnel
Fortunately, the funnel can work like the pyramid, only with gravity. There can be and should be filters in the funnel. The minor stuff is trapped early and doesn't make it through. The top person -- at the end of the funnel -- can pull stuff "down", and there is some gravity effect: stuff naturally falls to the bottom for action.

And so for the PMO, the management points are:
  • In the funnel model, things move by default.
    There's an expectation on the part of anyone pouring stuff in at the top that it will eventually come to the attention of those 'at the bottom of the funnel'.
    Gravity is just the consequence of applying energy to get stuff up to the top of the funnel and pouring it in.

  • But in the pyramid model, gravity works against you.
    The default is: nothing moves to the top.
    If you want it to move up, there's work to be done!

If you like the idea of a funnel, how would you create it?
Just open your door! The funnel model is somewhat like "my door is always open" (even if virtual) ; anyone can "pour" something in. 
 
Anyone 'can' or Everyone 'should'?
Another funnel strategy is move from "anyone can"  to "everyone should" pour something in. 
Mind you: filters are needed.
And to mitigate frustration, if something is filtered out, some feedback to the initiator is required as to why it got filtered. (Crap! Don't you hate those form letters!?)

As the 'decider' you don't have to pull very much in if you operate like a funnel; stuff will get to you. If you like the funnel effect, you say that's good.
Perhaps, but only if you have the methods, tools, discipline, and staff to sort it out.

If you don't, turn things upside down and operate like a pyramid. Gravity is your friend; a lot of stuff just won't rise to the top




Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Sunday, May 15, 2022

Leading a team of rivals



Bidding on large contracts often requires teaming with a rival(s) to fill gaps in skills and capabilities. One day you're trying to beat them in a competition as your rival, and the next day you're teamed with them, now trying to beat yet another guy, with your 'rival' now your BFF.

And, what if you're the prime contractor PMO in this arrangement required to manage such a team of rivals with all the parochial tensions, biases, mistrusts, and suspicions that go along with such temporary truces between otherwise competitors?

From experience: leading coalitions is not easy! 
  • It take the patience of Job, and the resolve to direct traffic -- sometimes saying Yes! and sometimes saying No! 
  • It can't be a matter of permission and consensus when the chips are down: you are the team lead, and lead you must.

General Eisenhower had the mother of all coalition leadership jobs. Here's what he says:

"Success in such organizations rests ultimately upon personalities: [executives, managers, technicians] --- and even populations(*) -- must develop confidence in the concept of single command and the leader by which the single command is exercised. 
No binding regulation, [teaming agreement], or custom can apply to all its parts--only a highly developed sense of mutual confidence can solve the problem" ;

And, the 'problem' Eisenhower is referring to how to get disparate personalities -- some prickly, some quiescent, and some rude -- to [temporarily at least] cooperate for the greater good, and put aside parochial tensions, biases, mistrusts, and suspicions that go along with such temporary truces.

His remedy, not explicit above, is to attain confidence from performance. And that requires promoting the achievers and relieving the non-achievers -- with dispatch!



(*) In the PMO context, 'populations' is akin to all the sundry stakeholders from project investors to product users and maintainers



Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Thursday, May 12, 2022

Leadership by 'link and buffer'



"Link and Buffer" is a leadership concept for a leader positioned between a governing board, to whom they must link the project, and a project team which must be buffered from the whims and biases of the board.

Fair enough
But it's not that easy.
In the "link and buffer" space live various skills:
  • Vision and practicality: to the board, the project leader talks strategically about outcomes and risks; and about the strategic direction of the project. But, to the team, the leader talks practically about getting on with business. All the tactical moves are effectively smoothed and buffered into a strategic concept which the board can grasp

  • Tempers and angst: When there's trouble, tempers fly. Buffering is a way to decouple. The board's angst does not directly impinge on the project if properly decoupled by the project leader.

  • Personality translation: Few on the project team will know or understand intimately the personalities on the board. Taking the personality out of the direction and recasting instructions into a formula and format familiar to the project team is part and parcel of the buffering.

  • Culture translation: In a global setting, the board may be culturally removed or distant from the project team. Who can work in both cultures? That of the board, and that of the project team? This is not only a linkage task but a translation task to ensure sensitivities are not trampled.

Examples of "link and buffer" abound in military history. Perhaps the relationship between Admiral Ernest King and Admiral Chester Nimitz is most telling. King was in Washington during WW II and was Nimitz superior in the Navy chain of command. Nimitz was in command of the Pacific Ocean Area from his HQ in Hawaii.  
 
King was responsible for a two ocean Navy in a world war; Nimitz more limited. Nimitz was the link and buffer from the tactical fighting admirals at sea, and the strategic war leaders in Washington.  No small matter!




Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

To command, or is it just a comment?



Now, the word 'command' is probably a no-no among many. For those who dissent from 'command', it's more likely all about synergy and shared commitment, etc. 

Can PM work without a culture of 'command'?
 
Maybe.
But on projects of any scale, and businesses of scale, there will always be people 'on the commanding heights', in a command situation, and with command responsibility. 

Don't believe it? Check in with the C-suite and see what they say.
 
So, that said, we arrive at today's topic: If on the 'commanding heights', is a word spoken always a command, or can it be merely a comment? Indeed, are 'commanders' allowed the freedom and informality to just make a comment? 

Which is which is sometimes vexing, but does it matter?
 
Actually, Yes, it can matter a lot. Consider some of these situations and outcomes:
  • A PM is not promoted for lack of 'command presence' in their communications. What is that? See below.
  • 'Commands' are given (in the civilian world) but for lack of follow-though the permanent bureaucracy all but ignores them
  • A casual comment is understood -- in context -- to mean "get it done"
  • A casual comment is misunderstood to be a command, when it reality it was just a casual comment

So what's going on here?

Command presence: You know it when you see it. A confident aura that invites -- rather than demands -- followership. Obviously, no empty suit!

Sloppy communication. The "one in command" is careless about a comment, not understanding or observing the reaction that surrounds it

Underlings too eager to please. These guys make the most of reflected and proximate power -- power and authority absorbed simply because they are in close proximity to the throne.

Bureaucrats understand the impracticality or incompleteness of the command.  And so it is ignored or modified on the spot. Actually, this is a very common consequence of "flow down of goals and objectives" and also of assuming operating detail will be filled in below by the people who actually have to do the work.
So, don't be surprised to see how a command actually materializes!






Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Monday, June 28, 2021

The funnel and the pyramid!



In every book written about project management, the PMO is at the apex of a pyramid. Sometimes, as in Agile project methodology, the pyramid is flatter than most, but always there is an identifiable top figure.

Fair enough.

But Robert Gates, former Defense Secretary [and holder of many other government titles] writes that he often felt like the pyramid was inverted and thus took the look of a funnel. In the funnel model, the 'decider' is at the bottom of the funnel, with others pouring stuff in. 
 
Funnel v. Pyramid
How can it be that the top person is at the bottom, figuratively?

Gates explains: in the pyramid model, stuff is either pushed up for political cover, or because protocol demands that the decision lies higher, or because the apex person is pulling stuff up that they want control or inspection of

But in the funnel model, the top person is like the paper at the bottom of the bird cage: everything is pouring in from the top; and everybody on the project is busy doing the pouring. Fortunately, only a bit funnels all the way through, but gravity seems to be in charge. It's inexorable.

Filters in the funnel
Fortunately, the funnel can work like the pyramid, only with gravity. There can be and should be filters in the funnel. The minor stuff is trapped early and doesn't make it through. The top person -- at the end of the funnel -- can pull stuff "down", and there is some gravity effect: stuff naturally falls to the bottom for action.

And so for the PMO, the management points are:
  • In the funnel model, things move by default. There's an expectation on the part of anyone pouring stuff in at the top that it will eventually come to the attention of those 'at the bottom of the funnel'. Gravity is just the consequence of applying energy to get stuff up to the top of the funnel and pouring it in.

  • But in the pyramid model, gravity works against you. The default is: nothing moves to the top. If you want it to move up, there's work to be done!

If you like the idea of a funnel, how would you create it?
Just open your door! The funnel model is somewhat like "my door is always open" (even if virtual) ; anyone can "pour" something in. 
 
But, rather than "anyone can", you move to "everyone should" pour something in. As the 'decider' you don't have to pull very much in if you operate like a funnel; stuff will get to you. If you like the funnel effect, you say that's good.
Perhaps, but only if you have the methods, tools, discipline, and staff to sort it out.

If you don't, turn things upside down and operate like a pyramid. Gravity is your friend; a lot of stuff just won't rise to the top.




Buy them at any online book retailer!

Monday, April 5, 2021

Leading without risk


Leading -- leadership -- without risk; without taking on risk?!
It can't be done.
End of posting.

Perhaps a bit more:
To be a leader is to put yourself out front ... exposed, as it were
And, out front you'll find there are no easy answers.
 
If there were such, leadership would be more like management: Follow the rules; stay within the guides; take little personal risk to reputation and career; work for a salary instead of a compensation plan.

But, to be known as a leader is too put at risk not only yourself but your project as well. 
And, you can't buy insurance for that sort of stuff.
 
If you can't step out front ... expose yourself to risk of failure and to making a wrong decision from time to time, then you should look for another line of work.
 
Need even more?
In fact, a whole book was written on just this theme:
Ronald Heifetz wrote "Leadership without Easy Answers"
Highly readable and very instructive. 




Buy them at any online book retailer!

Friday, February 5, 2021

Link and buffer


"Link and Buffer" is a leadership concept for a leader positioned between a governing board, to whom they must link the project, and a project team which must be buffered from the whims and biases of the board.

Fair enough
But it's not that easy.
In the "link and buffer" space live various skills:
  • Vision and practicality: to the board, the project leader talks strategically about outcomes and risks; and about the strategic direction of the project. But, to the team, the leader talks practically about getting on with business. All the tactical moves are effectively smoothed and buffered into a strategic concept which the board can grasp

  • Tempers and angst: When there's trouble, tempers fly. Buffering is a way to decouple. The board's angst does not directly impinge on the project if properly decoupled by the project leader.

  • Personality translation: Few on the project team will know or understand intimately the personalities on the board. Taking the personality out of the direction and recasting instructions into a formula and format familiar to the project team is part and parcel of the buffering.

  • Culture translation: In a global setting, the board may be culturally removed or distant from the project team. Who can work in both cultures? That of the board, and that of the project team? This is not only a linkage task but a translation task to ensure sensitivities are not trampled.

Examples of "link and buffer" abound in military history. Perhaps the relationship between Admiral Ernest King and Admiral Chester Nimitz is most telling. King was in Washington during WW II and was Nimitz superior in the Navy chain of command. Nimitz was in command of the Pacific Ocean Area from his HQ in Hawaii.  
 
King was responsible for a two ocean Navy in a world war; Nimitz more limited. Nimitz was the link and buffer from the tactical fighting admirals at sea, and the strategic war leaders in Washington.  No small matter!




Buy them at any online book retailer!

Friday, January 15, 2021

Spectrum thinker


Spectrum (n.) "A set of values, ideas, or conditions, discreet or continuous, thematically consistent, and contained within a range"
 
Of some people it is said: 'they are spectrum thinkers'
Meaning what?
Meaning that person takes in a range of ideas, consults a number of sources, listens to more than one person, and from all sources arrives at their own position, decision, or concept.

The good news: spectrum thinkers are open to ideas, receptive to new concepts, not necessarily beholden to "the way we've always done it"

The bad news: spectra are not always tidy. Phasing has a lot to do with the quality of outcomes.
Phasing?
Phasing is the timeliness, or time-relationship, of the spectrum components [ideas, sources, facts, opinions].

Example: in communications, a square-wave signal is the sum of many spectral signals, properly timed ... one with the other ... to create sharp edges. Screw up the timing, and that same sum of signals will be just white noise

Example: take 20 singers, properly phase their voices, and you get a choir; otherwise you just get a noisy outcome, like a party group. 
 
Getting to a decision:
And so, effective spectrum thinking is not just openness to ideas, but also discipline with regard to timing and phasing of inputs. 
 
After all, the counterpoint to spectrum thinking is indecisiveness: always looking for one more input; always fearful that something is not being considered. And, too often willing to consider input that comes too late, out of order, and likely to add noise rather than signal to deliberations.
 
Call the question!
And, it's not only individuals: it's groups, committees, task forces, councils, etc. 
Everyone wants a voice
At some point, there's no value add to more information
It's time to call the question and make a decision!
 
Leadership is about recognizing this inflection point: more information will not help! 




Buy them at any online book retailer!

Sunday, November 8, 2020

Running a business



On the one hand:
Follow the science; follow the engineering; follow the facts; adhere to policy and precedent
On the other hand:
Listen to the customer; stay ahead of the competition; keep an eye on shareholder value; don't be late!
As one prominent CEO opined, business decision-making is all about a talent for making trade-offs. In effect, "situational decision-making" somewhat akin to "situational leadership". Different and multiple styles to be fitted to the situation:
  • Nothing is so simple as "follow the facts" and adhere to precedent. 
  • Nothing is so "lacking sense" as just "listen to the customer"

Here's another idea: seek stability and predictability. The fact is that without either, your only recourse is to apply a heavy discount to future value. 

Not so fast! 

Maybe your business model thrives on instability, in effect working off the 'rate of change' rather than the steady-state. 

Many 'transactionalists' work this way, making large bets on even small changes (very large times a very small number may still be a quite large number, aka: the "one-percent doctrine").

But if you are the business leader that heads toward the unpredictable, then you should be thinking of how to make your business "anti-fragile", to wit: to be able to absorb great shock without collapse.

  • By having interior firewalls to stop risks from propagating
  • By having redundancy to fill in for failed capability and capacity
  • By having reserves to cover losses
  • By not being totally "just in time" because there may not be time

No matter the model for decision-making, an internalized methodology that you can apply with confidence is your best tool, to be practiced and made like "muscle memory"

 



Buy them at any online book retailer!

Thursday, October 15, 2020

Delusions of vision


In this blog and elsewhere, the visionary leader is extolled, aspirational in every respect.
But, what if their strategic vision is delusional?
  • From predicates A and B, the leader envisions C
  • But, inferring C from A and B is a delusion, unsupported and unsupportable
Perhaps such a delusion is revealed in hindsight, but in the moment who can say C is a delusional inference to be drawn from A and B? How can anyone know that a person is deluding themselves?
There are some signs:
  • C is a possibility, yes, but a really long shot by probability
  • C is a black swan; there is nothing from history to support C as a consequence of A and B
  • C requires new physics, unlikely to ever be realizable
  • C requires unusual political support, unlikely to be anyone's political investment
  • C is just "confirmation bias" for an outcome wished for but otherwise unlikely
What to do?
So, if your PMO is being led by a leader you think is deluding themselves, what should you do?
 
First, look for your own confirmation bias. Indeed, are you the one that is deluded into thinking the bold and brave is not possible and you look for the supporting evidence to confirm your point of view, discounting ideas to the contrary?

Second, are there others that have the bona fides to not only agree with you but to also speak truth to power about the likely outcomes?

And third, if not C, then what is the inference to be drawn from A and B? Which is the greater error: the cost of accepting C as the objective, or the cost of discarding C and going for C-alternative?

Obviously, all situational. There's no fixed process or recipe.
Did I mention: Good Luck!


 


Buy them at any online book retailer!

Monday, September 28, 2020

Strategic leadership


Are you willing to follow -- or be led by -- a  leader who can't do the job you're doing?

What I'm speaking of is the distinction between the strategic leader and the operational leader
  • The strategic leader is the visionary -- usually -- but most importantly is the leader that connects all the dots in the long game; allocates resources strategically; causes integration to occur for the benefit of the far future. 
  • The operational leader leads by example -- can step in and do your job if necessary; more tactical and willing to make course corrections in the short term. Definitely in touch with the details

A bit tricky, this leadership thing: if you don't think your leader can do your job, do you think they are an "empty suit"? Many pin that label on the strategic leader.

It's not always clear cut:

The strategic person often has to make the tactical call at the cross roads to go this way or that way; or relieve and replace subordinates that are not performing. And, the operational person is going to engage strategic planning and engage with their Board, regardless of their main focus and agenda.

Optimistic v pessimistic

 From the concepts embedded in the "cone of uncertainty", we generally think of strategic people as optimistic in their outlook for the simple reason that the long reach gives time to make things right.

The flip side: the press of immediate actions -- and problems -- makes the operational leader more pessimistic

Situational leadership style

From the concepts of "situational leadership", we generally think of the strategic leader as the delegation person: give the tacticians all the rope they need and stand back. If they fail, replace and repeat.

Planning as a methodology

And, the strategic leader is going to put more stock in long range planning. In fact, to the strategist, the planning itself is more important than the plan. As soon as you've got a plan, you're in tactical mode. Let others do the execution.




Buy them at any online book retailer!

Saturday, August 29, 2020

Empty suit


Back in the day, project leaders wore something more than 'business casual'. Both men and women dressed for their roles.

But, alas, some of these "suits" [including ladies' attire] were 'empty'. If there were informing principles that guided policy and decisions, they only seemed to emerge when the consensus was already formed.

It was frustrating to work for those people.
A line from the play "Hamilton" is apt, and the issue is centuries old:

If you stand for nothing, what will you fall for?
Well, actually, there's no way of knowing the answer. And so these are not only frustrating people to work with, they can also be dangerous, pulling the rug out, failing to support, and reversing course without notice.

Where you sit
I think this is a bit different -- yet, not that much different -- from the similar adage: 
"Where you stand depends on where you sit".
That bit of wit is more about taking responsibility for consequences. When you don't have such, you can say anything. You may think you stand on principle, but it's harder when you're accountable for the consequences of your actions. You may find a tactical compromise will actually advance your strategic principle.

It's still frustrating, but we see it all the time. Responsibility, authority, and accountability shape things differently and bring realism to theory.




Buy them at any online book retailer!

Monday, June 29, 2020

Out-of-the-office worker-traveler


Following up on my last posting, here's some other insights to the out-of-office worker and traveler, as quoted from the recent press*

[C.E.O. read: project executive]

“A C.E.O. who does not meet people in person is a captive to the aperture of a camera lens rather than the aperture of her eyesight. .... —Bill Perlstein, Washington

• “The office doesn’t matter for the C.E.O. (who travels a lot anyway) or any other executive. What matters is what they accomplish. If you think about it, the office environment is an expensive artificial structure ....”—Joe Carlin, Cary, N.C.

• “As a former director of research ... , the best ideas came from colleagues talking over coffee or at lunch about some pie in the sky idea or discussing a problem they could not solve.” —Emily Jones, Rochester, N.Y.

• “I am an ‘outbound C.E.O.’ That means over 50 percent of my time is spent outside of the office constructing high-value relationships ... An ‘inbound C.E.O.’ spends over 50 percent of their time in the office and builds value by management of the company processes. ”—Steve Baird, Vancouver, Wash.

•  I would say that being on-site was essential. I felt responsible for creating a positive work environment and for maintaining a caring office culture. I don’t see how I could have met those objectives remotely.”—Erica Moeser, Madison, Wisc
--------------
*New York Times, May 28th, 2020


Buy them at any online book retailer!

Saturday, June 20, 2020

A leadership personality


Exasperating, but generally forgiven. A combination of charm, audacity, imagination, optimism, and energy
Historian Arthur Schlesinger describing William Donovan, the leader of the clandestine spy agency, OSS, in WW II

And, to put a point on it, Donovan was considered a mediocre administrator and manager.

Noteworthy: Donovan was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for service in WW I, and then was a successful Wall Street attorney, politically a Republican, who served FDR, a Democrat, throughout the war.

 


Buy them at any online book retailer!