Posts Tagged ‘management’

Reflections on “Talent is Overrated”

Career, Musings | Posted by Doc
Aug 09 2011

I’m in the midst of reading Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else by Geoff Colvin. I’m finding much that resonates for me, especially in light of recent experience.

“When asked to explain why a few people are so excellent at what they do, most of us have two answers, and the first one is hard work. People get extremely good at something because they work hard at it. We tell our kids that if they just work hard, they’ll be fine. It turns out that this is exactly right. They’ll be fine, just like all those other people who work at something for most of their lives and get along perfectly acceptably but never become particularly good at it. The research confirms that merely putting in the years isn’t much help to someone who wants to be a great performer.” [emphasis mine]

Too many organizations believe that all they have to do is give employees a place to work, specific roles to play, and an opportunity to do their work over and over and over again, and those employees should get better at what they do. After all, we’re all motivated and driven and have the capability to figure out what we need to know and do to get better/more skilled, right?

Wrong.

“It could be put very simply: What the authors called ‘deliberate practice’ makes all the difference. Or as they stated it with stark clarity in their scholarly paper, ‘the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain.’”

As he explains further, “deliberate practice” is not just doing it over and over again.

“Deliberate practice is characterized by several elements, each worth examining. It is activity designed specifically to improve performance, often with a teacher’s help; it can be repeated a lot; feedback on results is continuously available; it’s highly demanding mentally, whether the activity is purely intellectual, such as chess or business-related activities, or heavily physical, such as sports; and it isn’t much fun.”

If I find myself in a situation where someone – someone who is supposedly helping me progress toward mastery – just says “again! again! again!”, then I know we’re not making progress. I was trying out a new gym, for instance. It was a kettlebell gym. During one activity we were swinging a kettlebell up and down, from between our legs up to around shoulder level. The instructor said “Snap Doc! Snap!” Needless to say, I had no idea what she was talking about. She didn’t help me to understand the body mechanics, or even what she meant by “snap”. She just kept snapping “Snap!” at me. Not helpful.

On the other hand, a different instructor said “Use your legs, not your arms and shoulders. Your arms and shoulders are just there to support the bell. Use your upward momentum with your legs to move the bell, and snap into position with your body upright and your butt tight at the top.” That was far more helpful. When this person said “That’s better. Now try for more snap.” I knew what was meant and how to move into deliberate practice.

In a work environment, if you are not being challenged and offered ways to learn, then you might have reason to question the situation. It’s all too easy for employers to discriminate based on talent, where Colvin would argue that talent is real, but is a relatively small influence on how skilled or capable someone is at a particular endeavor. The shift from “let’s find talented people” to “let’s find people who understand the importance of deliberate practice” is as important – and difficult – as the shift that Dan Pink talks about in Drive (intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation). Colvin says:

“…it’s one thing to say that a manager is ‘good with people.’ It’s another to ask whether a manager notices when a direct report seems no longer challenged by his or her job. If so, is that seen as a problem or an opportunity? What responses are proposed? Of these, how effective or ineffective do they seem, and which, if any, are applied?”

, along with its close friend , is a set of skills and a mindset. Sadly, too many organizations treat it as a job that someone can pick up on their own if they just do it day after day. Good management, effective management, requires deliberate practice. It requires mentoring and guidance and – worth saying again – deliberate practice. It really makes me sad to see people who have the potential to be strong, effective managers and/or leaders being led by people who are not strong, effective managers and are therefore being taught the wrong stuff. Sometimes the teaching is in the form of abstention: their “leaders” let them do foolish things, or ineffective things, and don’t help them to learn better, wiser, more effective ways. And this becomes generational, as each “generation” of organizational leaders “raises” the next generation.

If you’re in a situation like this, you have three choices, two of which require you to take action:

  1. Do something about it – your
  2. Shut up and take it – but do it with awareness, not ignorance
  3. Leave – change your circumstances

If you have stories about situations like this, I’d love to hear about them.

“You must be the change you want to see in the world.” ~Mohandas Gandhi
FacebookShare

Being a Parent-Manager

Coping and Communicating, Leadership Lessons from Robin Hood | Posted by Doc
Apr 24 2010

[This is the second story in the Lessons from Robin Hood series]

One day Robin asked “Little” John how he was so successful with the band. John had taught many of them to fight, hunt, cook, build shelters, and work together in many ways including while on missions against the Sheriff’s men.

At first, John was hard put to come up with an answer.

“I just ask them to do things, maybe I show them, maybe I do it with them, and then they seem to do them,” said John.

“But that’s not all, surely!” said Robin. “After all, there must be disagreements and confusion and such. How do you handle those?”

John thought some more. This was quite a challenge, since as is true with many of us, he didn’t always know what he did or why it worked. Frequently, it was just “doing what I do” and it seemed to work.

John said, “Well, Robin, you know that I’m married and that my darling wife and I have a bit of a brood, right?”

“Yes, of course, John. What does that have to do with anything?”

“Well,” said John, “I just realized that there are many things I’ve learned in dealing with my wife and children that have just become automatic. And so without thinking about it, I do the same things with our band, here.

“For instance, when I want to teach my oldest son to chop down trees, I don’t just tell him ‘go chop down trees’. I first show him the axe, explain how to use it, maybe I explain how to keep it sharp and shiny, and then I take him into the forest and show him how to chop down a tree.

“Chopping down a tree seems like a simple thing, but I have to teach him how to think about where he wants it to fall, and what angle to chop, and so on.

“Once I’ve shown him what to do, then I give him the axe and watch him try it. I give him lots of encouragement, point out what he’s done well, and try to steer him away from developing any bad habits.

“When we’re done, which might take more than one tree (and fortunately the forest has plenty), he knows how to chop down a tree. He also feels good about himself and what he’s done, and our relationship is stronger than ever.”

Robin pondered this for a bit. “But that’s an easy one. I see that you have a strong yet gentle hand with your son, and that you treat him as a man, not a boy, and give him the respect and encouragement that any man would want.

“And I can also see that you don’t push him too hard, but that you don’t take it too easy on him.

“I can even see how that could apply with our band here.

“Now tell me how you handle the discord and disgruntlement that we find occurring from time to time.”

Once again, John pondered. As we saw, John did a lot of these things “automatically”, and it took some pondering to bring it to the surface.

“Well, Robin, here’s how I think it goes.

“Let’s say that two of my young ones are throwing unkind words back and forth. I could just bang their heads together. Or I could just send one out to collect mushrooms while the other chops firewood.

“But if I do that, neither one of them learns how to deal with the other. They just learn to either avoid me or avoid each other. But I want my children to enjoy each other’s company, to love and respect each other, and to work well together when they have chores.

“So I talk to them. First, I find out what they’re on about. Not just what they might say about it at first, but I try to find out what it’s really about. For instance, Luke might claim that Bryan stole his favorite plaything. Bryan, of course, would likely deny that. And then they’d go back and forth, accusing and denying, denying and accusing. I can only take so much of that. And I would be sorely tempted to bang them together!

“But what I try to do is figure out why there might be bad blood between the boys. And I might find that Bryan did take Luke’s plaything, but that he did so because Luke got the better cut of meat at dinner the night before. And Bryan was feeling hurt because he thought that I was favoring Luke.

“At that point, I’d ask Luke about dinner and whether he felt like he was being favored. We’d talk about actually talking about things that bother us, rather than doing something. Bryan was punishing Luke, but it wasn’t really Luke that had upset him. It was me and Dorothy, my wife.

“Finally, we’d see if we couldn’t find a better way to deal with it if it comes up again. Knowing my boys and girls, Luke would probably offer to make sure that they both got equal portions the next time.

“This is just one example, but maybe it helps you to see how I do what I do.

“Finding not just what’s on the surface, but what’s under the surface, is usually the best choice.

“It’s like feeding your family from the lake – if you only collect what’s floating on the surface, you’ll likely go hungry. And even if you don’t go hungry, you surely won’t have very interesting meals!”

Robin went off on his own for a bit to think about what John had told him. It was a bit of a struggle initially, to understand how John-as-father lessons applied to John-as-leader. Robin understood that John used the same techniques, but was still confused as to how John could use them without offending the folk the band. How could John be fatherly to them without them feeling like they were being treated like children?

Robin did the obvious – he asked!

Once again, John was forced to ponder. He didn’t normally think much on it – just did it as well as he could.

John said, “I don’t act like their father, nor do I treat them like children. What I do is use the same techniques that I have learned as a father with the folk of our band. It’s like chopping two different kinds of tree – I don’t pretend that oak is cherry, and I may chop each somewhat differently. But I use the same basic techniques of chopping. I don’t invent a whole new kind of chopping for cherry, after chopping oak. And I don’t pretend that the cherry is oak.”

This set Robin back a bit on his heels. When John said it so simply, it seemed so obvious. And to Robin, of course, it made great sense. While it didn’t matter what kind of target he shot at with his bow – bale of hay, tree, or living – he used basically the same techniques. He might vary them slightly, but the techniques were the same. And when he thought about it that way, he realized that it was true!

And with that, Robin realized that he had been doing much the same thing, also without knowing it. He treated Little John and Alan a Dale largely the same, dealt with the issues they brought to him using the same basic ideas and techniques. But he never treated Alan as though he were John, nor John as though he were Alan.

And neither man ever complained that “you treat me as though I were him!”

Robin also realized that if he were ever blessed with wife and children, he might also be able to use what he had learned today to make a happy family!


The lessons from any part of life can, and frequently should, be applied to other parts. This doesn’t mean that you are treating your dog as though he were your child, or that slicing an avocado is the same as cutting down a tree. But the lessons may apply.


FacebookShare

Nine women, one month

Agile & Lean | Posted by Doc
Jun 11 2009

Among the other things we talk about so frequently in the community is commitment. Do you know the story of the Pig and the Chicken?

Commitment is about being there.  Commitment is about being available to your teammates.  Commitment is about having a roughly equal level of investment in the project.

In too many organizations, “they” treat members as if they don’t need to be committed.

“Oh, you can work on that project and these other two. You can handle it.”

What they ignore are two things:

  1. doesn’t work. Research has been done, reports have been written, and it just doesn’t work. The individual gets frustrated and stressed, and doesn’t do their best on either/any.
  2. It’s not just about the individual, it’s about the team.

Here are some writings and thoughts about multitasking, particularly in the Agile world:

  • http://www.think-box.co.uk/blog/2007/07/dont-multitask.html
  • http://www.stickyminds.com/sitewide.asp?Function=edetail&ObjectType=ART&ObjectId=14287
  • http://www.dennisstevens.com/2009/04/23/reducing-multi-tasking-key-to-productivity/
  • http://agilecommons.org/posts/845ad5e48c

Without much effort you can find more.

So why is it that it’s so obvious to so many of us that multitasking is not effective and not efficient, and is actually detrimental to the individual and the team, and yet still the “leaders” seem to push it and push it?

If it’s gonna take a month to do something, and a month to do another something, then one person will probably take more than two months if they try to do them both at the same time. On the other hand, if they are allowed to focus on one at a time…

I’m not saying that organizations shouldn’t do multiple projects. I’m saying that individuals do their best work when they can focus on one project/task and work it to completion. Anything else is self-defeating.

FacebookShare

The Tale of Will and Tom: Leadership and Management

Leadership Lessons from Robin Hood | Posted by Doc
Mar 12 2009

As the band grew, so Robin found the need to split it up into teams. Some teams would go foraging, some would go hunting for food, some would see to the health and safety of their camp, and some would do “the work of the band” – revolution!


You may have heard of Will Scarlet – renowned throughout that company of forest green and earth brown-clad folk for the flamboyance of his attire. Bright reds and oranges and such were not the best choice for disappearing into the surrounding forest. But Will had his style, and was willing to make adjustments to his behavior in order to indulge his fancies.

Will rapidly became the leader of one of the teams in Robin’s band of insurgents. And Robin observed that Will’s always acted with great spirit. Where Will led, his would follow. What Will was passionate about, his was passionate about. When Will had his rare moments of discouragement, his was there to remind him of all the good he and they had done. And back he’d bounce!

Will’s clothing, in many ways, reflected his personality: flamboyant without being loud; full of life and energy; bright and shining and easy for those around him to follow. His team took to wearing bits of red and orange and yellow about them – never as flamboyant as their leader, but absorbing what they could and imitating him from their love and respect and admiration.


In contrast to Will was Tom. Tom came from a small village that had been destroyed by Prince John’s soldiers. Tom was born to a woodsman and his wife, and was used to spending time alone in the forest, being very self-sufficient and self-reliant. Tom’s parents were quiet folk, leading simple lives. Their home was small but always seemed neat and well cared for.

When Robin first met Tom, he thought “Here’s a fellow who will quietly go about his job, getting things done. There will be neatness and order, but no passion. I don’t imagine he’ll ever be much of a leader.”


But, of course, being a good leader Robin had early realized the importance of trusting his lieutenants and giving them the authority to make decisions. So when he found that Tom was leading one of the teams, he went to Little John to ask about it.

“My large friend,” began Robin, “I see that our friend Tom has become the leader of a team. I admit to some surprise.”

“Why so?” asked John.

“Well,” said Robin, “Tom always struck me as the quiet-follower-get-things-done type. He never really seemed to me to have the qualities of a leader of men.”

John, as was John’s wont, paused to think before responding to Robin. Up until that time, he really hadn’t thought about exactly why he had made Tom a leader. It just seemed to have happened over time.

“As I think about it,” John said to Robin, “I see that it was that quiet-get-things-done quality that caught my attention, Robin. I’d give him a task to do, and it would get done. There was never any fanfare or foofaraw, just quiet competence.

“Now I understand what you mean when you say that he didn’t seem to have what it takes to be a leader of men. But I found that when a task assigned to Tom required more than one man to accomplish, he would quietly organize a work group and get it done.”

Robin pondered this for a bit. He wondered, at that moment, about what he’d always assumed about “.”

After their conversation, Robin and John both found themselves watching Tom and thinking about how he always seemed to get things done.

And Robin also noticed that while Will’s team always “went at it with a will,” the results were rarely as neat and tidy, or as workmanlike and solid, as were those of Tom’s team.

And yet if you were to have asked Robin at the outset who would be the more effective leader of the two, Robin would have named Will without a moment’s hesitation. And even now, Robin would say that Will was the more effective leader, but that Tom was better at getting things done.

Several weeks after their initial conversation, Robin and John came together for another chat. Each of them had observed some interesting things, and they wanted to share.

Robin found John sitting on his favorite tree stump, looking over the camp area. Robin pulled up a log and joined John. They sat in companionable silence for a time, watching their band going about their tasks.

“I’ve been thinking,” began Robin. “I’ve been thinking about our conversation about Tom and his team.”

“As have I,” said John.

“I’ve also been thinking about Will and his team,” continued Robin, with some thoughtfulness in his tone.

“I’ve noticed that Tom’s team never seems to get excited, always seems to get their tasks done, and with a minimum of fuss and mess. When they’re done, you’d never know they’d been working, except for the results.

“Whereas Will’s team always seems to go about their work with a great deal of energy and noise. One always knows when they’re about a task, from the very storm and commotion. Happy? ‘most always. And it’s clear that they would follow Will into the very jaws of death.

“But it seems that their tasks are never quite as well done, nor wrapped up as neat and tidy, as are those of Tom’s team. What think you, my friend?”

John, being John, pondered. Not that he hadn’t been pondering for quite some time, you understand. But John rarely spoke without pondering.

“Robin,” began John, “you are a fine leader. You have drawn to you a group of people who might never have come together for a lesser man. You have shown them your vision, have shared with them your mission, and have captivated their hearts and minds.

“As a hunter, you are without peer. As a fighter, you are feared and respected throughout the forest and the land. When it comes to giving rousing talks to lighten and charge the hearts of the band, there is none better.

“But I’ve found that when it comes to cooking supper, chopping wood, or making sure that a fighting team has enough arrows, there are others of us who are more suited to these things.”

This certainly gave Robin pause! He had never really given much thought to why his band worked as well as it did. He had just assumed that his leadership had made it happen.

But John’s observations, as always, cut simply and cleanly to the heart of the matter.

“As you say, John. And if that is so, then it seems to me that while my strengths lend themselves to drawing folk to me and to giving them of my heart and spirit and thought, yours is to get things done. I’ve found, almost from the day we first met, that you were able to ensure that folk were fed and housed and clothed and were therefore able to pursue the vision and the mission.

“And if that is so, then perhaps the same is true of Will and Tom. Will has the same fire and passion as I do, and seems to be nearly as adept at firing up the team. Tom, on the other hand, quietly goes about his tasks, getting things done.

“Do you suppose that that’s the key difference? That those of us who are seen and thought of as ‘leaders’ have the knack for reaching men’s minds, hearts, and spirits, while there are those of us who might be called ‘managers’ who ‘manage’ to get things done. The ‘managers’ are those who see to the feeding and clothing and housing of the bodies while the ‘leaders’ see to their minds and spirits.”

John pondered. He never liked to speak before he’d had a chance to think, and always liked to think before he spoke.

“I think, Robin, that you are largely right. Perhaps it’s a bit simple, but I think we’re on the right track.

“Perhaps I’d put it this way…

“Leaders are those who draw folk to follow them down the road, shouting ‘Hurrah!’ and waving their banners.

“Managers are those who make sure that the folk are fed and clothed and have a place to sleep at night.

“I think that Managers might need to be Leaders, as it’s hard to get folk to do things without at least a bit of inspiration.

“But I think that Leaders need not be Managers, as long as they have Managers with them.”

And when they parted, they agreed that they would combine Tom’s and Will’s teams. For, perhaps, Will’s Leader-ship and Tom’s Manager-ship would make for even more success from the new team.

Robin and John watched, in amazement, as that is just what happened. The team’s forays against enemies, their hunting trips, their projects to build, feed, scout, or clean all seemed to be done with more spirit than either team had showed before, and to be done with greater precision and success.

We’ve all heard that “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.”
This is true with styles and personalities.

< Continued from The Tale of Little John

FacebookShare