As always, failures can lead to success, but it’s up to you to take advantage of the years of trials and errors that have already been tangled with.  Whether it’s a coach, a consultant, or a friend, you will need that support.  Even when you know the basics, the small details will get you every time.

The first four suggestions were:

You can also collaborate without email, limits, headaches, chaos, costs, co-location, and even – inexplicably - head shaving.  To our credit, we cannot apparently have collaboration without communication nor common values.  Seems logical enough.

This got me thinking; is it possible to have collaboration without meetings?  Of course, collaboration is defined by two or more people working together toward a common goal.  One would naturally assume that at least one “meeting” would be required somewhere in the process.

But if a meeting is defined as a formal session with a clear start and end, along with other niceties, I think it is perfectly reasonable to do without them.  What would this look like, and why is it important?

I’ve observed many people, sheltered in their cubicles, who believe that any human interaction during their workday is taking them away from the “real work”.  Any commitment outside their box must be received and accepted via Outlook.  Sad to say, but this attitude is probably causing them more grief than they are trying to avoid in the first place – not to mention bringing down overall productivity.

By demanding (whether from the employee’s or employer’s perspective) formal meeting agendas and set time commitments, the organization is forced to have such things as “pre-pre-meeting meetings”.  This is getting out of hand.  I know of no organization that can function without regular human interactions – formal or not.  It seems, rather, that many organizations have become groups of individuals who must have their entire days scheduled as if they were play-dates.

The problem is that collaboration, design, science, and even basic conversation is messy.  It does not conform to schedules, timetables, and clear agendas.  Don’t get me wrong – agendas have their place; the bigger the meeting, the more important they are.  But for daily interactions, sometimes you just have to go down the hall, pick up the phone, or (dare I say, as a last resort) send the email – no pre-meeting agenda required.

This means that those recurring meetings may not be required if no one has anything to share.  And they may not if, during the week, they have informally sat down together as groups of two or three to work out a resolution or a plan.  If your job requires synthesizing, analyzing, recommending, or planning based around some set of information, you don’t have to wait for the meeting to get it.

{click for full size image}

Tagged: Sustainability ]]> http://pmug.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/630/feed/ 0 J Burke xkcd.com/sustainable http://pmug.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/government-vs-corporations/ http://pmug.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/government-vs-corporations/#comments Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:47:12 +0000 Jason http://pmug.wordpress.com/?p=628 ]]> It’s interesting and puzzling that corporations represent “them” while government supposedly represents “us”.  Those supporting the Occupy movements want, among other things, greater accountability for corporations when it comes to social responsibility – through additional regulations and enforcement, one assumes.

But corporations are “us” as well.  Both institutions represent us in different ways.  And regardless of their respective “motivations”, they are both just organizations of individuals.  A corporation has no conscience to speak of – but nor does government.

Somehow, we are to believe that one organization is in a better position to decide the fate of another organization, when both are operated by inherently flawed individuals – and those individuals are ALL of us to some degree or another.  Supposedly, the government organization is more attuned to the pleas of the 99% than the corporations, which I guess therefore represent the 1%.  Or something like that.

I have not seen evidence of this as of yet.  In the meantime, it’s really just a lot of noise.

But what about the learning environment (i.e., the workplace)?

Funny enough, individuals don’t work in a vacuum within their organizations.  Not only will each person learn and develop at different rates, but the organizational culture will almost assuredly change much more slowly.  Each new bright spot of success brings with it the realization that not everyone is “seeing the light” in the same way.  Like a religion, there will be fanatics and disbelievers.  But within any given organization, the fans will quickly become frustrated and disillusioned if the rest of the group doesn’t catch up.

What’s happening here?  Again, we have our own brains to blame.

We are wired to believe our way is the right way.  When those around us don’t agree, it creates a conflict, called cognitive dissonance.  When working in an environment of change and – ostensibly at least – improvement, this becomes more difficult to handle, since we must now reassess our co-workers as we and they change together.  Who is working with me, and who is against me?

This is the point at which the organizational leadership is critical to both harness the power of those bright spots and to convince everyone else that the change is really the right thing to do.  Without this commitment, those who have improved – by whatever objective measure you choose – will become more frustrated at the lack of progress around them.  At worst, they become so fed up that they leave the organization.  That leaves you, as the leader, with a less and less motivated team and a more toxic environment in which to make any change.

The forthright commitment from all levels of the organization is critical to keeping those “early adopters” of change from disillusionment and to keeping everyone else headed in the same direction at the same time.

Humans are hard-wired to resist change.  Psychologists, sociologists, and advertisers have known this for a long time.  It is the rest of us – the owners of such irrational brains – that seem consistently surprised that most of the things we would like to (or need to) change take plenty of hard work.

So with the close of another year and a reflection on just how difficult it has been to change ourselves, our businesses, and even our countries, it is appropriate to recall some of what the Heaths call “bright spots.”

Their bright spots are the things that highlight that progress is being made.  The small wins and micro-steps that occur day to day, but that are often invisible when we lift our gaze to the goals that still seem quite far away.  But they are there, and in fact we need them – we are biologically wired to stick to the safe path and avoid unnecessary risks.  These small wins allow our minds to grasp the possibilities and literally reshape our thinking.  Our hesitancy to take the first step along the path is many times greater than that keeping us from the second and subsequent steps.

So it is as many of us look forward to 2012, make our resolutions, set high goals, and then – come February – discover that, “gosh, this is hard work!”  So many of us examine our weaknesses and resolve to reverse them – the ultimate definition of personal change.  Alternatively, we could examine our strengths and achievements over the past year – and build on them.  I guarantee that even if your life was turned upside-down during the last year or two, there have been small successes.  You never know when one of those will be the key to the next door.

So when I play with them, I will often adjust the rules to fit their personalities and ages.  My 8 year old son will not have fun playing the same way that my older daughters will.  The important point is that we don’t just ignore the rules to make the game easier; we think about the goals of the game, and adjust the process to attain them in the manner most appropriate to the players on that particular day.

Some people are hard-wired to follow each and every rule the way that it is written.  Someone sat down and designed the game the way that it is, and that’s the way it will be played.  But remember that people can’t foresee every circumstance that the players will encounter.  Game designers also assume a certain level of general experience, but can’t be expected to know each individual’s abilities.

Or perhaps there is tradition to consider.  We rarely change the rules of chess, for example.  That’s a case where, like a language, if you want someone else to understand you, you have to agree on a common set of rules.

This adjustment of the rules extends to other parts of life as well (and indeed, along with learning strategy, is an important life skill that comes from games).  Anyone that works for a living knows there are countless rules that govern daily actions.  Policies, procedures, paperwork, informal networks, etiquette, and culture all set up constraints to the work we do.

The important point is that if you are all working toward the same goal, it is okay to adjust the rules to fit the players.  This particular form is onerous and not adding value?  Stop filling it out.  That department isn’t allowed to request supplies directly from the vendor (even though it is cheaper and more expedient)?  Make an exception.

Games (and work) are not necessarily about everyone playing by every single rule.  They are about having fun and reaching an end goal that everyone can agree on.  Leading an organization means knowing which rules are negotiable, to what degree, and to whom any changes should apply.  Following the rules for their own sake means not understanding the true goals in the first place.

We have all had shattered expectations. We thought we could depend on someone, we trusted, we delegated responsibility – only to face disappointment, frustration, and what becomes regarded as substandard performance. Naturally, this happens in both personal and business situations. But in business, we have a much more structured concept of expectations and a line of authority that provides fundamental motivation (to keep your job!) if not actual leadership.

Nonetheless, whenever you expect something of someone else, you have an obligation as well. It is rarely enough to simply assign a task – big or small – and expect that it will be done without some degree of follow-up. At the most fundamental level, the task must be understood and the proper resources must be available. But beyond that, the delegator must ensure that the task is properly prioritized and fits into the schedule. Time, as always, has the final say.

As a business coach, I must be constantly sensitive to my clients’ time and aware that anything I ask of them must fit into an already busy schedule.  Simply walking around a dropping in can easily consume valuable time and make my visits a chore and an annoyance rather than constructive.  Not only must I be aware of everyone’s “hard” scheduled commitments, but also of the more subtle differences in energy throughout the day.

One person may be ready to attack new tasks first thing in the morning and would welcome adding things to the list so that they can be prioritized all together.  Another leaves work the previous day having his morning scheduled just so and detests interruptions and changes until the major tasks have been completed.  Solution: drop in for a few minutes with Person A at the start of the day; save Person B for after lunch.

Taking this approach to yet another level, just because I avoid taking valuable time from Person B in the morning, doesn’t mean I can’t say “hi” or otherwise engage in a brief, non-work-related chat.  The subtle payoff is this: I (hopefully) will not be “that guy” that can’t talk about anything but work or always comes rushing in with a “five minute” task at all hours of the day.

Accepting coaching is already stressful and time-consuming.  If all you ever bring to your staff is another job that doesn’t quite fit into the schedule, hasn’t been well thought out, or is otherwise just another fire drill, your mere presence can cause stress and anxiety.  This feeling – even if mild and unconscious – can reduce productivity and creativity, even to the point of active resistance to your management efforts.

The reason for this is quite simple: long-term strategy will never be able to predict the real-time conditions in which decisions must be made.  Therefore, the organization’s management must be able to internalize the strategy such that a decision that goes against it will feel downright uncomfortable.

On the other hand, they cannot expect that every decision will have a firm basis in a strategy document.  There is a lot of gray area between vision and execution.

One of the best definitions of vision I’ve heard is this:

“A vision presents a clear goal, but not the path to get there.”

It’s like a mountain on the horizon.  You follow the general direction, even when the path is not straight and there are obstacles in the way.  When you pause to get your bearings, the goal is still there.  Adjustments and deviations from the shortest path are a part of the journey.