'Values' versus 'Preferences'

A 'value' is a way of signaling 'what is important' to a person, group, team or community.

'Values' are a set of emotional rules followed to make decisions. Values are useful to determine integrity and honesty. It is easier to be aligned and predictable when people share the same values. Values exert moral pressure and are sometimes more effective than rules.

A core group needs to share the same values. Values are the tie-breakers when faced with tough choices. The more deeply rooted a value, the harder it is to change, in self or the other.

A 'preference' is a choice made by stack ranking alternatives. The ranking could be based on objective (value derived, cost saved) or subjective criteria (happiness, pleasure, satisfaction). Its easier to change preferences based on presenting data or proof that an alternative is better than the other.

When faced by tough choices know whether you are faced by a value-driven conflict or a preference-driven conflict. Sometimes it is not easy to tell the difference. Each has a different root cause and hence requires different solutions.

Theory, pedantic, patterns

Words are misused and abused. Or so it seems anyway. Its important to know the underlying meaning of words for you as well as the other person.

Take the word 'theory'. In the corporate world, in a disagreement, proposals are often labeled 'theoretical'. When I looked up the word in Wikipedia, I found the meaning to be:

• An analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations
• Identification of this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena
• Makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

This sounds good until we realize that theories are 'rigorously tentative', meaning, because they are abstract or conceptual, they can be neither right nor wrong. Therefore, in the corporate world, what we need are theorems:

• Theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory to concrete situations.

I suspect the word that needs to be used to object to an argument is 'pedantic' (pejorative use):

• Overly concerned with formalism and precision, or who makes a show of his learning.

The outcomes sought in executing strategy is 'clarity', 'shared clarity' and discovery of 'leading indicators'. Problem solving requires critical thinking and then influencing. It requires understanding patterns and acting on them. Lack of time and resources and other real/perceived pressures leads to impatience with communication gaps which in turn leads to loss of effectiveness.

So forget how you want to say it, focus on what the audience is looking for. Use their vocabulary and frames of reference. It does not mean you need to give up your beliefs or values, just change the way the point is made.

360 degree view

It would be nice to know everything about the problem before starting solution.

The imperfections of this world prevent us from getting a 360 degree view of a problem or situation can be classified as:

• Unknown: You don't know the information today, but given time and resources you can know it.
• Unaffordable: You don't have the time or resources to get the information now or you would have to agree to terms and conditions that make it pointless to proceed.
  
• Unknowable: The capabilities to understand or explain the situation or incident are not in place and we are not sure when those capabilities will be available.
  
• Unlawful: Sometimes having and acting on some types of information is illegal (e.g. insider information)
  

In the meantime, we have a strategy to execute. To avoid paralysis, try answering the following questions:

• How much do you know?
• How reliable is the information?
• What is the deadline to act? (can the deadline be moved?)
• What is the cost of not taking a decision?
  
• How much can the decision be postponed? (to buy time to get more information)
• What is your comfort and risk taking ability? (how much can you afford to lose?)
  
• What do you really care about? (outcomes)

Build a 360 degree view over time for outcomes that you really care about.

Linkages

Executing strategy is a matter of finding, building, inventing and leveraging linkages.

In Six Sigma linkages are known as the 'cause-effect' relationships. You define the problem (the difference between desired and actual) and then try to find out the root causes. If you can find and control the causes, the effect can be controlled too. It is not so simple of course, it sometimes takes a lot of work, research and statistical analysis.

In executing your strategy, the equivalent exercise is getting the 'line of sight' from capability to customer outcome. A supporting activity is to thread the initiatives, projects and deliverables so that they work together in an integrated fashion to produce synergy in building capabilities. Capabilities that are integrated are more powerful than capabilities that are silo'ed.

In the absence of linkages, a 'translation' has to occur as capabilities interact with each other. This translation increases friction, increasing the cycle time and expense to deliver customer outcomes.

Communication gaps

It is helpful to know the difference between 'understand' and 'agree'.

If you and the other person don't understand each other, make assumptions and proceed down a path of defending ideas, communication gaps are inevitable. A sure symptom of a lack of understanding is dissonance within yourself or the other person. Something does not 'feel right'. Telling someone they 'don't understand' seems to create more communication gaps. Skillful conversations and emotions management is needed. The process to reach a common understanding is non-linear and situation based, so if you have trouble with the 'process', start there.

Once a common understanding is reached, turn your attention to 'agreement'. This is usually easier to obtain. At the very least people can 'agree to disagree'. This works provided the areas of disagreement are clearly spelled out. If there are genuine reasons for disagreement, work on the 'reasons', then get back to the 'agreement'.

With increase in complexity, diversity and requirements for tolerance, communication gaps may be getting harder and harder to resolve. Knowing that complexity, diversity and requirements for tolerance will only keep increasing, what is your plan to bridge communication gaps?

Dysfunctional generalities

In trying to analyze complex scenarios or propose solutions, clear thinking and suspending judgment is required. Consider the following:

• Look for the use of "should" and "should not." These usually result in 'moralizing' and 'put downs'. Set, define or propose goals that are tangible (use the SMART format).
  
• "We need to think this thru." Replace with observations of what did not work and call for a meeting of stakeholders to further brainstorm and generate proposals.
• Use of the words "always" and "never." List what's 'in' and what's 'out'. List what it 'is' and what it 'is not'.
• Claims that cannot be substantiated. If it is a hunch, say so. Nothing wrong in making educated guesses.
  
• Events that cannot be reproduced. Acknowledge that it might be a freak event, something to look out for.
  
• Boundary conditions and exceptions. Treat them for what they are.
  

What examples have you seen of dysfunctional generalities?

Baby steps

When in doubt, take baby steps. Direction does not matter, since the steps are small its easy to course correct. Not moving is not learning. Not moving is not building strength and confidence. True for babies, true for strategy execution.

Don't walk before you can run is an extension of the above paradigm. The speed of moving from running to walking is a function of risk taking ability and the ability to learn from mistakes. In addition, there is the capability (coordination and strength) of the limbs and mind to be considered.

This is why a roadmap is needed to execute strategy. There may be debate and dialogue around what features to put out in what release. Some may say the roadmap is too aggressive, others may complain things are moving too slow. Its all a matter of iterating till you find the right pace.

Iterating may be done thru trial and error. A more structured way is to study the culture of the organization or team to understand the 'soft' capacity to execute.

Recognizing a problem

A problem is defined here as the difference between 'desired' and 'actual'.

If your audience does not recognize a problem exists, don't try to solve it. Try to figure out why they do not think a problem exists when you are absolutely convinced that it does.

If the audience agrees a problem exists, then they will use their prioritization to determine whether it is worth solving now, later or never.

If it is worth solving now, the question arises whether your solution is the most appropriate. If it is worth solving later, look for the drivers of 'timing' and monitor the audience readiness. If the problem is not worth solving 'ever', then leave it alone. When the pain is unbearable, the audience will change its mind.

What's true for the audience is true for you too. You have to select from the vast array of opportunities and focus your energies to get maximum returns.

Pointing out opportunities without alienating the audience is an art form. Its often less about the facts, more about the emotions.

Energizing teams and talent

When working with diversity, its frustrating to deal with teams and people who are at different levels. Those who 'know more' are scornful of those who 'know less'. Those who 'know less' keep insisting they have value to add and don't feel appreciated. Those who have acquired tribal knowledge over years of pain work to use it to consolidate their power and further their agenda.

To perform leadership roles in an environment where skill and competencies are not equally distributed, you may do well to learn from Dreyfus and Dreyfus (see their book 'Mind Over Machine..'). Per this model, there are 5 levels of progression:

1. Novice
2. Advanced Beginner
3. Competent
4. Proficient
5. Expert

There is a lot to learn on this subject, we will restrict this blog entry to a couple of key takeaways: Novices cannot learn from Experts, we know that intuitively but this framework helps explain why. Adjacent skill levels should be paired up to gain maximum synergy in competency development. Identify competencies needed based on the strategic need of an organization, initiative or project. Then apply the model. No one is a 'novice' per se, just novice in a competency.

To execute your strategy, establish learning plans and incentives to take the organization, teams and individuals from novice to expert in relevant competencies a systematic manner. Of course, you could always 'hire' instead of 'build'. If you 'hire' make sure you have enough people in each stage so that the newly hired 'expert' does not get rejected 'culturally' because there were not enough people in adjacent levels.

Dealing with ambiguity

In one of my earlier posts I had said that ambiguity is going to increase, not decrease. This continues to be true.

Most leaders have the following guidance to their follows: "Deal with it." This advice is a reflection of an abdication of leadership responsibilities. It is also a sign that they are clueless of how to deal with it. To be fair, in a small percentage of cases, they may be challenging their audience to rise to the occasion.

Leaders can take some concrete steps to deal with ambiguity:

• One, acknowledge it exists. This will immediately calm people down. When people think the other person has clarity and they don't, it really bothers them and leads to stress.
• Two, describe the ambiguity. Knowing why there is ambiguity actually helps to know the root cause. If if the problem is unsolvable or unknowable, there is a certain comfort in knowing that your worry is legitimate. In a peculiar sort of way, this reduces the worry for some.
• Three, ask for proposals. Don't ask for suggestions. The difference is, if someone makes a 'proposal' and you accept it, they get to follow thru execute. If they make a 'suggestion' and you accept it, someone else has to execute. I split hairs here to make an important point.
• Four, point out the opportunity for creativity and collaboration. If people start talking to each other, the fog may lift earlier than later.
• Five, be very careful not to judge people in this period. Judgment is a reflection of poor leadership and a sign of a leader's insecurity in general, this just aggravates the situation if displayed in ambiguous situations.
• Six, don't ask people to 'take initiative' and 'do something'. They will even if you don't ask them to. Problem is, they will try to help, but make things worse. Alignment to customer outcomes and priorities, coordination and timing is crucial.
• Seven, create a plan. Most teams freeze in their tracks and are unable to plan. Ironically, this is when they need planning the most.

Its not going to be perfect during periods of ambiguity. Duplication of effort, confusion, frustration and drop in trust have to be identified and dealt with.

3 distinct concepts

In executing your strategy, there are 3 distinct concepts to consider. These are often used interchangeably, so a clarification is in order:

• Business savvy: If you have this you have a keen understanding of business models (how is money made?) and problem solving.
• Leadership: If you display leadership behaviors you can prevent and resolve conflicts, influence your audience and look/behave/speak/smell like you are in charge.
• Decision making: This is the spark that starts the fire. The best ideas, the most detailed plans, the intentions and vision are all for naught if no action is taken. Decisions are the ignition to action.

Each of the above areas is a distinct competence and often go together. Usually people with business savvy are good decision makers as well. Leaders are often business savvy, they know how to get things done and what ideas will work.

If business savvy is missing, you will lose money. If leadership is missing, your ideas will not be accepted. If decision making is missing, inertia and rigor mortis sets in.

One way to deal with complexity

Suspend judgment.

When faced by complexity, there are good chances that you will encounter ideas that you do not understand or you do not agree with. The complexity also makes it harder to find cause and effect relationships, hence solutions are not easy to develop. We are forced to collaborate with people to piece together the puzzle. Given that people have different frames of reference, use language differently, are at different skill levels, you can begin to see why diversity is a double edged weapon. Heck, its like putting together a jigsaw puzzle without the final picture!

Judgment is a defense mechanism that appears when emotional awareness is low. Think of people who are judgmental as 'leaders in training'. It is a sign that you do not understand the issues on the table. It is a sign that the other person does not understand your point of view.

Yes, there is more to dealing with complexity, suspending judgment is not enough. But its a good starting point.

Abundance mentality

This is not a new concept and certainly not my idea.

The abundance mentality implies there is plenty for all. Everyone can get what they want without having to deprive anyone else of their desires. One way to achieve abundance is to increase the size of the pie. This requires high self-esteem and creativity.

The scarcity mentality on the other hand focuses on dividing the pie. This automatically assures that to get more, someone else needs to get less. A scarcity mentality is a sure recipe for conflict and frustration.

Strategy execution requires stakeholders to give and take. Strong facilitation and leadership is required to focus teams on the abundance mentality. A scarcity mentality results is dysfunctional politics and turf battles.

Thermometers versus thermostats

The difference between the two is critical:

• A thermometer is a proxy to the temperature in a room. A thermometer will not tell you whether its too hot or too cold, in other words, no value judgments. It will simply tell you the temperature.
  
• Thermostats take action based on business rules. If the temperature falls below a certain amount, the thermostat causes the heater to kick in to warm the room. If the temperature rises above a certain amount, the thermostat causes the air conditioner to kick in to cool the room.

In executing your strategy, you need both. Thermostats need a thermometer to be effective. Without a thermostat, a thermometer is useless.

As an example, business analytics and business intelligence reports are no use unless you can tie them to action.