'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.