Ownership

Imagine this scene:  You walk out of your front door to pick up the morning paper.  On the ground next to the paper is an empty take-out food container.  You pick up the paper, look at the empty container, and go back into the house leaving the the trash on your front doorstep.

"Difficult to imagine", you say.  Why?  This scene is played out every day on the streets of our communities, and in the halls of our organizations.

How can it be that in one case we can't imagine leaving trash on our front door step, and yet we will allow trash to remain on the sidewalk of our town as we walk by.  In our home, we will expect workers to do their jobs correctly, but in our organizations we will tolerate work that is only "good enough to get by"?

The difference is "Ownership".

In our example, you are (or at least are imagining that you are) the homeowner.  This is your property.  Some thoughtless person has thrown their trash on your property, and it offends you. 

When you walk down a street, or are working for an employer, your feeling of ownership is very different.  You may feel like you are part of the community, or are a loyal employee, but you are not the owner.  It is someone else's job to pick up the trash, or it is someone else's job to oversee the work of the other employees.

Within an organization, when the top leader or manager is the only one who feels ownership for the quality of the work, or the accomplishment of a goal, life is very difficult.  Everyone does their part, but only their part.  This is not out of spite, nor is it even a conscious attitude on the part of the employees.  Many feel ownership for their part of the product.  But, if the product is not completed on time, or does not meet the quality standards required by the customer, it is not their fault.  It is someone else's fault.  It is the owner's fault.

In the same organization, when everyone feels ownership of the final product, or accomplishment of a goal, the atmosphere is very different.  The top leader or manager now has allies, other owners who care about the end result, not just their part of the project.  To continue the metaphor above, you now have many homeowners who are willing to either pick up the trash on the front step, or help others do it.  But, have no doubt that the trash will get picked up.  

For a leader, the goal is to change the conversation within the organization from one of tasks and parts, to one that focuses on what we are trying to construct together.  This is not an effort to make every person responsible for every action or task.  However, when many people see what is being constructed, can speak about the end result as well as their contribution to that result, and begin to feel ownership in the final product, the likelihood of success is increased many fold.

Peter Block, an author, consultant, and expert on bringing people together, says that "Ownership is the decision to become the author of our own experiences," (Community - The Structure of Belonging, Peter Block, P. 128).  This is true for communities both inside and outside of our organizations.  When people choose ownership they move from the role of victim, employee, or observer, to architect of the world within which they choose to live.

After reading this, the next time you are walking down a street and see a piece of trash you will automatically think about whether you are an observer or an owner of the community.

________________________________________________

I want to point your attention to the comment below from Robin Reid.  Robin is both an organizational development expert with years of great experience under his belt, and a good friend.  His comment is right on the money with regard to the relationship to ownership and decision making.  Thanks for the insight, Robin.

Why Teams Don't Work

Teams have become the centerpiece of our corporate and government structure.  Whether you are Toyota, the White House, or a local public works department, teams are used to take on every major task, and solve challenging problems.  Business schools have taught the wisdom of teams for decades.  So when the Harvard Business Review published an article titled "Why Teams Don't Work - An Interview with J. Richard Hackman"" in May 2009, many heads were turned.

Hackman, who is a professor at Harvard University, and an expert on social and organizational psychology and teams, says:

Research consistently shows that teams underperform, despite all the extra resources they have.  That's because problems with coordination and motivation typically chip away at the benefits of collaboration.

This is not what we learned in school.  We learned about the synergy of the team, how teams help overcome the weaknesses of the individuals that make up the team, how many hands make light work, and that if you want something done better, give it to a team.

However, as you probably suspected, this is not the end of the story.  Hackman goes on to help us understand what gets in the way of creating high performing teams.

One of the primary road blocks to having a high performing team is lack of clarity regarding who is on the team.  Hackman points out that the CEO is often responsible for these fuzzy boundaries related to team membership.  There is a hesitancy to exclude people from teams, and a tendency to include people on teams for purely political reasons.   The solution: "putting together a team involves some ruthless decisions about membership; not everyone who wants to be on the team should be included, and some individuals should be forced off."

It comes as no surprise to anyone who has worked on a team that teams need a compelling direction.  Hackman warns that the process of setting this direction can be emotionally demanding, require the exercise of authority, and may arouse anxiety, angst, and ambivalence.  Not everyone will be able to embrace the selected direction, causing some change in the makeup of the team.

Some of the facts about teams that Hackman points out are:

• Teams do not need to be harmonious to produce an excellent result,  In fact, some tension appears to bring out better performances.
• Teams do not need to be big to perform well.  Hackman suggests no double-digit teams.  Big teams wind up wasting everyone's time.  He advises CEOs to consider his finding that "...having a huge senior leadership team...  may be worse than having no team at all."
• Newness may be a liability.  Teams that have been together for some time perform better than teams where membership is changed on some regular basis.  Changing membership to inject creativity may hamper rather than help team performance.
• Teams with "deviants" (people who are willing to challenge the group thinking) perform better than teams that are never challenged.

There are two other resources that you might consult if you are working within, leading, or creating teams.  The first is The Wisdom of Teams by Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith.   The second is Why Teams Don't Work - What Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right by Harvey Robbins and Michael Finley.  Both are excellent references for any leader struggling with how to create high performing teams.

Everyday Creativity

Dewitt Jones, the highly regarded National Geographic photographer, has taught literally thousands of leaders some very important lessons about bringing creativity into the workplace.  Here are a few of the topics Jones covers:

Perspective - Learn to change lenses; change the way you look at challenges and problems.  Are you too close to the situation?  Are you not close enough?  Are you seeing things from only your perspective, or are there other perspectives that are valid ways to look at the situation?  You will almost always find that there is more than one right solution.

Try - If you don't try, you have already failed.  There should be no penalty for trying.  Leaders should encourage others to try, and have no fear of failure.

Patterns - We all fall into patterns of behavior, and ways of thinking.  In order to find creative solutions, we must break these set patterns.  Seeing things in a new light is necessary to find creative ways of dealing with challenges.

Technique - Train your technique so that you know how to use your equipment (tools of the trade) without having to think about the technical part of the job.  For Jones, this means being a skilled photographer who intuitively knows how to adjust his photographic equipment for various lighting conditions.  For a leader, it may mean being comfortable with the technology of your business, with computer systems or applications, or with communication channels.  The technique of using the tools should not get in the way of being creative.

Potential - Every situation has places from which you can view events, people, and interactions.  Find the place of most potential.  This may be a place that is unusual for you, in your role as leader, to stand.  However, it is in this place where you will most clearly see what is going on down on the stage, and how you may be able to influence the outcomes.  (See the earlier post on The View from the Balcony).

Windows of opportunity - The world provides us with windows of opportunity.  These may be instants in time, days, or months.  Be patient.  And, be ready to take action when the window of opportunity opens.

It's up to you - Whether you are the leader of an organization or one of the staff members, there is no one to whom you can delegate creativity.  If you are the leader, you affect the organization's culture.  Is creativity encouraged?  Is there a penalty for trying?  Are patterns allowed to be broken?  Do people know how to use their tools?  How skilled is their technique?  Do you encourage people to take advantage of windows of opportunity?

I encourage you to check out the very short video by Dewitt Jones - Everyday Creativity.  It is a very inspiring and information filled 22 minutes.

Every Leader Needs a Coach

In the world of sports there is a natural tendency to respect those who have succeeded on their own.  These are the Olympians who have climbed to the summit by sheer strength of will, and raw talent.  They have shown us all how to win.  They have made it look easy.  These are the heroes of the press, and the public.  We look at a Tiger Woods or a Kobe Bryant and marvel at their success.

But, what makes Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant so good? 

Each has extraordinary talent.  Each has tenacity, focus, and perseverance.  Even if they did nothing more, each would be considered a good player in their respective sport.   However, each has taken an additional step, a step that has helped them achieve their well earned reputation.  Each has a coach.

Why would someone as talented as these players use a coach?

The answer is actually relatively simple.  Tiger Woods cannot see his swing,  Kobe Bryant cannot see his form.  In the heat of the game, neither can be an unbiased judge of how they are playing.

The same is true in business and government.  In the heat of the board room, when the future is clouded by the fog of war, sagging economies, and a need to change the organization, leaders are not always the best critics of their own performance, or the best judge of how their behavior is affecting the organization.  A coach who can view the play from the sidelines can be an invaluable ally.

The role of coaching in the business and government world has changed over time.  According to a recent article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR):

Ten years ago, most companies engaged a coach to help fix toxic behavior at the top. Today, most coaching is about developing the capabilities of high-potential performers. (Harvard Business Review, January 2009, "What Coaches Can Do for You", Diane Coutu and Carol Kauffman)

In the business and government world, about half of the coaches employed today are focused on the positive side of coaching, developing high-potential talent to assure top corporate performance.  Another quarter of all coaches are focusing on strategic issues and organizational dynamics. 

For the potential leader or manager seeking to improve and grow, a coach can provide insight into how behaviors are affecting the organization, an independent assessment of the extent to which change efforts are achieving the desired results,  or insight into which new behaviors are or are not working.  However, as the HBR pointed out in an article in 2007, learning and growing takes a significant amount of effort:

The development of genuine expertise requires struggle, sacrifice, and honest, often painful self-assessment. There are no shortcuts. It will take you at least a decade to achieve expertise, and you will need to invest that time wisely, by engaging in “deliberate” practice—practice that focuses on tasks beyond your current level of competence and comfort. You will need a well-informed coach not only to guide you through deliberate practice but also to help you learn how to coach yourself. (Harvard Business Review, July-August 2007, "The Making of an Expert", K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely)

Don't expect instant success, and at the same time, expect constant progress.  True mastery of of any trade or profession takes time.  (See the blog post - 10,000 Hours)

Finally, you might find the following very short video of Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, interesting.  If Eric Schmidt can benefit from having a coach, so can you.

100% Responsibility

If you search the Internet for articles on the concept of 100% responsibility you will find many entries that talk about taking responsibility for your own life, or how managers and leaders are always 100% responsible for the organization's results.  These are good ways to view 100% responsibility, but I don't believe they get to the heart of the true meaning.

This concept was first introduced to me by Robin Reid, an organizational development consultant who worked with my organization in the 1980s (see note below).  As our management team worked through this concept with Robin, there was a great deal of push-back and resistance.  Managers didn't like the concept.  It flew in the face of how they viewed their role in the organization. 

However, in my experience, this concept had a huge impact on me and how I approached my role as an employee, manager, and leader in my organization.

The concept itself is relatively simple:

• We are all (employees, managers, leaders) 100% responsible for our organization's success, products, and results.  

"How can that be?", I hear you say.  You are thinking, "I am only an employee.  I am not responsible for the final product.  I am not responsible for the output of other departments.  I am not responsible for decisions made by the board, or council.  I am only responsible for my own actions."  And, these statements are, in part, true.

But, consider an extreme situation.  You are in a car that is headed over a cliff.  The driver is oblivious to the problem.  Do you blithely head off into oblivion, or do you pull the hand break? My guess is that you would feel a certain sense of self-preservation (responsibility), and might do something to prevent your ultimate demise.

In this admittedly extreme example, you are a passenger, not the driver.  But, your status as a passenger does not preclude you from acting when the situation calls for it.  The driver has the primary responsibility for the safety of the journey, and this responsibility is not changed in any way by your responsibility as a passenger.  The driver's job is to operate the controls; you cannot operate the controls for the driver.  But, when things begin to go badly, you have the right to express your concern.  You have the right to influence in whatever way you can.  And, in the end, you have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the occupants of the car.

Your expression of concern, and ultimate action, may cause conflict later.  However, there are long term consequences that are important enough to allow for a little conflict.

Responsibility is not something that can be divided easily.  When I am only 50% responsible for the outcome, I can do what I think is proper, and still have the project fail.  I can feel good that my part was done perfectly.  But, if my responsibility stops when I hand off to the next person in the chain, doing my part 100% right is little comfort when the end product is flawed or broken.

I may not be the one who "operates the controls" for all stages of the production or project, but my concern should be similar to that of the passenger in the car.  When things are not going well, I have a duty to participate in getting the system back on track.  My feeling of responsibility does not diminish the responsibility of the other people involved in the project.  Each person is responsible for his or her contribution to the whole.  And, if each person feels ownership in the final product, we are more likely to work as a team, welcome the help of others, and strive for a successful outcome instead of simply the success of one person's portion of the project.

On a deeper level, this acceptance of full responsibility, to be "...accountable for all the implications of our actions [or inactions] grows directly out of accepting the fact of our free will." (Peter Koestenbaum and Peter Block, Freedom and Accountability at Work, P. 78-79)   Responsibility is a choice.  Our choice to speak up when we identify something that requires the attention of others, or to remain silent and tell ourselves that "it wasn't our fault" is exactly that, a choice.  Our decision to speak up does not diminish another person's responsibility to carry out their job in a responsible manner.  But our decision to act expresses our ownership of the result, not just pieces of the system.

A decision to be 100% responsible is something anyone within the organization can make.  And, every time someone makes a decision to be 100% responsible, for ownership of the result, everyone wins.



Note: Robin Reid gives credit to Hyler Bracey, from The Atlanta Consulting Group, for introducing him to the concept of 100% responsibility.  I can find no Internet site for this organization, but I did find a link and reference to Hyler Bracey, author of Managing from the Heart.

The Decision Making Continuum

In your role as manager, one of the quickest ways to cause confusion within a group, team, or organization is to make assignments or establish goals without being clear on how decisions related to that assignment or goal will be made.  If you have a team that is high performing, filled with enthusiasm, and hard-charging, you can change all of that by pulling the decision-making-rug out from under them just when they think they have the project under control.

To avoid this problem, as you work with others make it a point to get clear up front on how decisions related to the task at hand will be made.

Here are a few tips for getting clear on which decision making style might be appropriate for a given situation:

• Now Hear This
• Manager Role: The final decision has been made.  Provide Information. Facilitate limited discussion.
• Team Member Role: Ask for clarification as required.  Limited input.
• Trial Balloon
  
• Manager Role: Discuss tentative decision that has already been made.  Ask for reactions and suggestions.  Make final decision. (The decision may change based on the discussion.)
  
• Team Member Role:  Provide reaction and suggestions.
• The Buck Stops Here
• Manager Role:  The final decision has not been made.  Present the issue.  Ask for ideas and suggestions.  Make final decision.
• Team Member Role:  Provide ideas, suggestions, and alternative solutions.
• Coach
• Manager Role:  Ask the team to help create a decision.  Present the issue.  Define resolution boundaries.  Facilitate problem solving and/or analysis session with the team.  Approve final decision resulting from the discussion.
• Team Member Role:  Participate in problem solving and/or analysis session with the team.  Generate recommended solutions as a group.
• You Tell Me
• Manager Role:  Present the issue.  Define resolution boundaries. Approve the final decision as long as it fits the defined boundaries.
• Team Member Role:  Participate in team-facilitated problem solving and/or analysis session.  Team generates recommended solution and course of action.

As you move from "You Tell Me" to "Now Hear This" in the decision making model, employee involvement is reduced, and manager involvement is increased.

You might note that there is no case where the employee or manager is totally absolved of responsibility in making the decision.  In "You Tell Me" the manager is still expected to establish boundaries and approve the final decision, although that decision may be more ceremonial in nature.  In "Now Hear This" the employee retains the obligation to ask clarifying questions and understand the decisions that are being made.

Establishing the decision making style early will help avoid problems later.  Also, maximum empowerment will be found in groups that know how decisions will be made.  A quick way to kill the feeling of empowerment is to change decision making styles midstream, shifting to a more manager-controlled style.

_______________________________________

Please note, this material is based on the work Gary Winters did with my organization in the early to middle 1990s.  Gary and Eric Klein have since gone on to author a book called To Do or Not To Do - How Successful Leaders Make Better Decisions, published in 2005.  I have not read the book, but I do know Gary Winters.  And, knowing him, I can assure you that you will find a complete and understandable discussion of decision making therein.  You may also want to check out Gary Winters' blog, The Leadership Almanac, at http://garywinters.com/.

The Exhausted Leader

From time to time I hear stories of people who have worked themselves to the point of utter exhaustion.  These are often people who work very hard at their jobs, who invest more than 100% every day, who go home at night only to sleep fitfully, and return the next day to do it all over again.  This cycle of work-sleep-work seems never ending, and eventually takes its toll on the body and mind.

This is not to say that everyone experiences this cycle.  There are those who approach each day as a new challenge, who are energized by the opportunities every morning brings, and who are able to maintain a balance between work and home.

So, what is the difference between these two sets of people?  Why would one set reach exhaustion, while others feel excited and energized by the same work?

Poet, author and lecturer, David Whyte offers one possible answer in his book Crossing the Unknown Sea: Work as a Pilgrimage of Identity (P 113 - 138).

Early in his career Whyte found himself running a nonprofit he had founded.  The organization was devoted to a cause that was near and dear to his heart.  However, the running of the business was pushing aside the time to stay connected with the cause, or to devote himself to his real love, poetry.  He was busy - busy running a business that, although successful, gave him no time to focus on his true interests.

In the midst of his "busyness" he found that his energy was gone; he was exhausted.  He certainly cared about the nonprofit and its educational goals, but for some reason he found that he had lost his ability to keep up the pace.

One late evening, while sitting in his home sharing a bottle of wine with a close friend and adviser (Brother David), he decided to seek his friend's help in understanding his condition.  Whyte said,  "Brother David, tell me about exhaustion."  A moment passed between the two while Brother David considered the request.  Then Brother David replied: "You know that the antidote to exhaustion is not necessarily rest?"

Whyte was a bit surprised by this response, and after giving this some thought asked, "What is it, then?"

To which Brother David answered, "The antidote to exhaustion is wholeheartedness.  You are so tired through and through because a good half of what you do here in this organization has nothing to do with your true powers, or the place you have reached in your life.  You are only half here, and half here will kill you after a while.  You need something to which you can give your full powers.  You know what that is; I don't have to tell you." (P. 132-133)

This brief exchange between David Whyte and Brother David reaches out to those who are experiencing exhaustion and begs them to examine whether their work is aligned with their true power and interests, or if it fits the place they have reached in their life.  Being half present at work is an exhausting experience.  And, as Brother David said, "being half here will kill you."

Also, Brother David's point was that to regain the energy and devotion to his work, Whyte needed to match his work with something to which he could give his "full powers", or his full devotion. 

In many cases, we know when we are in a job or position that does not match our power.  We can feel the dissonance, the discord. We also have a feeling for where our power and interests lie.  What is called for is the courage and creativity to seek changes that lead us to this new reality.

The courage needed to make these changes cannot be over stated.  Taking steps to leave one position in favor of another, to change careers, to pursue your passion requires an inner commitment and strength.  It invites risks.  And, it also offers rewards.  Only you can assess the value of making the shift to work that matches your power.

But remember, exhaustion may be a sign; a sign that you are "half here", and "being half here will kill you."

______________________________________________________

A final note on Crossing the Unknown Sea: Work as a Pilgrimage of Identity:
I highly recommend this book to anyone who finds themselves pondering the greater meaning of the human journey through life.  Whyte is an insightful and inspiring writer who touches the heart and mind in deeply meaningful ways.  The examination of work as a pilgrimage of identity will ring true to anyone who has ever wondered about their chosen profession, or considered a leap of faith into another line of work.

Opening Your (Johari) Window

Back in the 1950s two fellows names Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham developed a tool to help people better understands their interpersonal relationships and communications. Over the past 50 or 60 years this tool, known as the Johari Window (that’s a combination of Joe and Harry), has been used countless times to help individuals and groups learn more about themselves, and their managers, subordinates, and leaders.

The concept of the Johari Window is relatively simple. Consider the fact that there are things about yourself that you know, and very likely things about yourself that you don’t know. Also, it is fairly obvious that there are things about you that others know, and there are things about you that others don’t know.

This simple premise forms the basis of a very interesting conversation about who you are, your blind spots, what you are willing to share with others, and the great unknown.


If you read the earlier blog post on Trust, you might remember that part of what makes a leader trustworthy, and therefore successful, is communications – letting people know what you are thinking, and what drives you. And, as this communications is going on, you are exposing things about yourself to others. You are enlarging the part of the Johari Window called the Arena – the part that both you and others know about you.

The larger the Arena (this area of shared knowledge) the better your understanding of how others see you, and the better others understand the characteristics that make you who you are. Because you are open, your coworkers do not need to interpret or insert meaning. They can understand your words and actions for what they are. This openness contributes to a more trusting relationship.

Do not confuse openness with agreement. People will still disagree on policies, direction, and goals. But, by removing the need to insert meaning, or imply motives, the debate can focus on the topic of the work. I do not have to agree with someone to trust them; but, I do need to understand them, and have an understanding of what drives them.

The Johari Window below shows what happens as self disclosure and communications begin to expand the Arena. Your Blind Spot shrinks, you are seen as more genuine (the Façade shrinks), and there are fewer questions about your motives and how you will react to your team (the Unknown shrinks).


If you are interested in doing an online exercise using the Johari Window there is one at this URL - http://kevan.org/johari. Instructions are found on the web site.

If you are interested in doing the exercise in person, talk to that coach I suggested you get in the Trust blog entry, or contact me and maybe I can give you a referral. My contact information is on the right side of the blog page.
.
.
.