Task and Relationship

A technically excellent worker at a design company knew his stuff. Unfortunately, he seemed to delight in finding fault, in criticizing others on the team and continually provoking coworkers and managers. His repeated comments like "they should have..." or "why didn't they..." made it hard for anyone to feel safe - he could find fault with anyone. Success needs to balance task and relationship. He focused on task above all else, and damaged relationships without ever realizing the importance of building them. Eventually, management let him go. He didn't understand why.

Why We Need More Coffee Breaks

A manager in a municipal government was lamenting the policy change that drastically limited the time allowed for coffee breaks. Not because he really loved coffee, or didn't want to get back to his job, but because he noticed that communication within the organization had gotten worse since the change.

In the good old days, people from different departments would get together casually over coffee, in groups, in pairs, and just chat. Inevitable, there would be a lot of talk about the Riders, but there was also be a lot of talk about what's going on in the office. "What's happening with you?" and "How's your project coming along?" were explored in a casual, relaxed setting and a lot of information was exchanged.

Now, that process is outlawed. Instead of a thirty minute coffee break with 15 minutes on football and 15 minutes about what's going on at work, they now have 15 minutes on football, followed by a 90 minute meeting to discuss what's going on at work.

When it was suggested that you could have a meeting and just make sure there was coffee, he wisely pointed out that it's not the same. A meeting with coffee is structured, formal and often unproductive. Coffee with some shop talk is unstructured, relaxed and often very productive.

Could more coffee breaks actually make your people more productive?

Kicked Out of the Wolf Pack

The image of a lone wolf stirs the heart; the strong, independent hero fights injustice and, against all odds, saves the day. Picture Jason Bourne, Dirty Harry, or almost any movie starring Bruce Willis.

In reality, the odds actually do catch up to the lone wolf, as shown in research on ostracism across many species and social groups. In Born To Be Good, Dacher Keltner describes how "wolves who have been kicked out of their group for excessive aggression and an inability to play are less likely to reproduce and more likely to die."

Isn't that a good description of some of the difficult people in your organization? Excessive aggression and an inability to play! As you consider who to keep in your wolf pack, and who to kick out, doesn't it make sense to kick out the ones who are overly aggressive and who don't get along with others? If someone is just in it for themselves, and isn't committed to the others in the group, they can bring down the whole group. And that is exactly why wolves and other social species kick out the toxic ones. The group, the mission, the organization is more important than any one individual.

And, the mean parts of our own personalities can take some comfort from the fact that the ones that we do kick out are also then less likely to reproduce and more likely to die :)

Survival of the Nicest

Few people know that Charles Darwin wrote another book, The Expressions of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Darwin discovered, and others have supported it with further research, that emotional displays (rather than words) form the basis for trusting relationships, teamwork and community.

We tend to dismiss emotion in the workplace, and downplay the significance of niceness in the business world. But, it turns out that Survival of the Fittest is less accurate than Survival of the Nicest when it comes to human evolution - being nice, being social helped humans thrive more than being big, tough and strong. We have evolved an "acute tendency to care, by highly-coordinated face-to-face social exchanges." When dealing with others, we are in tune with, and guided by, emotional displays. We are attracted to nice, to people who are committed to our well being.

According to Dacher Keltner in Born to be Good, "we find that it is not the domineering, muscle-flexing, fear-inspiring, backstabbing types who gain elevated status in the eyes of their peers. Instead, it is the socially intelligent individuals who advance the interests of other group members who rise in social hierarchies."

In the last two days, I was pleasantly surprised by two exciting new business opportunities that were presented to me. Both were the result, pure and simple, of positive, nice, trusting relationships. While occasionally, nice guys do finish last, in the long and continuing run of human evolutionary history, it's the nicest people that survive and thrive.

So, like Maxwell Smart, Secret Agent 86 of Control, choose the forces of goodness and niceness, instead of evil and nastiness. Work on your smile and on being nice. Because it works.

The Commitment Problem

Do you eat the chocolate, or do you stay on your diet?

Do you take a drink, or do you stay sober?

Do you have an affair, or do you stay faithful to your spouse?

Do you choose immediate, pleasure-seeking self-interest, or do you stay commited to your ideals and relationships?

That's the Commitment Problem. It's a big part of life. It's a big part of business as well.

• When you hire a new employee, will they be committed to the success of your company? Or will they dip into the till, steal office supplies, and embezzle millions at the first opportunity?
• When you promote someone into management, will they work for the betterment of the group or get seduced by their position, abuse their underlings, and embezzle millions at the first opportunity?
• When you try to collaborate with someone, will they share with you in good faith, or abuse your trust, steal your ideas, and make millions in the marketplace that should have been yours?!

Thomas Schelling identified the Commitment Problem in the The Strategy of Conflict back in 1963. Dacher Keltner revisited it in his recent book, Born to be Good. Now, these books are not easy reads, and they don't result in simple three-step formulas for business success, but they do get one thinking.

How do we figure out who is committed to us, who is inclined to value long-term bonds with us, who is likely to be faithful and caring towards us, towards our cause? How do we figure out who is likely to lie, cheat, or sacrifice us for their own benefit? How do we avoid being exploited, to avoid being fooled?

No easy answers, to be sure, but important enough to try to figure it out.

Technology Drives Breakfast Group Crazy

At a meeting of our Masterminds Breakfast Club for business consultants, we featured a topic about CRM and online collaboration software. The eight professionals present, between us, used thirty-four different software packages and online helper services, ranging from Salesforce, Mail Chimp and Constant Contact, to DropBox and CrashPlan to Wufoo Form Builder. While all of these technologies are exciting in themselves, most of the consultants at the table visibly drooped with the daunting prospect of researching, learning, selecting and implementing the various solutions. And, many expressed frustration that the process of learning about these solutions is actually four or five steps removed from actually doing any work for clients, or building the business.

When we tried to decide on a platform to use for inter-group collaboration, we had eight different opinions, all valid, and thirty four software options, all valid. And that's just scratching the surface of what's available.

So, there's lots of innovation going on out there in the market and the selection is almost endless. But, it's also extremely inefficient when there's no generally-accepted standard. And, it's tiring and cumbersome to collaborate with different groups, when each group has adopted a different set of solutions or a different platform.

Variety may be the spice of life, but our businesses are wasting too much time on choosing the spices and not enough time on preparing and serving the main course. If the market could cooperate more and decide on some standards, our lives could get a whole lot easier. And, our businesses would get a whole lot more productive.

Swimming Upstream

Do you ever despair about the effort it takes to make changes in your organization? To get results? Whether you're an economic development agency trying to attract businesses to your city, or a business owner trying to motivate your staff, do you sometimes get the feeling that there is some greater force that's trying to prevent your success? Are you swimming as hard as you can, but not getting anywhere?

We all work within systems, and our systems are part of larger systems. While our focus is usually on what we ourselves are responsible for on a daily basis, sometimes we need to expand our attention to the larger systems of which we are a part. Two examples...

In Northern Ontario, economic development agencies have struggled to attract and keep major industrial customers that are heavy users of electricity. The energy policy of Ontario sets electricity rates higher than neighbouring Quebec and other jurisdictions, so major industries like Cliffs Natural Resources ferro-chrome refinery are finding it hard to justify locating in Ontario. Even though other technical reasons might make Ontario an ideal location, the larger system of provincial energy policy makes it unattractive because of the electrical costs. So, while particular communities might have excellent economic development initiatives, they're swimming upstream against the province's power rate policies.

Similarly, the owners of an otherwise vibrant 25-person Saskatchewan company have been continually frustrated by employees who won't give that little bit extra to get jobs out on time. Their company, their payroll policies and their management approach operate within the larger system of Saskatchewan's labour standards where any work beyond eight hours per day is overtime, to be paid at time-and-a-half.

Applying this diligently, the company has required all overtime, no matter how small, to be approved in advance. The hassles of getting management micro-approvals for every little extra effort has evolved into a culture of clock watching, with everyone leaving when the official day is done. The managers are trying to foster teamwork and cooperation, but their staff have been swimming upstream against this inflexible administration of overtime, agains inflexible administration of Saskatchewan's labour standards.

When local economic development agencies identify provincial policies that affect their ability to attract companies, they need to work with that larger system to address those issues - in Ontario, the hydro energy policies. In the Saskatchewan example, when the small company's strict application of the eight-hour work day damages their entrepreneurial culture, they need to give some attention to the larger system of Sasktchewan's labour standards. They need to identify alternatives, either informally adding flexibility to the work day, or formally applying for a permit to average hours. They need to work on the larger system that's making it all but impossible for employees to willingly give that little bit extra.

In any case, recognize that all of your work takes place within some larger systems, and those systems can have large effects on your results. If you find yourself swimming as hard as you can and not getting anywhere, look outside your day-to-day operations to the larger system that you're working within. It's easier to make progress if you're not trying to swim against  a strong current.

Trying Harder Loses the Championship

Bantam hockey. Pretty good season. Team working together. Team having fun. Team starting out strong in the playoffs.

Then, a few rabid hockey parents throw in a bunch of comments...

• "This is the most important game of the season."
• "You better be motivated for this."
• "Damn right there's pressure!"
• "Make me proud!"
• "Quit fooling around, think about the game ahead."
• "Be a winner."
• "Give it all you've got, this is the playoffs."
• "Try your hardest, the whole team's counting on you."
• "Get serious."
• "You've got to win this one."

Watch all the kids try to be heroes. Watch all the kids "try their hardest" to score a goal. Watch the team collapse.

Watch the team stop passing. Watch the team get down on each other. Watch the team stop joking and laughing. Watch the team stop enjoying hockey. Watch the team get serious. Watch the team become ineffective. Watch the team lose.

If the team had played the way they usually played, in a fun, relaxed enjoyable way, working together without real concern for fame or the Big Win, they probably would have also won - they had the skills, they had the track record, they were the better team. But when they were all corralled into thinking that being serious, being individual heroes, being individual winners would somehow be more effective than good, fun,  relaxed team play, they crashed and burned.

In hockey, in business, if you've built a culture of relaxed, engaged teamwork to get you where you are, don't suddenly think that serious, individual heroics will somehow work better when things get challenging. Use what's worked. Good teams are more successful, and more enjoyable, than a bunch of heroes.

Know Your Mission

Whenever possible, a leader tries to balance so that the needs of the mission and the needs of the people are both met. But there are times, when the needs of both can not be met. You can not balance. You have to choose one over the other. In these few situations, and you must make them few, MISSION MUST COME FIRST. These are the few times when leaders will not, can not, and should not be “fair”. The whole purpose of the organization is to fulfill its mission.


It is here that leaders, young and old, most frequently fail. Common sense would tell us that happy, satisfied workers will get the job done better. So, we assume that if we can somehow keep our people happy and satisfied, they will be more productive, more likely to get the mission accomplished. But the cause and effect of leadership just doesn’t work this way. Thousands of studies and thousands of real-world lessons in leadership prove that this natural, common-sense assumption is precisely wrong.

Mission accomplishment builds morale and esprit far more often than the other way around. When people and departments get done those things that people and departments are supposed to do, that’s when morale and esprit get highest.

Mission accomplishment builds morale.

So you had best know your mission.

Adapted from Small Unit Leadership: A Commonsense Approach.

When The Boss Isn't a Very Good Worker

The owner of a 30-person company would often pitch in, taking on some jobs within the organization to help out. With a desire to stay involved in the day-to-day operations, this owner would take on administrative and sales tasks, similar to what other employees in the organization had to do.

Unfortunately, the boss would hold himself to a different standard than employees doing the same job. So, if a reporting task needed to be done every day by 2 pm, employees would be expected to meet this goal. But the boss, doing the same task, would often miss the deadline "because he was busy on more important tasks," sometimes getting weeks behind on these daily activities. The resulting frustration and rippling consequences were having a significant effect on productivity and morale throughout the company.

As an owner, or manager, or team leader, or [insert other boss-like title here], if you take on some jobs to "help out," realize that you are no longer wearing your "boss" hat. When you pitch in to help out, you are wearing a "worker" hat, and need to hold yourself to the same standards as you would hold an employee doing the same job.

Sure, as an owner or manager or team lead, you need more freedom and flexibility in your day, and have more widely ranging responsibilities than your employees. But, if you take on the job of entering job status data by 2 p.m. every day, you bloody well better enter your job status data by 2 p.m. every day. If you can't do that reliably, fire yourself and hire someone that's more competent and reliable for the job.

Then, you can focus on leading, instead of mucking up the works by "helping out."

Five Bucks per Goal

Do you use incentive programs to get people motivated? Do you use rewards as the path to excellence? Have you ever had unintended consequences from your reward systems?

A kids hockey team had enjoyed some early success in the season, but it was largely due to the heroic efforts by a few of the better players. As the season progressed, the individual heroics were not enough, and the team started losing repeatedly to other teams that were becoming more cohesive, more organized, more cooperative.

So, in practice, the coaches worked on passing drills, on positional play, on group tactics. In practices, the team became very effective, with good understanding of their roles, and really effective team tactics. In practice, the team worked well together. But in games, they completely fell apart.

In games, the players reverted to their heroic ways; trying to stick-handle the puck from one end of the ice to the other, taking wide angle shots with no chance of success, and generally playing desperate, selfish, ineffective hockey. The team was getting demoralized. They continued to lose. What was going on?

It turns out that the main problem was the kids' parents. In their desire to help their kids succeed, many of the parents had offered their kids cash rewards for scoring goals - one kid would get five bucks from his dad for every goal he personally scored. Don't get me started on how distorted this is (whatever happened to playing a game just because you love it and want to have fun playing hard with your friends!?), but think of how damaging this "reward" system was to the team, and the kids.

In game situations, most of the kids were thinking only about themselves, about how they, personally, could score a goal. Not how the team could do well, or how the team could score, but how "I" could score. Because of this selfish thinking, the team was not playing as a team, they were losing out to teams that were, and they were on a long, painful downhill slide. The kids were stressed, the parents were stressed and on their cases, and the kids had to choose between two opposites - either play as a team and be effective, or play selfishly to try to please their parents and get the cash rewards. It ended up that this strategy wasn't making them much money anyway, since they weren't scoring very many goals against teams with better collaboration.

Rewards hurt. They damage internal motivation, and replace it with a dangling carrot. That in itself is reason enough to be cautious. But rewards inevitably produce unintended consequences, distortions and distractions from what you'd really like to have happen. Why not work on developing the love of the game, on the joy of working together to face challenges, on the intrinsic pleasures of a job well done, of becoming excellent. The research shows that this approach produces more success anyways. So next time, keep your five bucks in your pocket, and enjoy watching your kids' team play hockey. And, in business, keep your dangling performance incentives in your pocket (slightly disturbing image?), and work instead on helping the team enjoy their work, pull together, and win - together.

A Real Live Dinosaur

I just saw a real live dinosaur. President of a successful industrial company, this fearsome creature roared his mighty roar, in a throwback to prehistoric management practices:

"If somebody makes a mistake, I fire them! Nobody makes a mistake twice here."

"Discipline is everything. If the union ever gives me trouble, I wait a bit and then fire a couple of them."

"I've never lost a union dispute. I just send my accountant with a checkbook to settle it. Way cheaper than a severance package!"

"The only thing workers care about is money. They don't understand anything else."

This superb example of  Tyrannosaurus Wrecks was terrifying; the blood-red wine flowed, chicken bones crunched, and it took every ounce of courage not to run screaming from the darkened restaurant. Well, it wasn't that bad, but lordy it wasn't that good.

We've all had tyrannical bosses at some point in our lives, but few match the ferocity of this specimen. His proud reliance on fear, intimidation and discipline bring to mind the horrors of slavery and serfdom. Yet despite the offensiveness of his managerial approach, his company, his empire, is financially successful and has a good reputation in the industry.

There are many management styles, both in terms of personal approach and in terms of policy, and all work to some degree. Indeed, in a well-controlled study of CEO management style, Bertrand and Schoar found that the financial and investment policies of the leader accounts for only about 4% of the variance in a company's results. In terms of personal style, the research is scarce, but it's clear that some bully managers succeed, and some bully managers fail. Some respectful managers succeed, and some respectful managers fail.

In my own experience, aggressive bullying management seems to make all the good people leave. And those that stay behind tend to keep their heads down to avoid the teeth, and constantly look for increasing compensation, either within the company, or in greener pastures. Aggressive bullying can work as a management style, but there are good reasons that dinosaur managers have been going extinct. Hopefully, the remaining few will soon follow.

Nothing to do With Technology

A TV news production company has an online presence, a 24-hour news channel with text, photos, and videos; glitzy and content-rich, but basically, a website. The technology and tools they use are identical to the tools you can use to do this at home, with the same kind of software running on the same kind of computers. Sure, they have fancier cameras, and professional staff, but there's nothing in the technology they're using that differentiates them from us, from the masses. So what does differentiate them? What gives them a competitive advantage?

Touring their facility, you see computers, cameras, computers, microphones, and more computers. There is a physical desk and background set where the news is produced, but most of what you see throughout the building is technology. Indeed, a news production company is a technology company, an IT company. But that's not what they feel is responsible for their success.

The people in this organization are remarkable, the relationships are remarkable. The production engineer talks more about how well the different groups work together than about how the technology works. The person who creates the headlines and graphics enthuses about how good the internal technical support group is. The technicians are so grateful for how well the five branch offices work together, with a frequent and free flow of problems, solutions and support. The union leader is proud of how well management and labour get along - "we just talk things out; it seems like everyone's just trying to help people do good work and enjoy their work. We do really cool things. People love coming to work here."

Over and over, throughout the company, people would willingly demonstrate the technology they used. But, more noticably, people would enthusiastically rave about how good the people were, how positive the environment was, how strong the relationships had become and how much of a joy it was to work there. These were people who were doing an unplanned technical demonstration for an unplanned technical guest, but their enthusiasm and their presentations had little to do with technology.

Indeed, the success of their technology company has little to do with technology. The continuing success of their company is firmly rooted in the human side of things. Isn't yours?

Twelve Leadership Tips That Really Work

Are your people taking too much initiative? Do they solve problems spontaneously, and apply their creativity to problems that arise? Are they functioning effectively as a team, with great communication and conflict resolution skills?

If so, there is no time to lose. Here are twelve proven techniques that are guaranteed to reduce motivation, and inhibit those pesky spontaneous problem-solving activities that sometimes arise amongst your staff.

1. Give Orders - When someone presents you with a situation, make sure to tell then what to do and what not to do. Direct them and give them commands to make sure they know who is supposed to do the thinking.
2. Warn and Threaten - A little fear goes a long way. In no uncertain terms, lay down the law. Something like "If you don't shape up, then ... blah, blah, blah ... dumpster diving and food stamps ... blah, blah, blah ... cattle prod."
3. Preach the Gospel - Where fear falls short, guilt can save the day. Talk about responsibility, and duty, and should's. Make it a moral issue. If necessary, beg, and appeal to their conscience.
4. Advise and Solve - Suggest a different approach; tell them what would be best. Whatever you do, don't let them come up with ideas on their own. That's just asking for further creativity in the future.
5. Persuade and Argue - Especially when there's conflict, make sure to present facts and arguments explaining why they're in the wrong. If they stubbornly try to have their issues heard, try speaking louder or covering your ears.
6. Criticize - Point out how they are being foolish, or overly sensitive. Identify how their thinking is skewed, how they're wrong, and why what they're saying is, at best, wrong, and at worst, stupid.
7. Praise Them - Butter them up with compliments, and try to put a positive spin on their complaints. Let them know how intelligent they are, how they've always managed to succeed in the past. Just make sure you don't let them talk about how this challenge might be different.
8. Ridicule and Shame - Call them a whiner, or a sloppy worker. Or dismiss what they're saying because they're a typical engineer, or accountant, or a woman, or Ukrainian, or whatever. Labelling is an effective tool, because it quickly addresses their delusion of being an individual by lumping them into some arbitrary group.
9. Interpret and Analyze - Let them know that you completely understand them (even though you really don't have a clue and honestly don't care - you just want them to do their job). Imply that you fully understand their inner motivations - they're just jealous, or have a problem with authority, or they're angry. Just make something up - it still works.
10. Reassure and Console - Especially with interpersonal problems, a kindly "you'll feel different tomorrow" goes a long way towards dismissing the importance of the issue. Platitudes like "every cloud has a silver lining" are also useful for avoiding their snivelling.
11. Interrogate - Challenge everything they've told you with lots of questions. Why did you do that? Why didn't you come to me earlier? How long has this been going on? What have you tried? Anything to imply that they were wrong and should change their behavoiur. If you have a bright light you can shine in their eyes, all the better.
12. Distract and Divert - Tell a funny story, or, better yet, tell them about your own problems. Sometimes a cup of coffee or a shiny trinket can take their mind off the situation, and save you from having to hear about it. Whatever you do, don't let them focus obsessively on the problem at hand - that's unhealthy.

All of these techniques contain the powerful message that they need to change; they need to think, feel or act differently; they are not OK. All of these techniques are wonderful for showing people that we don't accept them as they are. And, as we all know, feeling unaccepted is the perfect environment for poor psychological health, personal stagnation, and poor communication.

Of course, if you're a bit of a wingnut, and actually want to encourage creative problem solving, team work, and good communication, you might want to avoid these behaviours. These are the Roadblocks to Communication outlined by Dr. Thomas Gordon in Leader Effectiveness Training. Surprisingly, he actually recommends NOT using these techniques, in favour of other, more effective leadership techniques. Go figure!

Human Resources Discussion Group

Dave Hunchak of Swift Fox will be facilitating an interactive discussion group for SATA (Saskatchewan Advanced Technology Association) called HRX - Human Resources Exchange. In a relaxed, confidential environment, participants will share issues and challenges and learn about current industry practices around one of the most important components of a business – people.
The 2010-2011 program runs the 2nd Tuesday of each month, from 4:30 – 5:30 pm at Ideas Inc., 207-120 Sonnenschein Way, Saskatoon. Registration is free for members of SATA.

• Tuesday Dec 7, 2010
• “Compliance is not an option”
• HR Basic Rules - Labor Standards, OH&S
• Tuesday Jan 11, 2011
• “To set policy or not to set policy, that is the question”
• HR Policies
• Tuesday Feb 8, 2011
• “Lead, follow or get out of the way?”
• Leadership Style and Practice
• Tuesday Mar 8, 2011
• “Finding them, getting them, keeping them”
• Talent Management
• Tuesday Apr 12, 2011
• “Cooperation vs. competition - what works when
• Productivity
• Tuesday May 10, 2011
• “More than just a paycheck”
• Compensation
• Tuesday Jun 14, 2011
• “Wrap-up and Review”
• And topics for next year…

For more information contact Laurel Reich, SATA Program Director at lreich@sata.ca or phone (306) 244-3889.

An Ode to Rapid Improvement Projects

There's a part of your business that's not doing well;
The people are great but they're going through hell.
They just can't keep up and they beg for more staff, but when
You think of hiring you just have to laugh:
"We can't hire more - we have to cut costs
But we have to do something before it's all lost."
Rapid improvement is something we need
Our people can do it! Swift Fox can lead!

Thanks to the Blatant Self-Promotion division of Swift Fox for this little ditty.

Rapid Improvement Projects

Are there areas of your business that continually struggle? Are your people having trouble keeping up with your customers’ continually increasing requirements? Maybe growth has strained your systems beyond their capacity. Or perhaps a slowdown has made you realize how out-of-control everything has been. Regardless, it’s gotten to the point that you have to make some changes, and you have to do it now.


You don’t have to figure it out yourself. By pulling together a cross-functional team that includes people who work in the area, people from other involved departments, and outside eyes from valued customers and suppliers, a Rapid Improvement Project can help your people to:

• Map out the current process, warts and all.
• Recover from the shock of seeing your current process.
• Learn to see wastes in the process.
• Map out a future version of how the process could be, should be.
• Identify specific changes to help make the leap from here to there.

Using principles and tools from Lean Enterprise and Systems Thinking, a Rapid Improvement Project empowers your people to address a struggling area of your operation. Along with some pre-interviews and preliminary data gathering, a Rapid Improvement Project can often accomplish in a day what has been dreamed of for years. And, because your people create the improvement, it tends to be an enlightening, positive, and productive experience.

The idea is not to create a perfect process in a day. The idea is to get the right people in the room, get everyone looking at how the work really happens (not how you think it does), and identify changes to make it immediately more efficient. It’s not magic, and your ugly old frog might not instantly turn into a handsome prince(ss). But it is a strong, quick and reliable method for improving whatever it is you do.

Who's In Control? Four Ways to Help Someone

There are four main types of leadership that a manager can provide; the same four types of intervention that you can seek from a consultant. All can be helpful in different situations, but it is useful to clarify what you're looking for. The four types vary in the degree of control exercised by both the leader/consultant and the employee/client.

Command

"Do something, or stop doing something. I am in control."  

This is the domain of the expert, the guru who fixes your problem for you. At Superior Millwork, we would fly in equipment specialists from Italy to recalibrate the computer-controlled drilling machines or set up a new production saw. We did what they said, because this was their area of expertise. Outside of specific technical services, or emergency situations, this is rarely the most effective approach.


Consult

"Here's some information. I'll lead, but you can take or leave what I present." 

Here's where a facilitator or consultant is brought in to teach principles, lead a group improvement effort, or redesign processes. They know less than you do about your business, but they know more about process and ways to get better results. Their is a definite element of persuasion and influence, but with respect for your knowledge of your daily work.


Collaborate

"Let's explore ideas together as equals." 

True partnerships of equals aiming to create a mutually satisfying solution. Although the process often requires a facilitator, it primarily involves different stakeholders with complementary or conflicting interests. A good example is the Business Ready Investment Development Gateway (BRIDG), which aims to bring First Nations together with viable business opportunities. The First Nations have capital and labour, but often lack management skills and experience. The businesses often have management skills and experience, but lack enough capital and labour. The opportunities for collaboration are exciting.


Coach

"I will help you on your journey. Where do you want to go? You are in control." 

Unlike the cliche drill-sargent coach who makes you run 'til you puke, an executive coach helps you get where you want to go. With open-ended questions, reflective listening, and group facilitation skills, the coach draws out your priorities, and helps you decide between your options. Working as a coach to another consultant, I help him review his activities for the week, compare them to his objectives, hold him accountable for deviations, and help him find workarounds when barriers prevent him from achieving his goals. He decides where he wants to go, I help him get there. He is in control.


Next time you intervene in the daily problems in your business, consider whether Command, Consultation, Collaboration or Coaching would be most effective at resolving the situation. And, next time you look for outside help, ask about what kind of help they'll be providing.

Thanks to Andrew Bergen of Bergen Coaching for the inspiration for this posting. Andrew speaks about four types of conversation, with a continuum of control ranging from Calibration, Consulting, and Collaboration to Coaching.

One Mouldy Raspberry

Note to gardeners: One mouldy raspberry will soon spoil the whole bucket. It's a shame, after all the hard work of picking those fresh juicy berries, to lose the whole bucket. It's a shame to lose everything because you didn't invest the energy to deal with the mouldy one. Sure, sometimes it's not right out on top where you can see it, but with a little digging, it becomes obvious. Deal with it, or lose it all.

Note to managers: One mouldy employee will soon spoil the whole department. It's a shame, after all the hard work setting up the team, fostering relationships and building trust, to lose the whole thing. It's a shame to allow it to fail because you didn't deal with the mouldy one. Sure sometimes they're not right out on top where you can see them, but with a little digging, they become obvious. Deal with the mouldy ones, or risk losing everything you've set up.

Note from the field: The talent pool in the research department was astounding, with top-notch professionals from all disciplines. With excellent equipment, skilled administrative staff and seasoned management, the expectations were high for top-shelf collaboration and results. Yet, soon, it became clear that something was wrong. Despite some early successes, the department toppled - people would arrive late and leave early, absenteeism was high, collaboration was limited to a few small pockets, and morale was low. Some candid interviews with employees all pointed to one individual, one of the top professionals, who would have been covered in fluffy white mould if she'd been a raspberry. As a coworker, she was disrespectful, manipulative, cricitcal and abrasive, irritating everyone in the department. Yet, as a professional she was bringing considerable grant money into the department and the top dogs considered her essentially untouchable. Turnover escalated, morale disappeared, and the organization festered along, nowhere near the top-drawer excellence that should have been possible with the team that had been assembled.

If you've got a mouldy raspberry in your bucket, isn't it time to deal with it?

Seven Features of Destructive Conflict

Conflict is not inherently good or bad. Conflict can inspire growth and creativity, it often carries the seeds of renewal, and it can motivate us to find breakthrough solutions that move us to a much better place. Conflict can be cooperative, with the feel of working together to solve a problem.

On the other hand, conflict can be very destructive, with a competitive, war-like, win-lose mentality that develops a mind and momentum of its own. Destructive conflict has several common features, which you will certainly recognize from your own experiences.

Destructive conflicts tend to...

1. Expand and escalate, often continuing long after the initial causes have been forgotten, or after initial causes have become irrelevant.
2. Rely on competitive processes as each side tries to win the conflict, through force, deception, alliances or cleverness.
3. Encourage black and white thinking, with strong pressure to choose sides and be loyal to your side's point of view.
4. Focus on strategies of power, using tactics of posturing, misinformation, threat and coercion.
5. Shift away from tactics like discussion and concilliation that minimize differences or enhance mututal understanding and goodwill.
6. Minimize direct communication between the people in conflict, relying instead on heresay, go-betweens, espionage, and other round-about ways of gathering intelligence.
7. Allow us to behave towards the other in ways that would be outrageous and morally unacceptable if directed towards us instead. The Golden Rule goes out the window as distrust and suspicion disable our social graces.

There are resources available on how to wage conflict, how to win your negotiations, and how to suppress or contain conflict. Less well known, yet more effective and powerful and pleasant, are the tools of constructive conflict and cooperative problem solving. If the seven features listed above permeate all your interactions, consider that there may be ways to help make your conflicts more constructive and positive.