Tag: leadership

Q: How can I get other people to implement my ideas?—Anonymous

Good ideas are not a rare commodity. They come up all the time, often in response to a problem, challenge or opportunity. If implementing your ideas falls entirely within your realm of authority, then implementing it may take some sweat equity and other resources. But otherwise, execution should not be too difficult. For instance, if you come up with a new way to manage the processing of forms and you are the only one involved in that process, then implementing your idea should present few barriers.

But for most ideas, implementation requires other people. Superordinates, subordinates, customers and complementors all may be needed. It is all too easy for some if not many of these individuals to resist execution for a variety of reasons. For instance, implementing the idea may not be in their individual best interest or they might think they have better ideas or perhaps they simply don’t want to put in the extra effort. Resistance to change is particularly vexing when you don’t have authority over these resistors. In such instances, how can you get other people to implement your ideas?

Here are four different approaches to getting other people on board when you do not have sufficient authority.

1. Convincing. Perhaps the most common approach, convincing draws on psychological techniques like listing more ideas than necessary and conceding on the ones that don’t matter, using “we” and avoiding “I” in your proposals, providing an explanation with research and statistics to support your ideas, and pointing out from various points of view the need for change. These techniques attempt to convince people while trying to avoid raising their ire.

Sometimes these approaches work. But too often they don’t. Trying to convince someone that your idea is good can fall into a few traps. If you are not viewed as trustworthy, then attempting to gain acceptance with convincing techniques usually fails. Even if you are viewed as trustworthy, convincing those who believe your idea is not in their best interest or convincing them to take on more work can lead to resistance.

2. Socializing. A related approach is to develop a proposal and then share it with others to read, adjust and modify. Instead of just convincing others of your idea, you can socialize the idea as a means to get them to contribute their own thoughts on how to advance and improve on it. The hope is that the opportunity to contribute leads to acceptance.

While socializing can lead to acceptance, it has two weaknesses. First, it can take a long time, during which resistors can enact their own strategies to delay or prevent implementation. Second, not only does socializing take time, but also there is no natural end point to it. Final decisions often do not get made because each modification to the proposal can lead to round after round of conferring.

3. Critical Thinking. The phrase “critical thinking” has many definitions. At Brookings Executive Education, we focus our critical thinking curriculum on developing processes to comprehensively formulate challenges. Whereas proposing solutions and trying to convince people can quickly lead to political reactions and resistance, sharing a comprehensively formulated problem creates a different pathway. Once a challenge is formulated, assessing the amount of value and for whom it is created becomes easier and more transparent. Any idea, not just yours, can be evaluated against the formulation and potential value. Doing so allows others to assess whether your idea as well as their ideas fully tackle the challenge and generate enough return on investment.

Using critical thinking skills can help you solve the right problem the first time, but it has some challenges nonetheless. You still may need to convince and socialize; although if done well, these steps might be much easier than otherwise. Perhaps more challenging is investing in appropriate critical thinking processes in the first place, because becoming skilled in critical thinking requires training and practice.

4. Team formulating. Instead of tackling the problem by yourself, a more productive way may be to engage a team to co-create a formulation and solution. By involving those likely to be affected by a future solution and asking them to help formulate the challenge, the team will jointly own the problem. They also can co-create the solution, which reinforces their ownership. Such ownership typically leads to rapid implementation as long as you help move barriers out of the way.

Formulating with a team takes both time and technique. The time aspect refers to the investment upfront to co-create the formulation, which will seem unusual to most people used to leaping to a solution and, as a consequence, suffering the challenges of implementation. Yet, spending time up front can pay dividends by dramatically reducing the time needed for implementation. The technique aspect refers to the processes and facilitation needed to guide the team. Few people are trained in such techniques. So, adopting this paradigm may not be easy.

With these alternative approaches in mind, I think you might be starting off with the wrong question. Instead of trying to convince and socialize, work with others to think critically and formulate the challenge in a comprehensive way.  Such an approach may require some training, but people are more willing to implement ideas when they co-create and own them than when the ideas are seen as belonging to you.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

Q: I have been tasked with developing a national quality assurance review program for auditing services. Can you share with me best practice metrics to evaluate these programs? Currently, regional offices and service centers are using similar metrics but with different processes for evaluating quality assurance programs.—Anonymous

Often, challenges across the federal government seem eerily familiar. If other agencies and departments have already tackled a similar challenge and have implemented a great solution, why not seek out these solutions and adopt them?

The idea of copying best practices to improve performance is not new. Indeed, it is discussed in almost every corner of government. From military logistics to education reform, look to other governmental and business entities for approaches that work. Yet, all too often, adopting best practices lowers performance instead of improves it. When is it a good idea to seek out and copy best practices, and when is it not?

Consider the goals of designing an automobile that is both safe and powerful. One way to accomplish these goals might be to purchase a Volvo, a car known for safety, and put into it the engine of a Corvette, known for its power. At first glance, inserting a high performance Corvette engine (my metaphor for a best practice capability) into a Volvo might lead us to expect an awesome car in terms of both safety and power. In actuality, the combination most likely would end up as a clunker that probably wouldn’t work or, at best, would break down easily.

Both the Corvette and Volvo are systems. Each module within the system is designed and tuned to work together and complement each other to yield a particular kind of high performance. For the Corvette, system modules like the engine, transmission, frame, axles, suspension, electronics, steering and most other aspects of the car are highly interdependent. Great performance, in this case relating to acceleration, speed and handling, requires all of these interdependent modules to be optimally designed and work together. The same is true for the Volvo, although optimization of safety and fuel efficiency within a particular cost range lead to an entirely different system.

Taking a best practice capability from one highly interconnected system and inserting it into another undoubtedly will lower performance, if the combined system works at all. Like Mary Shelly’s famous 1818 novel Frankenstein, combining modules from different systems can lead to a wretched capability.  When, then, does seeking out and copying a best practice capability make sense?

I advise identifying and possibly copying best practices in four situations.

Substitutable. In some instances, a capability is modular and independent, meaning that it has few interactions and constraints with other modules in the system. In other words, the capability can be adopted without requiring mutual adjustment in other parts of the system. In most cases, a car owner can improve power performance (e.g., acceleration) by using high-octane instead of low-octane gasoline without changing any other part of the system. As an illustration in the federal government, executive leadership programs are relatively independent and modular.  Switching to a superior program can improve overall performance of the agency while not requiring mutual adjustment to ongoing operations and other modules in the system.

Superb. If a new capability offers a dramatic increase in performance and value, then copying it may be worthwhile even when many interactions are present. But adopting a capability likely requires redesigning of the rest of the system. Hybrid engine technology offered high gas mileage performance, but only after the entire automobile was redesigned. In the federal government, standardized software may offer so much value (i.e., lowering software development, acquisition and maintenance costs) that it justifies the cost of redesigning business processes needed to optimize the software.

Stuck. Sometimes you have no choice. Approximately 7 percent of all health care costs are for sustaining life for those with kidney failure. Dialysis and kidney replacement affect the human body in many ways. In such a situation, adopting best practice may not be great, but it offers the only way to sustain life for many.  The same may be true for some software systems. Off the shelf modules don’t fit the needs well, but designing and developing a custom solution is an order of magnitude more expensive. In this case, you may be stuck with adopting the best practice capability even though the value it can create for your agency is limited.

Solutions. In almost all instances, it is useful to seek out best practices for research, not for adopting them. Explore in detail what problems led to the development of the capability. Take away a deeper knowledge of both the nuances of the problem as well as ideas and approaches that led to the specific solution adopted. Just because FedEx and UPS are known for their leading-edge logistics capabilities, for example, does not mean that U.S. Transportation Command should copy these best practices. Instead, studying the underlying problems these firms solved and learning about their specific approaches will help U.S. TRANSCOM designers better understand and optimally resolve their own unique logistics challenges.

Best practices are capabilities designed and developed to solve specific problems that often are part of a complex and nuanced system. Copying a module from one system to put in to another system runs the risk of turning your desire for a high performance organization into a Frankenstein with the performance of a clunker. Always seek out best practices, but be skeptical about copying and adopting them.

Please share your own experiences and ideas for stimulating outside-the-box thinking or ask your leadership questions in the comment section below.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

Image: Monster masks by Devlin Thompson; Tombstone by Steve Cornelius, Flickr, Creative Commons

A new course co-taught by Professor Michelle Duguid and Maxine Clark, founder of Build-A-Bear Workshop, is taking a multi- faceted approach to learning about women and leadership that includes a lineup of top executive guest speakers.

Anne-Marie Slaughter

Anne-Marie Slaughter, president and CEO of the New America Foundation, will tackle the issues surrounding work-life balance in her visit to the class, Oct. 27. On Oct. 28, Olin is co-sponsoring a lecture by Dr. Slaughter in conjunction with Prosper Women Entrepreneurs and the St. Louis Business Journal in Emerson Auditorium.

Dr. Slaughter is the Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor Emerita of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. From 2009–2011 she served as director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State, the first woman to hold that position. Prior to her government service, Dr. Slaughter was the Dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs from 2002–2009 and the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School from 1994-2002.

The guest speaker list for Women and Leadership, OB 500B:

Leadership
David Farr, Chairman and CEO, Emerson
Kathy Button Bell, VP and CMO, Emerson

Work-Life Balance
Anne-Marie Slaughter, President and CEO, New America Foundation

Persuasion and Influence Strategies
Kathy Cramer, Founder and Managing Partner, The Cramer Institute

Negotiations
Mary Anne Sedey, Partner, Sedey Harper, P.C.
Francine Katz, Consultant and Former Chief Communications Officer Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Building Alliances: Networking, Mentoring and Sponsorship
Jill Barad, Former Chairman and CEO, Mattel

Managing Your Personal Brand
Phebe Farrow Port, SVP, Global Management Strategies; SVP and Chief of Staff Executive Management Initiatives, Estee Lauder Companies

Image: painting from Olin Women in Business Painting Brunch

Q: Your competitor is an in-house candidate who, if you are selected, will be very disappointed, will report to you and may file a grievance. How would you handle the situation?

—Anonymous

Even in the most collaborative organizations, employees sometimes compete against each other. Promotions, prestige and pay raises are scarce assets that people naturally compete over. After a winner is declared, some people may be sore losers who seek out retribution not only against the boss who didn’t promote them, but also against the person who won the competition. If you expect to be the winner, how can you manage the situation to reduce if not eliminate the likelihood of retribution?

Social comparison is part of human nature. We all compare ourselves to others, especially to “salient referents” who are close in age, education, position and ability. These social comparisons in a work setting can lead to an awkward dynamic when one person is promoted and others become their subordinates.

I know of an organization in which seven supervisors worked together for many years. They all were effective at their jobs and had similar experience, abilities and performance records. When their manager retired, one was promoted to manage the others. Within six months, this new manager left the organization because of sabotage tactics by the remaining six supervisors—his prior friends—who thought they deserved the position. Hiring the next manager from the outside led to few complaints and no sabotage, and the organization’s performance returned to its prior level.

This problem arises because of envy and because people tend to have an inflated view of their capabilities. Envy is an emotion that can stimulate anger when someone desires what another possesses. The emotion is particularly strong when people perceive that they are as deserving, or even more so, than the salient referent. When promotions are based, at least in part, on subjective measures of performance, it is easy for people to assume that they were more deserving than the person promoted.

Who is to blame when a staff member is passed over for promotion? To those on the losing end, the answer is certainly not themselves because they believe favoritism must have been at play. To counter this injustice, envious workers often seek ways to get back at the organization, even if these actions are costly to themselves. They might shirk responsibilities, for instance, by taking it easy at work to compensate for the promotion they did not receive. Or they might engage in office politics to lobby to improve their position or to undermine the person promoted.

Managing the situation is difficult, and there is no surefire way to resolve it so that everyone is better off. Nonetheless, there are three strategies that can help.

1. Work with the hiring manager
Before making promotion decisions to remove subjective measures of performance. If objective measures are available, then people can compare, calibrate and correct their otherwise inflated view of their capabilities. While those not promoted may still feel some envy, they are less likely to perceive the situation as unfair. Moreover, they may be more willing to find ways to improve themselves so that they can be promoted next time. This strategy, however, may not be feasible if the nature of the work precludes objective performance measures or influencing the manager to change the evaluation policy is impossible.

2. Shape workers’ expectations
So they believe that they, too, can be promoted soon. If employees expect that working hard will lead to promotion in the near term, then they are more likely to create value for the organization rather than destroy it. But creating these expectations hinges on the organization’s growth, so that more positions become open, and on a commitment to promote from within. Such policies encourage employees to make investments in training and development. Unfortunately, it is difficult to create such policies and expectations when most agencies are shrinking.

3. Distance yourself from your former peer group.
Envy is sparked because referents are salient, but this is changeable. A recently promoted manager can try to differentiate himself from salient referents. The trappings of position and constraints on socializing offer some expectation that the new manager is no longer a salient referent. But the longer prior relationships have lasted, the less likely this distancing will work. If the manager cannot distance himself, then another approach is to distance the envious worker. Helping that person find a position elsewhere can change the individual’s referent group. The strategy may not be feasible, however, if there is a large number of workers with similar frustrations or if workers exploit grievance procedures to stay in their position.

These strategies could prove difficult at best in this age of austerity in the federal government. But there is one other approach to consider. Seek out a promotion elsewhere in your agency. If you are promoted to a position in another group, envy is unlikely to be a problem. If you are a manager, help your best employees find positions in other groups and seek out quality applicants from outside your group. While it is difficult to see a good employee move on, you not only are helping that person succeed, but also the co-workers who didn’t get promoted.

Duce a mente 

(May you lead by thinking)

Q: I find that many on my team take the path of least resistance. I want them to think a little harder, more critically about the tasks in front of them. How can I, as a leader, get my team to think outside the box and perhaps spur some innovation? — Anonymous

Time is fleeting. You have 20 things to do today and it is noon with only four items accomplished. How will you finish the rest along with responding to the 100 urgent emails you received today?

If these or similar thoughts are streaming through your head on a regular basis, then it may be no surprise that your employees take the path of least resistance. Who wouldn’t under the daily barrage of pressures to get things done? People often don’t want to think outside the box because they are too busy trying to keep the box from closing in and crushing them. How then can a team leader spur innovative thinking?

If your employees are under pressure, then not only are they looking for a quick way to check the box, they likely have developed a mind-set that may be difficult to change. It is easy to rely on existing routines to get things done quickly and punch the next item on the list. In this deep groove, people resist responding to requests for innovative ideas.

To be candid, I am no expert on the psychology of changing mind-sets. Nonetheless, I have worked to change my own as well as other people’s mind-sets with some degree of success. Here’s one approach.

First, recognize that changing a mind-set is like competing for a brain’s scarce resource—attention. This competition is between the way the brain currently thinks (processing beliefs, feelings and values) and the way you would like it to think (being creative and innovative to add value). To influence people’s mind-set you have to be willing to compete for their attention.

Second, capture attention by asking questions. Those seeking to improve happiness, for instance, ask questions with positive assumptions behind them. For example, asking “What has my team done recently that I can appreciate?” assumes employees have accomplished something of value. The mere act of authentically asking this question causes your own brain to allocate some of its limited attention, at least for a while, to search for an answer.

Winning the competition, though, requires you to ask such questions every day. Moreover, asking first thing every morning primes the brain to keep reconsidering the questions throughout the day. The more you ask yourself these types of appreciative and positive questions the more you are changing your mind-set.

Third, you can work to change the mind-set of others in a similar way. Ask questions that encourage your team to think outside the box. Or engage in activities like innovation competitions focused on specific challenges that will stimulate new ways of approaching tasks. If narrowly constructed and discussed daily, such challenges can fundamentally transform mind-sets.

For example, you could ask: How can we create new value for our customers? How can we increase quality and lower costs? How can we make our job easier yet deliver more value? What pain for our organization can we discover today and work to remedy? A little training and illustrations of successful answers can go a long way toward helping people think more clearly about what these questions imply.

Discover the questions that work for your team, and encourage employees to ask themselves those questions every morning. If they think outside the box, find a way to reward them. This may be as simple as expressing your appreciation or acknowledging their contribution during a meeting. Asking questions that capture their attention and rewarding new mind-sets offer at least one path to getting your team out of its box.

Please share your own experiences and ideas for stimulating outside-the-box thinking or ask your leadership questions in the comment section below.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

The need for new executive leaders in the federal government is growing as baby boomers retire, but the willingness of up-and-coming managers to become leaders may be diminishing. Why would people choose to become a leader in the federal government, especially when it requires the ability to move, the possibility of political attacks, a lot of work with constrained pay and other barriers at every turn?

The need to replenish executive leaders in the federal government is no longer an issue for the future. The exodus is in full swing, and the need is here and now. Where will the new crop of executive leaders come from?

One source of new leaders is outside government. People who have had a career in private enterprise may want to expand their commitment to public service. With jobless rates still high, the federal government could offer a path to gainful employment. The shrinking military also might provide a substantial reservoir of leaders willing to enter civilian public service. Yet leading in the federal government, especially in the current political environment, is no cakewalk. Why would anyone want to step into an executive leadership role?

One standard set of responses is that people are willing to assume the mantle for gains in power, pay or prestige. These three rationales have one common denominator: narrowly defined self-interest. These rationales suggest people will step into executive roles only if they receive remuneration to compensate for the costs of leadership. Some even think those who aspire to leadership do so to capture the perks while attempting to sidestep the costs of actually leading.

When I am asked, ‘Why lead?’ I tell people to start from a broader perspective. Instead, I ask them, “What is the secret to living a full and complete life?” This may sound like a question that has no answer or requires a philosophical debate. Yet time and time again, although the language may differ, people arrive at remarkably similar responses.

To sum up the responses: The secret is that living a full and complete life requires striving to create value for others. The operative word “striving” means creating value for others is no easy feat. Leaders have to struggle, work hard and even battle to create value. Indeed, a deep investment in education, personal development and experience often is needed before someone is ready to lead.

Creating value ultimately involves serving others. This can range from products and services that people purchase to the provision of public goods and services that benefit recipients such as low-income families.

While the desire to live a full and complete life has a notion of self-interest, the true source of its motivation comes from community interest, the desire to serve others in ways that are perceived as beneficial. Herein lies at least one important moral basis for choosing to lead.

Leadership of this kind (one variant is called servant leadership) requires choosing the domain in which value is to be created, understanding the perspectives of all stakeholders and formulating challenges from all perspectives. Trade-offs and conflicts between the benefits to the many versus the costs to the few can and do arise. Such issues can make creating value even more challenging. Choosing a course of action requires creativity and wise leadership, so the situation can be addressed in all of its complexity. It is in these contexts that the word “striving” can be more clearly understood.

If striving to create value for others is central to your life, then seeking an executive leadership position in the federal government is a singular opportunity. The U.S. government has the standing and resources to change the world. I can think of no other organization with the same unique potential to create value for others.

Of course, changing the world through public service can involve struggle, hard work and battles. Success is not guaranteed. Funding, internal and external politics, territorial battles and byzantine rules and regulations present tremendous challenges. These and other impediments could affect the supply of leaders. But the federal government can attract potential leaders by emphasizing the opportunities to create value for others.

In President Kennedy’s immortal words that called so many baby boomers to service, “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” Perhaps it is time to hear this clarion call once again.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)