How Status Disruptions Affect Teams

Marissa King and Ingrid Nembhard have conducted research on teams using a new set of methods and techniques. They used wearable sensors to collect real-time data about team member interactions and conversations.   King and Nembhard studied 66 teams in 13 healthcare centers.  They focused on the impact of assigning a nurse as a care coordinator for patients.  They expected this role to improve patient care outcomes, given that prior studies have shown that coordination failures in healthcare lead to poorer quality care and higher medical costs.   Surprisingly, the results did not work out as expected.   King explains: 

Everything was contrary to what we anticipated. We set up the experiment really to try to improve care through this care coordination intervention. We quickly realized that the intervention wasn’t nearly as successful as we anticipated going in. In fact, the elevation of the nurse’s position within a network actually induced status conflict. Increasing the nurse’s status within her team increased interruptions within the team; it decreased the amount of time that doctors and physicians and nurses were spending listening to each other. The interaction dynamics that ensued from elevating the nurse, rather than being better, actually got much worse...Everybody, I think, finds comfort in knowing where they sit. So when you change that, everybody is disrupted.

The study has some interesting implicaitons for teams in many industries.   People become accustomed to a certain pecking order and specific status dynamics within a team or organization.  Changing that dynamic certainly can be unsettling, in my experience.  I've seen it with faculty members elevated to leadership and administration roles, for instance.   I certainly have witnessed this type of unsettling disruption in the businesses with whom I have worked over the years.  However, I think some people are much more equipped than others to handle this dynamic.  When elevated to a coordination or management role, they recognize that the transition can be tricky for other team members.  They handle the situation with care, and they help people overcome the discomfort that comes with the disruption to the status hierarchy.   Others jump right into their new work, oblivious to the way that others will feel during this transition.  Empathy, in my view, is critical in this type of situation.  I would argue that the more empathetic individuals are able to move into a new management or coordination role more effectively.   

Misunderstanding The "Fail Fast" Philosophy

Many innovators adhere to IDEO founder Dave Kelley's philosophy: "Fail faster, succeed sooner." Recently, venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya took issue with Silicon Valley's embrace of this mantra during a talk at Stanford. He argued, 

“Fail fast” has become the conventional wisdom of Silicon Valley. And when it comes to consumer businesses and apps, that makes sense, says Palihapitiya. Consumer internet businesses like Facebook are about exploiting psychology, and businesses need to fail fast to keep pace with the shifting tastes and desires of consumers. But that formula doesn’t work for “anything that really matters,” he says. “It is not how you solve diabetes. It is not how you use precision medicine to cure cancer. It is not how you educate broad swaths of the world’s population.”

I strongly disagree with Palihapitiya's take here.  He has taken a far too narrow view of what the "fail fast" philosophy means.  Of course, a smartphone app is far different than curing cancer.  It's ok to fail if you launch a social media app into the market.   However, you do not want to put a poorly designed cancer drug out into the market simply to get feedback.  The FDA would not allow that anyway.   However, that does not mean the "fail fast" philosophy should not be applied in industries such as healthcare, where the stake are very high.   You can still embrace the notion that innovation should occur through an iterative process filled with prototyping, experimentation, and testing.   Prototypes come in many forms; they do not have to be finished products that could do potential harm to users in the marketplace.   

Doing Less, Then Obsessing

My former colleague, Morten Hansen, has written a terrific new book titled, "Great at Work: How top Performers Work Less and Achieve More."   Hansen built a dataset of roughly 5,000 individuals from all levels of organizations, from the C-suite to the factory floor.  He examined their performance, as well as their habits, routines, and work practices.   In the book, Hansen describes seven principles that characterize the approach of top performers.

His first principle, and perhaps most interesting one, is "doing less, then obsessing." Hansen published an essay in the Wall Street Journal recently, in which he describes this principle. He writes, 

The common practice we found among the highest-ranked performers in our study wasn’t at all what we expected. It wasn’t a better ability to organize or delegate. Instead, top performers mastered selectivity. Whenever they could, they carefully selected which priorities, tasks, meetings, customers, ideas or steps to undertake and which to let go. They then applied intense, targeted effort on those few priorities in order to excel. We found that just a few key work practices related to such selectivity accounted for two-thirds of the variation in performance among our subjects. Talent, effort and luck undoubtedly mattered as well, but not nearly as much... In our data, people who focused on a narrow scope of work, and said no to maintain that strategy, outperformed others who didn’t. They placed an impressive 25 percentage points higher in the performance ranking—the difference between being a middling and an excellent performer.

Of course, setting priorities, and saying no to those things that are not priorities, can be extraordinarily difficult for many of us. We don't just work extra long hours to please our boss. We also take on too many tasks at times out of our desire to be collegial and to be viewed as a team player in the organization. We don't want to let our peers down. Sometimes we take on more work now, in hopes that our peers will reciprocrate when we ask for their help. The inability to focus can be costly though. It can diminish our productivity, increase our stress, and reduce the quality of the output that we create.

Why Corporations Love Strategic Planning: The Illusion of Control

Roger Martin has been a long-time critic of traditional strategic planning processes in many companies.  Several years ago, he wrote:

Virtually every time the word “strategy” is used, it is paired with some form of the word “plan,” as in the process of “strategic planning” or the resulting “strategic plan.” The subtle slide from strategy to planning occurs because planning is a thoroughly doable and comfortable exercise...This exercise arguably makes for more thoughtful and thorough budgets. However, it must not be confused with strategy. Planning typically isn’t explicit about what the organization chooses not to do and why. It does not question assumptions. And its dominant logic is affordability; the plan consists of whichever initiatives fit the company’s resources.  Mistaking planning for strategy is a common trap.  

Others also have been critical of annual strategic planning exercises.  Russell Ackoff once wrote,  “Most corporate planning is like a ritual rain dance: It has no effect on the weather that follows, but it makes those who engage in it feel they are in control.”  Indeed, human beings have a powerful need to feel a sense of control.  A sense of control actually has many positive benefits for people.  Some studies show that a strong sense of control fosters better mental and physical health.   Corporate planning exercises feed that need.  Of course, human beings are susceptible to what Ellen Langer calls the illusion of control, i.e. when we think we have much more ability to control outcomes than we actually have.  That illusion, as Ackoff suggests, drives a lot of the energy and effort poured into strategic planning.  

Attracting Talent: What is Your Employer Brand Strategy?

Matt Handford, the SVP of People for Hootsuite, has written a good article for HR Morning about how to attract and retain talented employees in a tight labor market.  He focuses on your "employer brand" strategy.   Handford explains: 

It should go without saying that in order to develop a strategic and effective brand persona, there needs to be a plan behind it. First off, it’s critical to understand that a brand is not the perks or salary associated with working at your company. While perks like dog-friendly offices, free beer, extra vacation and ping pong are elements of creating a positive workplace it does not, and should not, define you as a brand.

Take a critical look at your current brand and define what you want to be known for; when a potential employee thinks of your company, what is the ideal perception you want to create? By thinking from that perspective, you can work backwards and develop steps to increase your brand’s strategic positioning until you are attracting the type of talent that aligns with your vision. Ultimately you want to capitalize on what makes your brand unique, and build from there.

Handford is right on the money.  The key question is:  How do you build such an effective employer brand strategy?   I would argue that it begins with an in-depth examination of your current competitive position in the labor market.  Clearly, you need to speak with your employees.  What does the brand mean to them?  More importantly, however, you must spend time with two other groups of people:  those who you hope to recruit (perhaps college students, for instance), and those who have rejected you.  The latter group is especially important.  You need to speak with those who have either connected with your firm in some way, but ultimately did not choose employment with your company, or those who have chosen not to engage with you at all.   What's driving them away?  Answering that fundamental question is the first step in building an effective employer brand strategy.  

Lifelong Learning: Think Deep AND Broad

The most successful leaders are lifelong learners.   As their career progresses, they master new skills and seek out experiences that will build their capabilities in key areas.  For many people, career development efforts focus on building expertise in a particular area.  They want to develop specialized knowledge of high importance to their organization, and hopefully, of high value to other firms in the marketplace.  Becoming an expert in a valued domain is certainly a good career strategy.  However, it's not enough.  Lifelong learning should involve broadening efforts, as well as deep dives in your area of specialization.   

You should ask yourself:  What adjacent domains should I be exploring?  What societal and technological trends should I be learning about right now?  Beyond that, you should seek out interesting topics, even if they don't seem directly relevant at the moment.   Become a bit of a polymath.  Such learning will stretch your mind and expose you to new ways of thinking.   Moroever, broadening your knowledge to new areas will help you in conversations and networking opportunities.  Being able to carry on a conversation on a variety of topics is a very useful skill as your career progresses.  

Imagine that you have an opportunity, as a young employee, to spend tim at dinner seated next to the CEO.   Could you carry on a conversation on a range of topics?  Would you be able to speak intelligently about issues outside of your specialization?   Answering these questions affirmatively proves to be very important if you hope to advance successfully in your career. 

Consolidation Has Not Helped the King of Beers Regain Its Crown

Source: Wikipedia

Fortune reports today that Budweiser is now the #4 beer in America. Thirty years ago, Anheuser Busch sold 49.2 million barrels of the core Budweiser brand in the United States, accounting for more than one in four beers sold. In 2016 the company only sold 14.4 million barrels of Budweiser. Today, Bud Light is the #1 beer in America, and the traditional Budweiser brand has fallen behind both Coors Light and Miller Lite. Of course, Budweiser's struggles are not unique.  Bud Light has lost volume as well over the past decade, as Americans turn to craft beers and imports.  According to Fortune, the top ten brands account for only 50% of the beer sold in America, whereas they once accounted for 2 out of every 3 beers purchased by consumers.  

The beer industry has consolidated dramatically in recent years, as brewers engaged in a wave of mergers and acquisitions.  While they have achieved considerable cost synergies, these mergers have not solved the fundamental growth problem that the mainstream brands have in the United States.  Consolidation often occurs when companies experience top line pressures.  That may help improve earnings in the short run, but often mergers do not recharge growth.  The King of Beers needs help, and the solution won't come from further dealmaking.  

Delegating Tough Choices to Avoid Responsibility and Regret

Mary Steffel and Elanor Williams have published a study on delegation in the Journal of Consumer Research.    They conducted a series of experimental studies to determine when and why consumers delegate difficult purchasing decisions.   They found that people tend to delegate tough choices to avoid responsibility/blame and to avoid the possible feelings of regret that emerge when one makes challenging decisions.  Steffel and Williams summarize their findings as follows:

This research shows that consumers cope with difficult decisions by recruiting others to choose for them. Across eight experiments, participants were more likely to ask others to choose on their behalf when choices felt difficult than when they felt easy. Delegation increased when choices felt difficult regardless of whether that feeling was because the choices themselves were more difficult (e.g., with a larger number of alternatives, with difficult tradeoffs, or with a smaller difference in relative attractiveness between the alternatives), or because the choices were processed less fluently for superficial reasons (e.g., the options were presented in jargon). Delegation increased when choices felt difficult regardless of whether the consequences were real or hypothetical and regardless of the importance of those consequences.

Does the same type of pressure and behavior emerge when managers make decisions at work?  It would be interesting to take a look at those situations, as opposed to consumer purchasing decisions.  

What Information Do We Wish That We Had?

Over the years, Garold Stasser and his colleagues have demonstrated that many teams exhibit "shared information bias" - i.e. teams spend a great deal of time discussing information common to all team members, and they do not share, discuss, and integrate privately held information effectively.   As a result, teams make poor decisions because they do not leverage the unique knowledge and expertise of some team members.  

How can teams overcome the shared information bias?   People have described a variety of strategies, many focusing on a climate of psychological safety as well as strong process facilitation by the leader.   I would argue that one other techique can be very helpful.  Team members should ask the following question as they engage in collective problem solving:  What information or data do we WISH THAT WE HAD in trying to solve this problem?  Think about that question for a moment.  In most cases, team members focus on what they already know, rather than thinking about what information they wish they had in order to solve the problem.  By asking, "what data do we wish that we had," teams might encourage members to come forward with critical information that they might not have already shared for a variety of reasons.   In short, building a wish list might invite those who can help fulfill those wishes to come forward.  

The Hawaii False Alert: Is It Really Human Error?

Source: www.worldatlas.com

Don Norman has written an outstanding article for Fast Company about the false alert that caused panic in Hawaii over the weekend.  In the aftermath of the incident, we heard that "human error"  caused the false alert to be transmitted widely to citizens of the state. Norman challenges this initial conclusion. Norman writes:

When some error occurs, it is commonplace to look for the reason. In serious cases, a committee is formed which more or less thoroughly tries to determine the cause. Eventually, it will be discovered that a person did something wrong. “Hah,” says the investigation committee. “Human error. Increase the training. Punish the guilty person.” Everyone feels good. The public is reassured. An innocent person is punished, and the real problem remains unfixed. The correct response is for the committee to ask, “What caused the human error? How could that have been prevented?” Find the root cause and then cure that. To me, the most frustrating aspect of these errors is that they result from poor design. Incompetent design. Worse, for decades we have known how proper, human-centered design can prevent them.

Norman points out several egregious design flaws with this alert system.  First, why was a confirmation not required before the alert was sent?  Ideally, he notes, the confirmation should be provided by a second person working independently from the person who selected the alert message.  Second, when operating in test mode, the messages should all start with a clear indication that it is only a test.  That should be in bold!  It should be capitalized!  It should be crystal clear!   Finally, the system should be designed to enable immediate correction.   The delay was preventable with better design.  

In sum, you can look at any failure in two contrasting ways.  You can examine it individualistically, i.e. it is human error.  Or, you can look at it systemically, i.e. what systems, procedures, and situational factors contributed to poor actions or decisions?   The latter approach is much more likely to lead to learning, improvement, and future accident prevention.   We have shown that in our own research on tragic accidents such as the Columbia space shuttle accident.   

Managing Promotions Effectively

How do you maximize employee productivity? To answer that question, many companies focus a great deal on the extrinsic reward system. Others recognize, rightfully, that intrinsic motivation matters more than the compensation scheme. These firms focus on the organizational culture, mission statement, and other factors that may shape the work environment and employee behavior. Jeff Haden, Inc.com contributing editor, points out that one factor may be more important than all the rest. Here's an excerpt from this article:

A survey of over 400,000 people across the U.S. found that when employees believe promotions are managed effectively, they are more than two times as likely to give extra effort at work -- and to plan for having a long-term future with their company.  But wait, there's more: When employees believe promotions are managed effectively, they are more than five times as likely to believe their leaders act with integrity.  The result? At those companies, employee turnover rates are half that of other companies in the same industry. Productivity, innovation, and growth metrics outperform the competition.

Why such a significant impact with regard to promotions?  I think it's because employees care a great deal about what scholars call procedural justice.   In short, we don't just care abou the outcomes that we experience at work.  We care about the process by which decisions are made.  If we perceive those processes to be inequitable, unjust, or illegitimate in any way, then our commitment, satisfaction, and trust in leadership will decline.   So, as you think about promotions, remember that everyone is watching, not just the people in that particular department.  They are looking to see if the process is just.  

Reaching Your Goals: The Value of an "Emergency Reserve"

What are some techniques for helping individuals achieve their goals?  Wharton Professor Marissa Sharif has conducting some useful research on this topic.  She argues for the value of establishing an "emergency reserve" when setting objectives.  

Consider one experiment that she conducted.  She examined how people performed when setting goals for how steps they would walk each day.   For one group of research subjects, she asked them to try to reach their step goal (either 7,000 or 10,000 steps) during all seven days of the week.  For a second group, she asked them to try to achieve this objective during any five of the seven days.  Finally, for a third set of research study participants, Sharif asked them to reach their steps goal each of the seven days, but she provided them an "emergency reserve" in the form of two "skip days" that they could use at their discretion.  What did Sharif find in this experiment?   The people provided the skip days did a better job of achieving their step goals, and in total, they walked more steps during the week!  

Why is the emergency reserve so effective? Human nature seems to cause us to cling to those skip days. We don't want to use them unless it's a true emergency. People feel bad about using them simply because of a lack of willpower. That feeling causes us to walk more steps each day. 

Sharif also finds that individuals enjoy having emergency reserves. It makes them feel better about setting aggressive goals, and it makes them more likely perhaps to set out to achieve an ambitious objective. She concludes,

"I found that if people have these bigger goals of trying to lose weight or trying to become fitter, they prefer goals with emergency reserves to goals without. What this means is that not only can companies help their consumers perform better by incorporating emergency reserves into their goals, but they can also attract them to sign up initially by offering emergency reserves within their program."

The Middle Manager as Translator

Source:  http://acceleratedbr.com/blog/

Middle managers often are bombarded with information from above and below in organizations.  They must share directives and plans with the people working on the front lines of the organization.  At the same time, they must listen carefully to their team members and communicate their concerns, questions, and ideas upward in the organization.   In so doing, they play the role of translator in many cases.  Why?   Top executives and front-line employees do not speak the same language at times.  In fact, they speak starkly different languages - Greek and Japanese, if you will.  

Consider the goals established by senior management.   The CEO and his or her team often speak in terms of broad financial and strategic goals such as Return on Invested Capital, Market Share, Total Shareholder Return, and Asset Turnover.    The language fits the audience that they must deal with most regularly:  outside investors, Wall Street analysts, credit rating agencies, board members, and fellow members of the top management team.  

Consider, though, the meaning of this language system to front-line employees.  In many situations, they do not understand these goals clearly.  How exactly do you calculate Asset Turnover, and what does it say about the health of the organization?  Perhaps more worrisome, front-line workers may not care much about these objectives.  It's hard to imagine a retail cashier or assembly line worker, such as my parents, eager to get to work in the morning to achieve a higher return on invested capital.  What do they care about?  How do they find meaning in their work?  What motivates them?  The middle manager must answer those questions, and they must translate those top-level financial and strategic goals into a set of concrete objectives that are meaningful and important to the front-line employees.   Then, they must connect those objectives, and the work people are doing in pursuit of them, to the bigger picture.  In so doing, middle managers help workers understand the role they play in helping the firm achieve its larger objectives.   

At the same time, middle managers must listen carefully to their team members.  They speak their own language about the work being done, the concerns of customers, and the problems with the firm's processes and systems.   The middle managers must translate what they are hearing, so that they can communicate these issues clearly and concisely to top managers.  The middle managers must ask themselves:  How do these concerns or problems get in the way of achieving the firm's top level goals?  What resources and management support do my employees need to make the improvements that they suggest?  Top management may not understand these issues clearly, as they are so far removed from the work itself, and from the customers.  By translating their team members' ideas and concerns appropriately, middle managers can achieve the type of alignment required the organization and its employees to thrive.  

Big Data and The Analytics Paradox

Kellogg School Professor Eric Anderson describes an interesting phenomenon that he calls the “Analytics Paradox.”  Anyone grappling with how their firm employs data science as part of their business strategy should become familiar with this concept.  Anderson explains:  

A young firm starts out making many mistakes. Eager to improve, they collect lots of data and build cool new models,” he says. “Over time, these models allow the young firm to find the best answers and implement these with great precision. The young firm becomes a mature firm that is great at analytics. Then one day the models stop working. Mistakes that fueled the models are now gone and the analytic models are starved."

Anderson offers an example of the analytics paradox.  Imagine that a firm provides two-day delivery services.    They consider using data analytics to help make an important decision: whether or not to offer one-day delivery services to customers.  You might be hard-pressed to answer that question using analytics.  Why? An effective organization becomes proficient at executing two-day delivery.  If the firm can't meet two-day delivery deadlines on a regular basis, processes and systems are changed.  Employees who can't meet the two-day delivery schedule get admonished or even dismissed.  In short, a firm that is very effective at execution will drive all variability out of its "production" system.  Yet, without variability, you will find it very difficult to use analytics to drive improved decision making. 

What can you do to conquer the analytics paradox?    Put simply, you need to inject variability into your system by promoting thoughtful and systematic experimentation.   The use of experiments enables you to test different models and systems, and in so doing, generate the type of data that can be analyzed effectively to enhance decision making.  

How You Think vs. What You Know

Philip Tetlock wrote a terrific book last year titled Superforecasters.  In that book, he describes the  decades of research he has conducted on expert predictions. Put simply, he has found that experts don't make great prognosticators, despite their vast knowledge and experience. Knowing a great deal does not enable you to see the future. In fact, it can be a handicap at times, because you may be tied down by conventional wisdom, long-held assumptions, and pre-existing beliefs. In Tetlock's research, he has found that a small set of people have an uncanny ability to make accurate predictions. These people are not experts in the domain in which they made those forecasts. What enables them to predict so effectively? Tetlock conclues that the key is HOW THEY THINK, not what they know. The best forecasters exhibit the following characteristics:

• They are open-minded, reflective, and intellectually curious. 
• They acknowledge what they do not know. 
• They gather information from a wide variety of sources and question the validity of each source. 
• They enjoy pondering a range of diverse views, and they update their conclusions as facts change. 
• They treat beliefs as testable hypotheses rather than hard truths.

In my view, the same might be said about the best leaders.  They often distinguish themselves by how they think, not what they know.   The best leaders are reflective and intellectually curious, question the conventional wisdom, do not become wedding to existiing beliefs, admit what they do not know, critique the validity of information sources, and gather diverse opinions before making key decisions.  

Nick Saban and the Power of Small Wins

One more blog post about goal setting as the new year begins!  At this time of year, I always find it useful to reconsider Karl Weick's famous article about the power of small wins.   He wrote the article back in the 1980s, and it still resonates so powerfully today.  Here's an excerpt:

A small win is a concrete, complete, implemented outcome of moderate importance. By itself, one small win may seem unimportant. A series of wins at small but significant tasks, however, reveals a pattern that may attract allies, deter opponents, and lower resistance to subsequent proposals. Small wins are controllable opportunities that produce visible results... Once a small win has been accomplished, forces are set in motion that favor another small win. When a solution is put in place, the next solvable problem often becomes more visible. This occurs because new allies bring new solutions with them and old opponents change their habits. Additional resources also flow toward winners, which means that slightly larger wins can be attempted.

As you think now about setting ambitious goals for yourself and your organization, develop a "small wins" strategy as well. What are those near-term victories that you will achieve that will create a sense of accomplishment, persuade naysayers to support your efforts, and attract other allies?  

Source: www.theadvocate.com

Last night, the University of Alabama defeated Clemson in the college football semi-finals.  Alabama Coach Nick Saban will now have an opportunity to win sixth college football national championship. Saban understands the value of a small wins approach. Naturally, each season begins with the long term goal of winning another national title. However, he focuses on many small wins along the way, rather than dwelling on the big picture each day. He calls it "the process." Author Ryan Holiday describes how Saban addresses his team throughout the season: 

Don't think about winning the SEC Championship. Don't think about the national championship. Think about what you needed to do in this drill, on this play, in this moment. That's the process: Let's think about what we can do today, the task at hand.

New Year's Resolutions!

Since the new year is just around the corner, I thought it would be appropriate to re-post last year's blog about New Year's Resolutions.  Hope you find it useful, and that you enjoy a happy and healthy new year!

Duke's Dorie Clark has some good advice in her HBR blog post regarding goal setting strategies. Clark first cites some interesting research on the ineffectiveness of to-do lists:

Indeed, one indication of this is the pervasive use of to-do lists, which attempt to keep a handle on one’s responsibilities and are, according to one LinkedIn study, used by 63% of professionals. That would be great if we reliably accomplished what we set out to do. But the startup iDoneThis analyzed their users’ data and discovered that 41% of the to-do list tasks users inputted were never accomplished — little wonder in a world where the average professional has 150 tasks to be done at any given time, according to research by psychologist Ray Baumeister and John Tierney.

Clark then argues that individuals should make the same type of shift in planning and goal setting that corporations should make. She makes the point that corporations need to move away from annual strategic planning rituals toward a shorter planning cycle that allows for nimble adaptation to changing competitive circumstances. Similarly, Clark advocates moving away from the New Year's Resolutions technique toward a strategy of setting goals and revisiting them several times during the year. Moreover, she argues for limiting the number of objectives that you establish at any given point in time. Focus on the bigger goals rather than the lengthy to-do list. Surely, you do have some routine tasks that you must accomplish. However, Clark argues that we need to separate the mundane tasks from the bigger goals. If not, we will always keep pushing aside the big meaningful task and focusing instead on trying to cross of the minor items on the to-do list... so that we can at least feel some sense of progress on a daunting task list. Clark summarizes her argument as follows:

The point of goals, of course, isn’t to successfully complete tasks we blindly set ourselves to years ago. Nor is it to maximize our accomplishment of small bore trivialities. Instead, what counts is our ability to master the right kind of big goals — the ones that can change your life, like positioning yourself for a promotion to the C-suite or writing a book or launching an entrepreneurial venture. You can only accomplish those kinds of goals when you’re willing to question assumptions regularly and re-evaluate as necessary, and when you give up the temporary dopamine hit of crossing easy tasks off your to-do list, in favor of making a dent in the handful of major projects that really matter.

Of course, many of us do love to make New Year's Resolutions, and then we joke about our inability to keep those commitments.  Here's Jimmy Kimmel's funny take on abandoning your resolutions just a few days into the new year. 

Self-Reflection, Blind Spots, and Your Team

I recently read a terrific blog post by Peter Friedes, retired CEO of Hewitt Associates. He writes about the importance of self-reflection for leaders. He begins by noting that, "We humans tend to evaluate others through the lens of our own best traits."  In other words, if someone has strengths similar to our own, we tend to evaluate them very positively.   On the other hand, he notes that, "Less flexible managers undervalue traits they are not personally good at."   That's one reason we end up hiring people who are fery similar to us.  

Friedes argues that we should take a slightly different approach.  We should engage in self-reflection, identify our strengths AND weaknesses, and evaluate others accordingly.   We should not undervalue the skills and capabilities that we lack.  Instead, we should look for people who excel where we do not.   A good team has people with complementary skills and abilities.  Moreover, we should then try to learn from the people around us, so that we can enhance our own capabilities.   

Friedes argues that self-reflection can help us think about whether we are undervaluing people whose strengths differ from our own. Given that the end of year is approaching, it seems a good time to consider his advice and look in the mirror a bit. Of course, the best leaders engage in self-reflection on a routine basis, not just at the end of the year. Consider Harry Kraemer, former CEO of Baxter International.  For years, he has advocated for the value of 15 minutes of self-reflection on a daily basis.  At the end of each day, Kraemer thinks about his priorities and his values. Kellogg Insight explains a bit about his nightly routine: 

Of course, after priorities have been defined, it is important for action to follow. To prevent a gulf between word and deed, Kraemer writes out his self-reflection each night, creating a record of what he has done and what he says he will do. He also checks continuously with family, friends, and close colleagues to ensure he is holding himself accountable and “not living in some fantasy land.”

Closed-minded Experts

Experts can be quite closed-minded at times. They exhibit overconfidence and a bias toward the status quo. Victor Ottati and his colleagues have documented evidence of what they call the “Earned Dogmatism Effect.” The scholars argue that social norms about novices versus experts play a key role in how people perceive new ideas.   Here's how they explain this effect: 

“Consider, for example, a seminar pertaining to cancer. Within this situation, some individuals may occupy the role of “novice” (e.g., a layperson) whereas others may occupy the role of “expert” (e.g., a cancer researcher). Because novices possess limited knowledge, social norms dictate that they should listen and learn in an open-minded fashion. The expert possess extensive knowledge, and therefore is entitled to adopt a more dogmatic or forceful orientation. Dogmatic statements are more likely to be tolerated when the “expert” speaks than when a “novice” speaks. Novices possess limited knowledge, and as such, are expected to adopt a more humble and open-minded orientation.”

The researchers conducted a series of experiments to explore this effect.  In their studies, they demonstrate that even simply the self-perception of expertise can lead to closed-minded behavior.  In  one experiment they provided people false feedback on a simple test, leading some individuals to believe that they had a great deal of expertise, while others felt that they were not knowledgeable at all relative to most others in the study.   The individuals who were made to feel as though they were experts exhibited closed-mindedness in a subsequent aspect of the study.   That effect is pretty incredible, given that the individuals were not ACTUALLY experts.  The feedback that they received was MADE UP!  

The Demise of Movie Theaters?

Source:  https://www.the-numbers.com/market/
2017 = Projection

Many analysts have focused on the potential demise of traditional cable television service, given the pace of cord cutting and the rapid rise of direct-to-consumer services such as Netflix and Hulu.   Perhaps more attention should be focused on the fate of movie theaters in this new entertainment era.  The chart above shows that movie ticket sales  in the United States have been declining over time, having peaked back in 2002. However, revenue has risen from $5.31 billion in 1995 to $11.05 billion in 2017.   Movie theaters have driven revenue by raising average ticket prices.  

Average ticket prices have more than doubled in the past 12 years, outpacing inflation.   The average inflation rate equaled 2.18% during this period.  Movie ticket prices have risen by 3.31% per year.  Of course, movie theaters have driven additional revenue through the sale of concessions and the addition of meal and drink service in theaters.  However, one has to wonder how long movie theaters can make up for lost box office ticket sales by increasing prices.   Moreover, this new story from Bloomberg Businessweek suggests that Disney may gain leverage over theaters as a result of the Fox deal, and it may use that clout to extract more revenue from theaters.  According to Businessweek,

Usually a film’s box-office revenue is split evenly between exhibitors and the studio. But Disney previously has gotten theaters to hand over a larger share—sometimes more than 60 percent—on its biggest, most popular films, such as the Star Wars series. Now it could try the same tactic with Fox’s Avatar, which has four sequels in the works. “While the future of movie exhibition looks increasingly dim, a Disney-Fox merger will elevate its level of pain,” says Rich Greenfield, an analyst at BTIG LLC.

The notion that Disney could take a larger share of the box office revenue seems quite plausible.  Movie theaters would suffer additional pain unless Disney/Fox can reinvigorate movie production and get more hits into theaters.  Still, it seems unlikely that new hits will reverse the long term trend taking place since the early 2000s.  

Asking Engineers the Right Questions

In our extensive study of the Columbia space shuttle accident, Amy Edmondson, Richard Bohmer, and I examined the culture and leadership at NASA. Specifically, we analyzed the forces that made it difficult for engineers such as Rodney Rocha to speak up regarding their safety concerns, and we looked at how leaders did not ask probing questions to elicit dissenting views. 

When I teach the case to engineers and other technical experts, I often hear them say that management needs to understand how to ask engineers the right questions, and how to interpret their results. They argue that engineers were not going to scream, "There is a safety-of-flight risk!" unless they had conclusive evidence. The engineers' lack of complete certainty might lead to them to give answers that that are interpreted incorrectly by management. Organizational leaders might be looking for a definitive statement expressing alarm and grave concern, but they won't get it if there is scientific uncertainty. 

Today, I ran across a good quote (in Fast Company) from Google's long-time Chairman and CEO, Eric Schmidt, regarding this issue. Scmidt explains how you have to ask multiple questions, in different ways, to make sure you are getting the whole picture when working with technical experts: 

They are taught to think logically. If you ask engineers a precise question, they will give you a precisely truthful answer. That also tends to mean that they’ll only answer the question that you asked them. If you don’t ask them exactly the right question, sometimes they’ll evade you — not because they’re lying but because they’re being so scrupulously truthful.”

How to Simplify Your Message & Persuade Others

Matt Eventoff has written a good concise article for Fast Company about how to put construct and deliver a simple and persuasive message.  He offers four suggestions:

1.   Know the audience.   How do they think?  What are their backgrounds?  What types of analysis do they find compelling?  What type of questions are they likely to ask?  What do they care about the most?  What are their goals and objectives?  You want to build a message to which they will be highly receptive.  Don't focus on the way you think; focus on how they think.   One key thing to consider - you may have people with very different backgrounds, interests, and perspectives in your audience. You won't be able to appeal equally to all parties.  You have to decide who your target audience is and tailor your message to them. 

2.   What is the ONE THING you want them to take away from your presentation?   You might have a lot of say, but it's not likely that they will remember it all.  What do you want them to recall moving forward?  Don't just consider what that one thing is... focus also on why that one thing really matters to them and to the organization.  Ask yourself:  Why should they care about this one thing?

3.  Give context and use examples.   You have to tell a story.  You can't just offer them a list of bullet points.  Paint a vivid picture for your audience.  Embed your points in a story about how and why you have a solution to an important problem facing the organization, or a plan to capitalize on a critical opportunity.  Think about the important elements of a story as you construct your message.  Who are the key characters?  What is the setting and the basic plot?  Where is the conflict or tension in your story?  How does the tension become resolved in the end?

4.  Watch your language.  Naturally, you want to avoid jargon and overly technical wording.  Moreover, you should be careful about nonverbal cues as well.  People watch your body language when you speak and present.  In particular, they watch your nonverbal cues as you answer their questions. Are you showing them that you are listening and trying to understand their concerns?  Are you demonstrating that you care about what others think? 

How Expertise Can Become a Liability

Andras Tilcsik and Juan Almandoz published an interesting article in the Rotman Business School's management magazine this year titled, "When Expertise Becomes a Liability."  They studied over 1,300 banks during the 1996-2012 time period.  124 of those banks failed (slightly less than 10%).  In conditions of decision uncertainty, having more domain experts on the board of the bank meant a higher probability of failure.  They argue that having some domain experts is important and essential,  but there can be too much of a good thing.  Having a few people with expertise in other domains can be quite beneficial.  

Why the liability of expertise?  They argue that a high proportion of domain experts on a board leads to three problems.  First, domain experts can be very entrenched in their views, and they may be unwilling to look at issues in new ways as the environment changes.   Second, domain experts may exhibit high degrees of overconfidence in terms of their ability to make projections and forecasts.  Finally, a high proportion of domain experts might be associated with a lack of constructive conflict and debate within the board.  Why?  Non-experts may be unwilling to challenge conventional wisdom, ask tough questions, or offer dissenting views if they are greatly outnumbered by domain experts on the board.  

The Disney-Fox Deal: Scale is NOT the Most Important Rationale

This week, Disney acquired a significant portion of the 21st Century Fox business for $52.4 billion. What is the rationale for the deal? Fortune's Andrew Nusca took a crack at explaining why this deal makes sense. He begins by arguing that, "scale matters."

The traditional entertainment industry is consolidating (see: Comcast-owned NBCUniversal; Verizon-owned AOL and Yahoo; the pending AT&T-Time Warner deal) as new entrants from Silicon Valley and beyond—Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook—enter the fray. Size is an important leverage point to control pricing and distribution. 

Hmmm... I'm not so sure that scale should be the primary rationale for this deal. Does Netflix have the type of scale that some of these other firms have? Has that stopped them from disrupting the industry and generating strong growth and profits? To me, scale seems to be a far too simplistic explanation for this deal. Scale alone will not solve the problem of customers defecting from ESPN and depriving Disney of substantial cable fee revenue streams.  

The article goes to discuss the importance of franchises. Nusca cites the acquistion of franchises such as X-Men, Avatar, Fantastic Four, Deadpool, and The Simpsons.   Ok, now we are talking.  Disney CEO Bob Iger has had a great deal of success acquiring characters and franchises (Pixar, Marvel, Lucas Films), and then leveraging those franchises using the broad array of businesses in the Disney portfolio.  

Nusca also cites technology. He writes, "Disney’s acquisition of Fox’s interest in Hulu gives it majority interest in streaming-media player Hulu. It also allows Disney to apply streaming technology from BAMTech, an earlier acquisition, to Fox assets."   We have all been reading about the struggles in Disney's television business, particularly at ESPN.   They have been discussing several experiments with streaming services, and they have removed content from Netflix and will be moving it to their own streaming service in the near future.  In the end, Disney has to solve this problem with regard to cord cutting and streaming.  Perhaps the Fox deal will help them do that.  The scale achieved through the deal isn't the solution though... success will come if they find a new way to distribute content to consumers in a world of Netflix, Amazon Prime, and rampant cord cutting, skinny bundles, etc.   That's the strategic challenge that will shape Disney's future and ultimately affect the outcome of this bold acquisition.  

"Hurry Sickness"

I recently came across an interesting blog post by Cheryl Bachelder, formerly CEO of Popeye's Restaurants. She executed a remarkable turnaround of the restaurant chain during her tenure there. Bachelder is a strong advocate for servant leadership. In this blog post, she describes the symptoms of what she calls "hurry sickness" - arguing that always being in a hurry actually damages the organization you are trying to lead. Here's an excerpt. 

Full disclosure: I suffer from what psychologists’ call “hurry sickness.” I didn’t know it had a name until recently, but nonetheless, I’ve always known that I suffer from it. I jam-pack my days. I overschedule. I say “yes” way too often. The benefits of my disease include getting a lot done, being admired by others who do less, and feeling an almost constant adrenaline rush. It is exciting to be in a hurry!  But there are serious downsides to this disease. One is that you live in a constant state of anxious worry about dropping one of the plates you are spinning. Another is that you will likely have stress-related ailments, some harmless and some life-threatening (eventually).

But here is something you may not have thought about as much.  You can’t serve the people or the organization well, and always be in a hurry.

Here is a short list of the problems for Dare to Serve leaders who hurry:

Your thinking suffers. You are responsible for calling out the daring destination for your team or organization. They are counting on you. It needs to be thoughtfully developed and soundly assessed – before you risk their lives on your plan. Great thinking does not happen in a hurry. It needs rest, quiet, and breathing room to develop.

Your people suffer. You are called to serve the people well. But you cannot serve them well without spending time with them. Unhurried time. Time to know their strengths, values, experiences, and concerns. When your calendar is overcrowded, you almost always will choose an obligation over a commitment to your people. Not a good idea.

Your results suffer. When you try to do too much, you get less done well. You are human – and you simply can’t get it all done to perfection. Your team needs you to lead them to a win – to top performance. You’re not going to get them there without focus on a few, vital things.

Creative Problem Solving: Overcoming Fixation

www.christianpost.com 

Fixation characterizes many people's problem-solving efforts. We become stuck on a particular solution or solution set, and we fail to consider a wider range of alternatives. A new study by Jackson Lu, Modupe Akinola, and Malia Mason examines whether switching tasks can help overcome the fixation problem, and thereby enhance creative problem-solving efforts. The scholars began their work by reviewing the literature:

An emerging body of research demonstrates that creative performance on both divergent and convergent thinking tasks can be improved if the effects of fixation are mitigated by setting a task aside, such as through breaks, distractions, or interruptions (Jett & George, 2003). Breaks are purported to free individuals from their fixated mindset by ‘‘reducing the ‘recency’ value of inappropriate strategies” (Ochse, 1990, p. 198). For example, brief breaks during brainstorming sessions can increase the number and variety of ideas generated (Kohn & Smith, 2011; Paulus & Brown, 2003). Sim- ilarly, performance on convergent thinking tasks (e.g., the RAT) improves as the break time between attempts is increased because cognitive fixation ‘‘wears off” over time (Smith & Blankenship, 1991).

The scholars then developed a set of experiments to examine the impact of "task switching" - i.e. setting aside a particular task to perform some other work. They found that, "Participants who continually alternated back and forth between two creativity tasks outperformed both participants who switched between the tasks at their discretion and participants who attempted one task for the first half of the allotted time before switching to the other task for the second half." 

Note that the study does not justify rampant multi-tasking on the part of employees. Creative problem-solving still involves a willingness to focus on a particular problem intensely for a period of time. However, the ability to step away from time to time can be very effective. Note, though, that the task switching worked best when it wasn't left to the discretion of the research subjects. That's an interesting finding. It means that team leaders may want to take responsibility for thinking carefully about to either schedule some task switching into creative work, or intervening when they feel appropriate to give people a break from their focus on a particular problem.

Hierarchy is Not Necessarily Evil

The conventional wisdom is clear: hierarchical organizational structures stifle innovation.  Is that actually true?  Bret Sanner and J. Stuart Bunderson have written a brief article for Sloan Management Review titled, "The Truth about Hierarchy."  They summarize the main conclusion as follows: 

Specifically, we found that hierarchies help teams generate, identify, and select new ideas by performing three critical functions (and then getting out of the way): bounding solutions, converging ideas, and structuring processes.

• Bounding solutions:  Constraints actually can be conducive to innovation.  Hierarchies can help establish boundaries and constraints that will be helpful as people generate possible solutions to a problem.
• Convergence of ideas:  Hierarchies can help teams winnow the ideas down after an extensive brainstorming process.  They can help teams by establishing evaluation and selection criteria, for instance.  Alternatively, they might step in to help a team come with up techniques for narrowing down a list of alternative solutions.  
• Structuring processes:  Hierarchical structures can help establish ground rules for participation and engagement in a problem-solving process.   Hierarchy also helps insure that people have well-defined roles.   Role clarity can be very important in a group, particularly when its tackling complex problems.  

The authors did not cite the recent research of Stanford's Melissa Valentine, but that would have buttressed their arguments.   Valentine explained her research in a recent podcast with Bob Sutton (Friction podcast).   Valentine argues that some structuring processes and mechanisms can help teams be more effective.  She describes her research in chaotic health care situations such as emergency room care.  It's a great interview.  Check it out! 

Do Materialistic CEOs Take More Risk?

Professors Robert Bushman, Robert Davidson, Aiyesha Dey, and Abbie Smith have written a fascinating paper titled, “Bank CEO Materialism: Risk Controls, Culture and Tail Risk.” They actually measured how materialistic bank CEOs were, and they examined the impact that the CEO's personal value system might have on the risk culture of the banks that they led. 

Their sample included 284 firms and 445 CEOs during the 1992-2013 time period.   They examined personal ownership of luxury goods as a proxy for the "materialistic" nature of a bank CEO.    They labeled CEOs as materialistic if they owned an automobile that cost more than $75K, a boat longer than 25 feet, or a home worth more than twice the median price of homes near their company's headquarters.  They also ran their analysis using higher cut-offs for each of these luxury goods (for example, they raised the purchase price of cars to $110,000).   Then, the researchers also examined the banks' risk management cultures.  They did so by collecting data on the risk management index of each bank.  This index draws on data from reports that the banks file with the Federal Reserve each year, and it strives to evaluate the "strength and independence of the risk management function" at each institution.  

What did they find?  The scholars report, "Using an index reflecting the strength of risk management functions (RMI), we find that RMI is significantly lower for banks with materialistic CEOs, and that RMI significantly decreases after a materialistic CEO succeeds a non-materialistic one and increases after a non-materialistic CEO replaces a materialistic CEO."  

Finally, the scholars report an increase in the number of materialistic CEOs over the years.  I find the study very interesting, both because of the findings and the great care that the scholars took to try to measure key variables.  We all might believe intuitively that value systems matter, but this study actually shows a relationship between a leader's values and the behavior of the organization that he or she leads.  Naturally, these scholars are not saying that buying a big house or a large boat is inherently bad.   However, they are suggesting that we should pay attention to actions and decisions that may reveal a leader's value system.   Their personal purchasing decisions are one piece of a larger picture, and we should pay attention to all the cues available to us.  In the end, it doesn't mean we should reject a leader who may display signs of being materialistic...but we should be a bit more vigilant about the impact that the leader may have on the organization's culture.  

Fewer Experts, More Innovation?

Riitta Katila, Sruthi Thatchenkery, Michael Christensen, and Stefanos Zenios have conducted some fascinating new research about the role of experts during the innovation process.  They studied over 200 surgical instrument ventures.  The scholars examined the role that physicians played during the growth and development of these new ventures.  Here's what they concluded:

To be sure, entrepreneurs in highly specialized and technical industries need the knowledge that only users (doctors, lawyers, engineers, and the like) can provide. Doctors understand what other doctors will value in a new product; lawyers know what other lawyers need. But you can have too much of a good thing — including input from such experts. In fact, my colleagues and I have found that innovation thrives when expert users make up about 40% of an invention team. Any less and the company will lose sight of what its customers need; any more and the group will tend to converge on old ideas.

The researchers found that having a doctor serve as CEO of the new venture served as a key impediment to innovation.  Why is the presence of many experts a liability for these ventures?  Remember that experts provide important knowledge about the use of products, the problems with existing products, and the opportunities for improvement.  However, experts also are very entrenched in the existing ways of working.  They often cling to conventional wisdom and find it difficult to shake loose from certain long-held assumptions and beliefs.   Katila explains the particular liabilities that emerge when a doctor serves as CEO:

Why do firms led by doctors tend to lag behind in innovation? In part, we think it’s because expert users have spent lots of time getting comfortable with existing tools and methods. As a result, they’re invested in their field’s status quo and may have trouble seeing the value in a novel idea. We found that although expert users excelled at refining existing products, they couldn’t always recognize a potential breakthrough innovation when they saw one. As one physician CEO we interviewed for our study confessed, “If you show me a prototype, I can say, ‘Well, you could do this better.’ … I know very well how to help a company optimize its product … but I don’t know how to invent something that was never invented before.”

All-New Version of the Everest Leadership and Team Simulation!

I'm pleased to announce the release today of an all-new version of the Everest Leadership and Team Simulation.  This version (V3) provides an updated user experience, as well as all-new scenarios on the mountain.  Instructors can continue to use the original scenarios, or they can choose new situations and problems that students must address and solve.  For those not familiar with this simulation, it provides a highly engaging and interactive experience for students and executive education participants.  The simulation aims to teach important concepts about team dynamics, decision-making, and group learning.  I'm grateful to have collaborated once again with co-author Amy Edmondson and the incredible teams at Forio and Harvard Business Publishing.  I hope instructors will learn more about this new version and let us know if they have any questions!  The link above provides a description of the simulation as well as a preview of the experience.  

Apple's Jony Ive on Team Trust & Listening

Fast Company published some excerpts this week from Rick Tetzeli's interview of Apple design chief Jony Ive.   I especially loved Ive's comments on building trust within his design team, and how that helped them overcome the common problem of self-censorship.  Here's the excerpt:

In 30 years time, we’ll look back at, with such fondness, the way we worked, not necessarily what we did. I think the advantage is we have so much trust as a team that we don’t censor our ideas because we are nervous and scared that they will sound absurd . . . Very often it seems to be you listen to the biggest, loudest voice. A lot of this process is about listening, I think. What we’ve found is very often the very best ideas come from the quietest voice. And if you’re not listening, you’re going to miss that.

And also when you have trust, it’s not a competition. We don’t have to deal with the bizarre game of all of the problems involved with a thrusty sort of ego. Our interest isn’t some leaf table with points. What we’re interested in as a team is, we’re genuinely, genuinely trying to figure out how we can make the very best product possible. And of course, there are many occasions where we don’t get there. But that’s our sincere hope.

Creating a Culture of Accountability

How can I hold people accountable without creating a culture of finger pointing, blame avoidance, and excuse making?   Leadership coach and consultant Peter Bregman argues that leaders must achieve clarity on five dimensions if they wish to build a culture of accountability in their organizations. 

1. Expectations - make sure your people know the objectives and outcomes that you expect them to achieve by a particular date. 
2. Capabilities - make sure the people have the skills and capabilities to achieve those goals, and if they don't, put in place a plan to develop their capabilities accordingly. 
3. Measurement - inform people of the metrics that will be used to evaluate performance 
4. Feedback - put in place a mechanism for providing feedback on a regular basis 
5. Consequences - insure that everyone understands the consequences of failing to fulfill key obligations 

Think Like a Traveler

IDEO's Tom and Dave Kelley wrote a wonderful book together a few years ago titled, "Creative Confidence."   In the book, they offer tons of ideas on how to spark creativity in your organization, based mostly on their work developing design thinking as a process and set of tools for creating breakthrough innovations.  One of my favorite passages has to do with encouraging people to "think like a traveler."  Here is an excerpt:

Ever travel to a foreign city?  We've all heard that, "Travel broadens the mind."  But beneath this cliche lies a deep truth.  Things stand out becuase they're different, so we notice every detail, from street signs to mailboxes to how you pay at a restaurant.  We learn a lot when we travel not becuase we are any smarter on the road, but because we pay such close attention.  On a trip, we become our own version of Sherlock Holmes, intensely observing the environment around us.  We are continuously trying to figure out a world that is foreign and new. Too often, we go through day-to-day life on cruise control, oblivious to huge swaths of our surroundings.  To notice friction points - and therefore opportunities to do things better - it helps to see the world with fresh eyes.

Psychologists distinguish between two ways of perceiving the world around us and processing information - top down vs. bottom up processing.  In top down processing, we draw on our past experiences and "fill in the blanks" when we encounter a particular place or situation.   We don't have to notice every detail, because a few signs prove sufficient to let us know what we are seeing.  We walk into a library, and we know quickly based on a few visual cues that we are in a library.  We don't need to attend to all the details.   In bottom up processing, we start by perceiving all the little details, and we put the pieces of the puzzle together gradually.   In day-to-day life, as the Kelleys explain, we are on cruise control, using top down processing to capture the essence of a situation quickly and fill in the blanks to paint the picture in our mind.   When we travel, we engage in bottom up processing, because we can't rely on past experience to help us.   As such, we notice lots of little things.  Noticing the little opportunities for improvement and innovation can be crucial in the creative process.  Thus, thinking like a traveler is essential to creativity.  

Learning from the Young People in Your Organization

The youngest can teach the most experienced in an organization at times.  They have a fresh perspective, and they are often more up to date about new societal and technological trends.  Moreover, they may not fear challenging the conventional wisdom, as compared to some more experienced employees.   Organizations have formalized this notion, describing it as reverse mentorhship.  My earliest memory of such a practice comes from Welch's time as CEO of GE.  (video below). 

I had an interesting discussion today, though, with a group of executives about the notion of reverse mentorship.  One executive mentioned that it can be frustrating at times when young employees put forth new ideas on a frequent basis.  It's easy to push back and reject what feels like "pestering" or "badgering" by that individual.   As he said to me, you just want to say, "Look, I have more experienced than me.  Trust me.  There's a reason why we do it this way."  However, this executive noted that he has learned to restrain himself.   He tries hard to stay open to these new perspectives, and to withhold any frustration.   Why?  This young person has developed a solid track record.  The individual is getting the job done, with a strong likelihood of becoming a future leader in the organization.  That track record and potential has earned the executive's trust.  It translates into a willingness to listen, even if some of the ideas are off track.  If the person wasn't getting the job done, that would be another matter.   What a fascinating discussion about monitoring and controlling your own response to young people's ideas in your organization, as well as thinking about when you might be willing to tolerate a little more "badgering" and "pestering" by an inquisitive young mind.  

Becoming a Terrific Facilitator: All About Preparation!

I recently read a blog post by Hannah Feldberg-Dubin of the Design Gym.   She describes the capabilities required to be a highly effective facilitator.   Several of her key points pertain to preparation for an important meeting or workshop.   Let's focus on that important preparation phase f or a moment.  Drawing from her article, here are a few lessons that you might apply the next time you have to lead a team meeting: 

1.  Physical space & materials:  What type of physical space do you require?  What materials should you have available for the participants?  Remember that environment shapes behavior.   How you design the environment will have a significant impact on the way people interact during your meeting or workshop.  If you want collaboration, think about how to promote that.  If you want to stimulate creativity, consider the types of materials that might be fuel for innovative thought.  

2.  Purpose & desired outcomes:  What is the intent of this meeting or workshop?   What are the desired outcomes?  Make sure that everyone understands the intent and the desired end state.  

3.  Shared norms and ground rules:  How will the group members interact with one another?  What rules of engagement do you want to establish and enforce during the meeting?  I suggest creating a poster for the wall that defines these norms and ground rules.  

4.  Pre-work:  Often, we skip the pre-work because we are not sure that members will actually complete it.  However, we can get much more accomplished if people come to a meeting or workshop already having done some reading, conducted some analysis, or reviewed certain data.  Keep the pre-work manageable, but consider assigning some work to be done before you gather together.  

5.  Instructions:  If you have certain activities planned, be sure you are prepared to offer clear and concise instructions.  Run the instructions by a colleague before the meeting, and ask for feedback.  Make sure that these instructions make sense to your colleague, and that he or she interprets them as you intended.  

6.  Technology:  What technology will enable an effective conversation?  Don't overdo the slides.  Focus on creating a good dialogue, and use technology to stimulate that healthy give-and-take.   Don't put excessive technological demands on the participants, particularly if they are not particularly tech-savvy.  Test the technology beforehand.  Nothing derails a meeting more than having to fiddle with a computer that isn't working properly, or waiting for A/V help to arrive.  

7.  Food!  Ok, nothing derails a good workshop like bad food and drink, or a lack of food and drink.  Maintaining energy in the room is key to good facilitation, and a bit of fuel can be very helpful.   

Confronting Unethical Behavior in the Workplace

I recently read a thought-provoking piece by Darden Professor Mary Gentile about what she calls values-based conflicts in the workplace.  Gentile argues that we often hear a series of rationalizations if and when we try to raise concerns about the ethics of certain behavior in organizations. Gentile argues that it is worthwhile to step back and try to understand the nature of the objections and rationalizations. In so doing, one can formulate a more effective response and can speak up more effectively. Here are the questions we should consider according to Gentile: 

• What are the main arguments you are trying to counter? What are the reasons and rationalizations you need to address?
• What’s at stake for the key parties, including those who disagree with you? What’s at stake for you?
• What levers can you use to influence those who disagree with you?
• What is your most powerful and persuasive response to the reasons and rationalizations you need to address? To whom should the argument be made? When and in what context?

I think these four questions are incredibly helpful.   Moroever, I'm particularly interested in the second question.  I think that question pertains to any conflict in the workplace, even if it has nothing to do with ethics.  Suppose you want to question a plan of action proposed by another manager.  Asking yourself what they have at stake in this situation, how invested they are in this plan, can be important, as it may help you understand the extent to which they will be defensive.  Moreover, it will help you understand what might trigger interpersonal friction and conflict in this situation.  If you want to engage others in a productive debate (i.e. constructive conflict), it's crucial to understand how high the stakes are for the other party, to understand where their passion and emotional investment resides.  

HBO: Opportunity vs. Threat Framing in the Response to Cord-Cutting Behavior

Bloomberg BusinesWeek's Megan Murphy recently interviewed HBO's CEO, Richard Plepler.   The discussion offers some terrific insights regarding how an incumbent player can grow and innovate, overcoming concerns about how new opportunities might cannibalize existing products and services.  Plepler talks about purusing "multilateral growth" at HBO in an age of cord-cutting customers.  First, he explains that HBO made a decision to offer a standalone streaming service (i.e. purchasing HBO without having to buy a cable package) in 2013, when few homes were "broadband-only."  Today, nearly 20 million homes are in that category.   HBO didn't view cord-cutting as simply a threat though.  They framed it as an opportunity.   Plepler explains that HBO chose to pursue "multilateral" growth - expanding into the standalone streaming space, while also trying to grow its traditional cable business.   To management at HBO, one did not have to come at the expense of the other.   Plepler explains: 

We are going to grow multilaterally—digitally and among our traditional partners. We looked at the market and realized we were totally underpenetrating both...We knew it wasn’t going to be cannibalistic. There are some people who prefer a traditional bundle—maybe it’s a skinnier bundle and doesn’t have 180 channels in it. But for HBO, skinnier bundles have been a good thing, because if you take the average price of a cable or a satellite or a telco subscription down from $100 to, say, $65 or $70, that means HBO—which has always been a la carte—is a much more digestible purchase. Skinny bundles allowed the cable, satellite, and telcos to package us more effectively.

Opportunistically for us, we’ve been able to parallel-process and to grow digital. One has not been at the expense of the other. As I like to say, nobody is doing us a favor when they sell HBO, whether it’s digitally or whether it’s in the traditional ecosystem. They’re selling HBO because it’s a great product and it helps make their bundles stickier—and because they know their consumers want it.

That quote is packed with some fascinating insights.  Perhaps most interestingly, HBO did not buy into the conventional wisdom that skinny bundles would serve as a disruptive threat to its business.  Instead, it asked the question:  How might we take advantage of this trend to actually grow our business?   What they found was that the offering of skinny bundles by cable companies provided more disposable income and purchasing power for the consumer, enabling them to add HBO while staying within their budget.   

HBO didn't begin by assuming that these trends regarding cord-cutting and skinny bundles were simply threats.  They reframed these issues as opportunities, and asked the "how might we" questions that enabled them to discover new growth opportunities.  More companies need to think in terms of "opportunity framing" when their business environment shifts.  

What are the benefits of "opportunity framing" in these situations?  Research suggests that we can act very rigidly when we frame situations as a threat.  We often simply "try harder" - doing more of the same rather than thinking differently.  We act much more flexibly and adaptively when framing situations as opportunities.  We encourage more experimentation and learning, and we find new ways of working.   Clark Gilbert's research suggests that initially viewing a situation as a threat can help an organization to mobilize resources and get management's attention.  However, successful adaptation requires reframing the situation as an opportunity, much as HBO has done in this case.