How to distribute abilities in a team

IMO there are four basic clusters of skills needed on effective teams. See below and for more my website at Level Three Leadership The task / process dichotomy is from Blake and Mouton. The creativity/pragmatic axis is mine. Do you have people that can articulate and represent all four quadrants? If not, beware.

As for technical representation, think about sequential vs concurrent engineering. The US government reacting to cost and schedule overruns with TADS and LANTIRN and other programs (Comanche) began to require concurrent engineering in which traditional end of process functions like production, maintenance and customer usability were brought forward into planning and development. (We can’t make what you designed. We can’t maintain what you built. We can’t operate what you gave us.) To avoid the cost of late stage engineering change requests (ECRs) which were very expensive in both time and money. The problem is that concurrent engineering increases the front end costs. The calculus shows that the bet is that up-front costs would be offset by late-stage change based costs. See chart below. IPDT = Integrated Product Development Teams. When defense companies used IPDT’s there was lots of resistance in large part because the benefits are only apparent at the end of a program, while the upfront costs (green line) are much, several times, higher than the traditional sequential cost structure (red line). Sequential processes in one client I had included 23 hand-offs from one department to the next. (!)

So, who should be there? Many team members IME have wondered why they were there. THAT leads us to the predictable phases of team development. See below. Beware of jumping to phase 3 (many impatient team leaders do) and ignoring clarifying the issues in the first two phases lest the unresolved/assumed issues come back to bite you in the tush.

Have you stayed too long in one job? Are you bored at work?

That depends deeply on your Career Concept. Some people define success as moving up. (Linear) Others as becoming an expert craftsman, artisan or national treasure. (Expert) Others as constant learning. (Spiral) Others as something other than work. (Transitory) (Driver and Brousseau at USC. Self-Assessment at my website Level Three Leadership ) Your question implies a Linear or Spiral core VABE.

If you are an Expert at heart and value hands on craftsmanship more than increasing power and status, then perhaps never. How long should an artist, sculptor, athlete, writer, cabinet maker, engineer, guitar maker, consultant stay at their jobs so long as they are improving? Perhaps lifelong.

Are you clear on what you want? IME most people aren’t. Money? Power? Fame? Salvation? Live long? Do you really want more responsibility, that is, to move up in power and status? It sounds nice, and consider the content of the Linear job path. Distance from doing it yourself, adopting the Linear VABE “I enjoy getting things done through other people,” taking work home at night with you (I’ve been there), making big strategic bets with no assurance that you are right, tolerating multiple attacks on you and your decisions, feeling responsible for thousands of lives, worrying about financial stability, and much much more.

As another respondent has noted, are you bored silly? I’m at heart an Expert and my experience in large bureaucratic organizations (like traditional banks) was abject boredom. People who love finance didn’t feel that way—I was more interested in “why people behave the way they do” and loved every minute of my subsequent career in Leadership and Organizational Behavior.

Have you identified your purpose in life yet? Many people live “outside-in” wandering about using trial-and-error looking for satisfaction. People who have chosen (usually not given) a purpose in life tend to have focus and energy. It sounds to me like you are living outside-in waiting for the world to give you satisfaction. i predict that when you (if ever) clarify your life’s purpose/mission, boredom will never be an issue.

I encourage you to begin crafting a ”robust personal charter.” To begin, one sentence—what’s your purpose in life? “To be happy” isn’t specific enough. There’s a summary chart below. For more see my website at Level Three Leadership

How can you tell if you are an Effective and Efficient Speaker?

This it seems to me is a carefully crafted and important question. I stuttered badly in high school despite multiple experiences in public speaking. When I was concerned about what the audience thought of me or was unsure of my material, I spoke way too fast and with a high pitched voice.

IME one becomes an effective and efficient speaker when one has developed a deep and relatively comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter, when one has learned to use pace carefully (drama classes can help), when one as noted by another respondent eliminates fillers (pace helps with that), when one manages or escapes from the fear of rejection, when one understands adult learning theory and therefore dares to address the “real” issues, and when one has a passion for helping others rather than looking good.

Note that “con men” are effective and efficient speakers. Convincing others is I guess the goal of “effective.” “Efficient” is the goal of Occam’s Razor—just enough to do the job and nothing left over. Mozart was criticized for having “too many notes.” Many speakers have too many words. Impacting an audience is the goal—and often that is done with fewer words properly paced and properly chosen and properly delivered. The “con men” issue is a focus on intent. To deceive? To serve self? To build one’s own esteem?

Carl Rogers implied a two part translation that takes place when one speaks. The first translation is from “experience” to “thought.” The second one is from “thought” to “speech.” Many ignore the first translation when their first awareness of the desire to speak is an idea. Many also struggle with “I know what I want to say I just can’t find the words” the second translation. IME learning foreign languages (Cantonese, Japanese, German, Spanish, Scottish and Southern) one must do so out loud. There are literal neural-muscular synaptic linkages that must be developed in order to speak clearly. I practiced in the shower, in the car, while walking, in my office, everywhere in order to overcome stuttering and to learn new sounds (Cantonese was difficult for me).

Non-verbals. I’ve also written about how “YOU” are the message even before you begin to speak. How you dress, how you groom, how you move, how you begin all convey messages to your audience in a flash.

I’ve also written about the “language of leadership” that includes what a colleague and I call the “rules of the dance.” Things like replacing your “buts” with “ands.” Using first person not second person language (I have a problem not you have a problem—which creates defensiveness). Not disguising your opinions as questions (don’t you agree or think that…. ?). Not presenting your opinions as facts (“reifying”—see for example Berger and Luckman The Social Construction of Reality ) and more… for more see my website at Level Three Leadership )

Watching the news and the questions that reporters ask and the “panels of experts” that dominate the news these days, is an hourly class/lesson in assessing effective and efficient language. Many are pressured by time constraints and talk way too fast with way too many fillers.

If a person has investigated their (new grammar rules on gender pronouns) subject matter carefully, CARES about their audience over personal appearance, and understands the power of dramatic timing and tone and non-verbals—one can become an effective and efficient speaker.

You’ll “know” because a) you feel it, b) you are amazed at what you just said, and c) the audience erupts in spontaneous energy—deep thinking attention or standing applause.

Are we retaining our best talent?

 I don’t know who “we” are. In general though, there are some obvious repeating trends/patterns IME. Organizations vary widely in the ways they search for, screen, select, on-board (socialize) and design work for employees. IME many organizations routinize those processes in generic ways that inexorably if not intentionally pound new employees into “our way of doing things.” That socialization process discourages many new, highly talented, energetic, creative people. Some conformity is necessary to “organize” energy. Finding that middle ground that focuses human capital pools without de-energizing them is an important and often overlooked effort.

Understanding that not everyone by a long shot is linearly (upwardly) motivated is an important first step in strategic human resource acquisition and retention. (See Career Concepts below—adapted from Driver and Brousseau at USC.) Ignoring the goodness of fit between candidates and organization culture, between strategic needs for innovation and creativity and conformity, and between respect for tradition and emerging competition contributes to the flight of highly talented people. The “off-boarding” process should include IMO careful analysis that should inform the recruiting processes. Frequently they don’t.

I’ve been privileged with many excellent, well-known clients. In those leadership development seminars I always respected adult learning theory (adults learn best by dealing with issues of immediate relevance to them) by beginning with “what are the biggest problems you are facing?” That one hour exercise in a week-long seminar always produced a list of what the mid-to-upper level manager/executives saw as critical to them. Over time, I could predict even across different clients what the list would be. We wrote those on flip charts so we could refer to them and connect them with our session by session discussions. Despite my efforts to upload to management the content of those lists, most clients seemed utterly uninterested. They didn’t want a feedback loop, just a repeatedly “successful” seminar.

One example and I’ll stop. After introducing the Career Concepts research in a session, a man came up to me and said, “Why don’t executives listen?” What do you mean? “I’m an engineer, a good one. In my previous (very well known) employer because I did good work, they kept putting me in leadership development seminars. I said, Look I don’t want to be promoted. I love my work, I want to do it well, and go home and be with my family. They didn’t listen, so finally it got so annoying that I quit and came here. I’ve only been here for six months and already they’ve put me in your leadership development program! Why?” The answer is because those executives who are Linearly oriented have a VABE that everyone is or should be like them. As one COO said to me, “If the janitor in this company doesn’t desire to be the CEO, we should fire his ass out of here because that’s the American way, you pick yourself up by your bootstraps and climb as high as you can.”

Is your best talent leaving your organization? Perhaps it’s because they don’t get the respect and latitude that they deserve. It could be because of money (they often say), AND IME people would rather love their work and whom they work with than make a few more bucks—which IME as alumni have called me and said, leaves them unhappy.  

For more, see my website at Level Three Leadership. 

 

How to manage large virtual meetings?

IMO every meeting should have an agenda based on questions not topics. EVERY item should be a question that the group is expected to answer or offer insight on. If meetings are just for information, they are a waste of time—just email the information or publish it in a selfie video.

For me, I would ask an important question based on each agenda item and ask everyone to use the Chat feature to send in their answers. Be sure to record the chat sequence so you can calculate/compile the answers you got. You said “large” meetings, so I’m assuming 70+. Or even 40+.

For example, if the first agenda item is “Should we continue spending research funds on the XYZ project?” my question might be, “If XYZ succeeds, how would your business be affected?” or “What do you think the odds of XYZ succeeding are and why?” Do not put out an agenda that says “XYZ Project.” AND you could collect this data with a Qualtrics or Survey Monkey survey that would save people’s time even more. AND you’d have automatic compiling and know who hadn’t responded. So, is your meeting really necessary?  WHAT is the purpose of the meeting?

I’ve become vehemently opposed to topic based agendas—they just end up in endless repetitive discussions.

IF you are having these meetings just so people can see each other and thereby “reconnect” you might break it up into smaller meetings of no more than 15. And be clear on the agenda—or it will devolve. “What’s the best thing you were able to accomplish this past month?” Or “What’s the biggest challenge you are facing this coming month?” Or “What’s the most important thing you learned this past month?”

How does one communicate effectively in a multi-cultural environment?

IME very carefully. Be wary of making jokes—half or more won’t understand them. Be wary of making cultural analogies or metaphors. Have respect for every individual foremost in your mind. Invite lots of questions and opinions—even in cultures where people are taught not to question the instructor, maybe especially there. Avoid presenting your opinions as if they were facts. Own your VABEs. For example, “Y may I ask how old you are? I’m 73. Aha. In your experience thus far in life, given all the people you’ve met so far, how much of their Visible Behavior, what you can capture on film, in your estimation is habitual? By habitual, I mean mindlessly repetitive.” Y answers—usually about 75%. The age question personalizes the discussion and brings it down to ground. I reveal my age first. The second question is applicable to anyone. “X, may I ask how old are you? Thank you. In your N years in life, given all the people you’ve met so far, what proportion of the way they think would you estimate to be habitual—that is, mindlessly repetitive?” Most will say 85ish%. “Z, may I ask how old you are? Thank you. In your N years in life given all the people you’ve met, what proportion of their VABEs would you estimate to be habitual?” I explain VABEs. They usually say 95%+. “Now the rest of you, do these estimates match your experience in life? “ I usually do that one after each of the Level One (visible behavior), Level Two (conscious thought), and Level Three (VABEs) questions.

For the vast majority of people, these are totally new questions that they’ve never thought about before. The numbers highlight the difficulty of making changes in individuals, teams, and companies. “Given your estimates, what are the odds that anything I’m going to say today or this week will change what you do, how you think or what you believe?” Very very low. “So, why would I even come here? Because I’m hoping there are 5%, 15% or 25% of the people in the room who are and will be open to rethinking what they do, how they think, and what they believe.”

Although this example is taken out of context of a week-long leadership development seminar, IME it works extremely well in engaging participants in the first hour and works with those from Asia, Australia, South America, Central America, North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Working at Level Three, carefully and respectfully, is a powerful, universal set of concepts that bridge multi-cultural environments.

See my website at Level Three Leadership

What is the value of and goal of a problem statement?

 First, what is a problem? Especially “the” problem? Most people in my experience have a vague, fuzzy sense of what a problem is—and that confusion leads to confused attempts to solve. I assert a problem is a want-got gap for someone. (WGG) Someone wants something they are not getting. For that person, the gap is a problem. The same issue for someone else may not be a problem.

So the question becomes, “what do you want?” Power? Wealth? Fame? Salvation? A more efficient manufacturing process? A cleaner environment? A better relationship? Be careful here—are you sure that is what you want? Vagueness here contributes to confusion—be specific.

Once “you” know exactly what you want, the next question is “why are you getting what you’ve got?” If others are involved, do their “wants” line up with yours? Why or why not? Most analyses focus here. We analyze competitors, processes, our human capital, social capital, organizational capital trying to find the underlying reasons why our results (gots) are what they are.

Without clarity on WHO sees the gap between what they WANT and what they’ve GOT, efforts to solve the thing will be confused and inefficient and often unsuccessful.

So the goals of problem statements should IMO be to clarify the WHO, the WANTS and the GOTs and then to mobilize collective efforts to reduce the gaps. If the WANTS of for instance management and employees aren’t aligned, there will be a constant tension/struggle/pressure between the two. That’s one reason why I emphasize Level Three Leadership

BTW, when meeting agendas are built around questions, not topics, they tend to be more effective because participants are focused on the answers, not broad ranging often repetitive discussions. A good problem analysis can suggest the right questions to ask on the agenda.