The Problem with Management Fads

I was startled by a handout I received during a seminar that I attended last year. It was a graph plotting all the management fads of the past 60 years. They all promised to be the answer to the pressing problems of the day, but in hindsight none of them were. That does not mean that we should junk all of them.

In my view they all serve a purpose at one time or another, buyers beware! Students of the systems approach know that there is really no one best way to solve complex organizational problems, that it all depends on a number of factors. We also have been taught that no two methods are alike or yield the same benefits ... some are faster, others are longer lasting, etc.

In the mid 1980's I read the abstract of a doctoral dissertation -- "What's new in OD." I have forgot the author's name but not his findings. The Ph.D. student spent a good part of three years tracking and documenting the evolution of the organization development field, dating back to the pre WWII experiment at Western Electric. His conclusion was startling for me. He found nothing was really new except better packaging.

As I reflect on the last 25 years, I regrettably have come to the similar conclusion.

The Western Electric experiments opened our eyes. The increase in employee productivity was not as a result of better lighting (a recommendation by the consultants) but as a result of the attention employees where receiving. This breakthrough finding gave birth to what scientists refer to as the Hawthorne Effect (HE). The HE does not last, however. Like the rubber band, once you forget to pay attention to the employees, the rubber band will snap back to its earlier position (status quo).

Fast forward to the 21st century.

I have observed the Hawthorne Effect during the initial phases of change programs. You form a task force, cross-functional team, a "skunk" group, you name it, and unleash it on problem solving, and by golly, things begin to change. You think you are a genius, that you have arrived. Well, you had something, but not a lot to do with it, you simply unleashed the Hawthorne Effect. The rubber-band effect? Sustainability is the issue.

Many change efforts die or lose their impetus over time because the HE is exhausted. Change fatigue sets in. People get tired. Over the long haul, the overall impact is hard to discern. Skepticism sets in. It is time for renewal ... it is time to re-seed the situation.

It has been said that people are good at criticing the work of others but not their own. They think that everybody is screwing up but not themselves. Well, I am not one of those people. I have experienced many failures -- failures in the proper use of change methods and failures in the change goals. How about you?

More on Jerks in the Workplace

My blog on the subject touched a sensitive spot with those who perused it. Today as I was signing in for my email I noticed the results of a recent survey conducted by Ranstad USA. The survey tried to classify the type and degree of jerkness in the work place. Here are the highlights of the employees' pet peeves:

At the top of the list were the Psst-er (gossipers). Apparently nobody likes their rumor mongering and insiduous comments about co-workers' personal affairs.

Next, was the Broken Clock (poor time managers). They are always late to meetings. They miss deadlines and as a result often impact negatively the work of others and create resentment.

The Mold-Guy came next. He or she is like a mold, it grows all over and you cannot get rid of it. This type thrives in a messy workplace. The biggest offense is that this type tends to mess up the communal space. he or she often throws food in the waste basket where it stays for days.

The Wiffy-Wonder follows. You can smell this guy from the other side of the partition. His or her personal hygiene leaves a lot to be desired. In some cases, the odor is generated by the ethnic food they eat -- garlic, fish oil, and other pungent condiments. A shower and a frequent change of clothes could ameliorate the situation.

The Cracker is next. He or she is loud, likes to crack the knuckles, makes a racket when chewing gum, jingles the spoon in the coffee cup, etc. You know the kind! He or she is totally oblivious to the irritation they generate.

Last, but not least, comes the Tapper. Quiter than the cracker but not that much less of an irritant. Tappers are always tapping, on their computers, on the PDAs, and on their communication devices. They do this during meetings. They are seen as rude, distracting by others.

Where do you fit in?

I think that I might on occasion dable in Cracking, not so much my knuckles but the spoon in the tea cup, and when on I choose to chew gum.

The report highlights some positive aspects to all the peeves. They serve to unite the work group against the bothersome interloper. They bring the group together more or less. They also wake people up to the notion that it might be time to look for a better job in a better work setting. They might stimulate some hidden entrepreneurial instinct to start our own business so that we can have the luxury of picking our own co-workers.

Enjoy your trip along the learning curve! Things could get worse before they get better. Watch out for jerks. They are everywhere.

Organizational Viruses

I recently heard Dr. Dwayne Dyer, a well known clinical psychologist and spiritual guru speak on public television (PBS). The title of his lecture was "Excuses Begone." He quoted two interesting books that I plan to buy and read. I did not have the time to jot down the authors' name.

The two books are: The Biology of Belief, and Viruses of the Mind. His thesis is that as human beings we become infected by excuses and habits that impact our lives, often in a negative way. Examples, he uses, are:

You are too old, that's impossible, you cannot help it, you are the way you are, no one else does it, you have tried it before, you are tired., etc.

He calls these supposed ways of thinking and acting imbedded in us "memes."

Viruses do three predictable things:

(1) they duplicate (they come from our parents to us via our belief system),
(2) they infiltrate (they go where they cannot be easily found), and
(3) spread (they become our cultural norms).

Interesting stuff!

My mind began to wander as I was listening to Dr. Dyer talk. I thought about how computer viruses and worms can infect our computers, and the havoc they bring into our daily routine.

To protect our valuable data and hardware we purchase anti-virus software. We have developed a defense, although not completely bullet proof.

I have pretty much followed Virginia Wolf's advice along the way: arrange whatever pieces come your way. My father used to say: if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. I guess I learned to go with the flow, so to speak. A virus?

I began to wonder about any viruses I might been infected with as I grew up through my parents, grandparents, teachers, parish priests, friends and colleagues. I quickly discovered that my limitations, foibles, and biases are essentially viruses or worms that I might have picked up along the way. An excuse? Possibly!

Unfortunately there are no off-the-shelf anti-viruses, but costly and time consuming sessions on the couch, often with dubious results.

As an organizational observer, I have seen a few great organizations change for the worse, but I had not realized that the cause might be insidious viruses. To escape detection viruses often mutate to make their identification difficult. Upon reflection, I have concluded that "fads" and "magic bullets" can mutate into powerful viruses. Here are some fads that come to mind:

Restructuring -- we all know that it is beneficial for an organization to periodically look at itself and rearrange the way it does business. When restructuring becomes a chronic solution, does the method become the mission? I have seen many organizations cut their vitality and long term viability by over-zealeous cost cutting. I have suspected all along that centralization and decentralization might be placebos for cyclical challenges.

Outsourcing -- it makes a lot of sense to outsource non-critical work to people who can do it better and at a lower cost. But does it make sense to do so to people who do not do it as well as you do, and at a higher cost to boot? Does it make sense for an organization to outsource two of the most vital functions (talking to their customers and talking to their employees) to outsiders? In my view these two functions are CORE, critical, essential. A virus?

Cross-functional teams -- a great organizational tool to break communication barriers and accelerate problem solving and decision making. But do we need to use a 10 pound hammer to drive down a penny nail? On a recent trip I asked a COO what he was doing to improve his organization's performance. he replied; we are doing cross functional teams. Wow! A virus?

Team building -- a great intervention to build cohesiveness and esprit de corps. But building cohesive and rah-rah incompetent teams is no antidote to failure. A virus? Perhaps.

I can go on with examples. The managerial literature is full of breakthrough methods that broke along the way.

Experience teaches me that devotion to a specific method, advocacy of a specific way, and lack of candor ultimately can erode the vibrancy of an organization. We need people who think differently than us. We need to encourage experimentation with different problem solving methods. We need to reward openness and candor. Too often we weed out those who stand out as being different than us. A virus? For sure.

So what can we do to get rid organizations of viruses? Dwyer suggests these steps for renewal:

1. Awareness (viruses do not want to be discovered). Get information from new sources. Cliques and hierarchies have ways to feed the viruses to protect their turf, their agenda. Abolish perceived "culture polices" -- a clever disguise for viruses. Culture police has a lot in common with the secret police -- they spy on people, they report on people, they use informants.

2. Alignment. Examine disconnects between the talk and the walk. Cultural norms are great places where viruses feed. "It is not our culture" is a give away. People will use culture to defend poor stewardship of resources. Excuses are forms of misalignment.

3. Contemplation. Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher, said that contemplation is the greatest form of activity. Imagine what it would be like if the organization was pristine, free of viruses. Insights can come from this activity.

4. Willingness. We have to be willing to change, to look an other paradigms, to go into unfamiliar territory. We need to let go in order to start something new. Clinging to practices that are not beneficial is a virus.

5. Passion. Become infected with the habit of enthusiasm. Leave the gloom and doom at the door. Love what you do and who you do it with. Do not be afraid. The worst has already happened.

Enjoy the trip along the learning curve. It is a lot of fun. Your thoughts?

Working with Jerks

While waiting for my flight home at the Rome Fiumicino Airport, I went into the airport bookstore to buy a magazine. There was a small book that caught my eye "Lavorare con dei Coglioni ... e riuscire a liberarsene", losely translated as "Working with Jerks ... and succeeding in getting rid of them." The Italian word for jerk is much stronger and it refers to a part of the male human anatomy. The French have a similar word, so do the Spaniards and the Portuguese. I guess Latins have a lot in common when addressing this menace.

The book, turns out, was a translation by Antonella Viale, of "Travaller avec cons" by anonymous. The book is published and copyrighted by Sperling & Kupfer Edizioni. Permission is given to use parts of the book for personal use.

I immediately got ingrossed in the book and I finished reading it before my flight took off for London. The book was right on target on a subject we all think about but rarely discuss it. My first reaction while reading the book was: why did not I think of it? I vowed to do a blog on it.

Jerks exist in all walks of life. It is part of the human condition to have to deal with them. No setting is free of them ... at work, in church, at social gatherings, even in the cherished family circle, you will find one or more jerks.

There are two kinds of jerks.

The first type is evil, mean-spirited, anger-provoking, and often in your face. They are interested in getting ahead at all costs, even if they have to make their colleagues look bad, sabotage their work, or take credit for others' ideas. They often come across as pompous know-it-all, letting you know what and who they know, talking down to you, patronizing others, and by behaving in a most intollerable way.

They are often referred to as bulls-in-a-china-shop; they create havoc by stepping on others' tender feelings. As you read this, I am sure that one or more people will pop up in your head. We are told to cope with them, ignore them, and/or avoid them at all costs. See, they have no idea the damage they create. They are not aware how their behavior hurts those around them. They are volunteer spies and do not think twice about reporting any of your faux pas to the boss. They can insidiously plant rumors, they can embarass you in public with sarcastic remarks. They think they are witty and are the first (and sometime the only ones) to laugh at their own jokes.

The second type are clumsy, inappropriate, and inept, but they do not mean any harm. They are the good jerks. Fortunately, there are more of this type than the former. They make us laugh, we feel sorry for them, we tolerate them and embrace them as our own. We do not want any harm to come their way, and we pray for their well-being. They have a good heart, not a mean bone in their body and soul. They try to help when no help is needed. They volunteer to do anything and everything for others. They interrupt but they do not realize it. They are responsible for all kinds of small disasters through no ill intentions such as jamming the fax machine, using the remaining paper on the copier, entering your office without knocking, spilling coffee on your office desk forcing you into a mad dash to protect your computer and other valuable papers, they are all over the place ... just trying to be helpful.

The Jewish community uses two words to illustrate the problem. "Schlemil" is used to describe the jerk who spills the soup on the patron. "Schlemazol" is used to describe the jerk on whose suit is the soup spilled on. In this context, we are all jerks -- perpetrators and/or victims.

During my long career, I have met many jerks -- some chronic, others free-lance, some mean-spirited, others innocent. None of us are immune to this desease. I too have acted as a jerk in a few situations, to my later embarassment and regret. I am the schlemil-type when I behave like a jerk. I can soil somebody's good suit and ruffle feathers. I thank God for not been chronically afflicted by this condition.

About you? Which type fits you?

If we are to eliminate the jerks in our workplace, we must start by "owning up" to the possibility that we too on occasion or chronically behave like jerks. None of us is perfect, I guess. With a little soul searching we can find ways of freeing the workplace from this affliction. The cure depends on the type of jerk affliction you suffer from. The first type is tough to admit to and harder to change. How about some delicate feedback to our colleagues when they behave as a jerk?

The Peter Principle

In 1968 Lawrence J. Peters, ex-CEO of Avis Corporation, published a humorous book titled "Up the Organization." Research since then has established the theoretical validity of Peters' treatise. His key point was that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence. The book created a big buzz amongst the managerial class of the '70s.

The corollary to the Peter Principle (named after the book's author) is that in time every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties.  Dynamite statement!

Questions to ponder:

1. Have you observed this phenomenon in your work setting?

2. What are the consequences of the Peter Principle on an organization?

My view is that we tend to select people for promotion based on their current performance or personal connection without examining whether the person in question has the skills, abilities, and horse-power to handle the demands of the new job.

As examples, we take a great salesperson and make him/her a lousy sales manager, a great engineer and make him/her a disaster prone engineering manager. Both are "lose/lose" transactions.

Experience teaches us that by promoting people so long as they work competently in their current job is not sufficient. We need to assess people's potential to succeed in the new job by using valid criteria. A satellite problem that I have seen, time and again, is that once people reach their level of incompetence, they become blockers to those below who have the potential to advance. Blockers tend to push high potential employees out. They unknowngly generate undesirable turnover.

In my view, this is a widespread problem that needs management attention.

After my tour of duty in the Middle East, I came to realize that there are two general approaches to selection:

1. We select people based on their technical skills primarily, only to see them fail because they are interpersonally inept. I call this the US approach.

2, We select people based on their style or personal relationship, only to see them fail because they are technically inept. I call this the Middle East approach.

Arch-types? Sure. Generalizations? Sure. But they can serve us well as illustrations. What is your view?

Healing The Wounds

My good friend and colleague David Noer wrote a breakthrough book on the subject about 25 years ago. I guess not much has changed since then, or has it? His book was inspired by a series of layoffs and redundancies resulting from the many consolidations taking place during the 1980's. It has now become a modus operandi for organizations to periodically reduce their workforce in the face of falling margins and greater shareholder pressure.

Like the wise farmer teaches us, there is a time for everything. There is a time for planting, a time for irrigating, a time for harvesting, and a time for pruning. Pruning at the proper time ensures that the tree grows healthier and gives more fruit in later years. Pruning is not a substitute for sound management. It is a tool for improved performance.

Staff reductions, unless properly done, change the organizational landscape in undesirable ways. Zealous managers can be careless or indeed unscrupulous. People join companies because they are attracted by an employer's reputation, culture, and leadership. There is an implied psychological contract that emerges between the two parties -- the individual and the employer -- and sealed upon joining. Staff reductions often violate or outright break this "contract". The result is the tears that Noer writes about. Lives are disrupted, careers altered, promises broken, trust disappears. The company is not the same again. The romance is over.

Those who remain in the company are forever changed. Their trust is reduced. Their level of engagement becomes more perfunctory. Their view of the leadership becomes more skeptical and critical. Leaders need to heal these wounds as quickly as possible in order to avoid the hardening of the "categories" e.g., lack of trust, cynicism, stress, etc. It requires action, not commiseration.

Good leadership is not a litany of slogans, proclaimed when things are going well. Good leadership is demonstrated under painful conditions. Mediocre leaders will not be up to the challenge because they will be preoccupied with their own survival or are trying to show how good they are at cutting heads.

P.S.: This subject reminds me of the famous article "The Emperor Has No Clothes" -- a subject too important to discuss in this short blog. I suggest we all re-read it.

Let's ponder the question that Noer treated so well in his book.

How do we heal the wounds following a reduction in staff? How do we renew the organization?

In my view, restructuring or downsizing are not strategies for growth but admissions of poor leadership (doing the right things)and inept management (doing the right things correctly). Let's learn from our mistakes.

Know When to Hold Them, Know When to Fold Them

Poker is an interesting game to watch. It requires strategy, skill, and luck. When luck is not there, strategy and skill are essential. Competitors watch carefully your non-verbals. They are keen to identify any clues that will give away a strong hand, a bluff, a lack of concentration, fatigue, hesitation.

Questions: 

Can others "read" your hand? 

What clues do you give away? 

Can others tell when you are bluffing? 

Are you an amateur or a professional player?

Professionals know when to hang on to a dealt hand and when to throw it in. They calculate the odds, they "count" the cards, they watch competitors for clues, they do not give away their hand. They are "poker faced".

Amateurs ignore or play against the odds. They try to bluff others who are not easiy bluffed. Amateurs can win on luck in the short term but lose over the long haul to skill and better strategy. 

Of course, it is always better to be lucky than a better player. Luck makes everyone look like a genius.

I have observed this phenomenon often in the business word. 

I have seen individuals screw up a great career by being called on their bluff to resign over often a petty subject. I have seen individuals who do not know that they have a winning hand, thus settling for a meager win. 

Bet a strong hand. Throw away a weak one.

What kind of a player are you? 

 What are your strengths? 

 Your track record? 

Careers are more important than poker playing. I am using the analogy to drive a few points across. 

I wish you a great ride along the learning curve. Be a winner! God is on your side.