Jun. 23, 2018 "Why fruitless debates occur over and over...and over": Today I found this article by Harvey Schachter in the Globe and Mail:
In the 1960s and 1970s, every Canadian seemed to be a constitutional scholar. Certainly it was common to hear passionate arguments about the role of Quebec in Canada and other constitutional matters. These days, it sometimes seems like everyone is an electoral-reform expert, keen to discuss a preferred method of selecting political representatives. In both cases, complicated issues with many moving parts limit our ability to know the results of our preferred action, in spite of strident arguments.
Within our organizations, similarly entrenched ideological arguments occur repeatedly and unproductively.
We eagerly jump to debate them, arguing with confident authority, as if we know for certain the ultimate results. But we don’t. The organization often tends to be divided without a clear sense of how to proceed. The data is non-existent or muddled. So the debates reoccur repeatedly. Sometimes we lurch in one direction and then another, as different factions gain power.
Decentralization versus centralization is common. Companies can flip from one side of this debate to another with each new generation of leaders.
Do we need more locations or fewer?
Shall we grow by acquisitions or organically?
In marketing, it’s reach versus frequency, or social media versus conventional media.
I’m sure as you read this some debates in your own organization come to mind. If I had a dollar for every time as an editor I had an argument in which the topic (or subtext) was whether long or short stories are better, I’d be a multi-millionaire.
Shall we grow by acquisitions or organically?
In marketing, it’s reach versus frequency, or social media versus conventional media.
I’m sure as you read this some debates in your own organization come to mind. If I had a dollar for every time as an editor I had an argument in which the topic (or subtext) was whether long or short stories are better, I’d be a multi-millionaire.
So what should we do?
These arguments are helpful in some way. Organizations perhaps need healthy divisions and, if it’s on harmless issues, that may not be bad.
Perhaps, if the likely results are so mixed-up and unclear, any decision will end up okay – not amounting to much (certainly not as much as the heated debates might have suggested). But the potential multi-millionaire in me suggests I waste a lot of time, and so do you, in such ideological tussles.
Perhaps, if the likely results are so mixed-up and unclear, any decision will end up okay – not amounting to much (certainly not as much as the heated debates might have suggested). But the potential multi-millionaire in me suggests I waste a lot of time, and so do you, in such ideological tussles.
One approach is to admit you don’t know. How refreshing! In a world where we are expected to always know, it would be audacious to admit as a group that we don’t know and, no matter how much we divisively debate the matter, we still won’t know. That could lead to just putting the matter off the table, permanently.
That might be a leap ahead for decentralization/centralization, where a new boss will too often sketch out a different blueprint from his or her predecessor and there will be a flurry of activity and expense, with no significant impact.
Indeed, Bryant University Prof. Michael Roberto recently called for a broad stop to reorganizations, noting that a McKinsey and Co. study concluded that only 16 per cent of restructurings could be characterized as an “unqualified success” and, similarly, Bain and Co. found that most reorganizations do not generate improved results.
Indeed, Bryant University Prof. Michael Roberto recently called for a broad stop to reorganizations, noting that a McKinsey and Co. study concluded that only 16 per cent of restructurings could be characterized as an “unqualified success” and, similarly, Bain and Co. found that most reorganizations do not generate improved results.
With two opposite courses of action – as these ideological debates often outline – you could assume both sides have ideas that are worthwhile and ideas that aren’t, and look for a blend (not a compromise).
Pick out the good points from each and see if they can be implemented together. Or maybe one course of action works in one area of your company and another for elsewhere – centralize in some provinces and decentralize in other.
Pick out the good points from each and see if they can be implemented together. Or maybe one course of action works in one area of your company and another for elsewhere – centralize in some provinces and decentralize in other.
In his new book, Leap, Howard Yu, a professor at IMD Business School, suggests seeking evidence through experimentation. “The biggest risk that threatens the survival of a large and complex organization lies in political infighting and collective inaction. Arguments that play out in the board room may resemble empty rhetoric and amount to nothing more than personal beliefs. Experimentation is the window of truth to let light in from outside,” he insists.
Speaking to Rolling Stone, entrepreneur Elon Musk aims for a scientific approach to his decisions, in which he asks a question, gathers as much evidence as possible, develops axioms from the evidence (rather than from his beliefs, as we do in ideological discussions), and draws a conclusion they point to.
Then he attempts to disprove the conclusion, seeking refutation from others. If nobody can invalidate your conclusion, then you are probably, but not certainly, right. Trying to disprove what you profoundly – ideologically − believe is a crackerjack idea.
Then he attempts to disprove the conclusion, seeking refutation from others. If nobody can invalidate your conclusion, then you are probably, but not certainly, right. Trying to disprove what you profoundly – ideologically − believe is a crackerjack idea.
So identify the next few fruitless, ideological discussions you get embroiled in at the office – and seek a better path.
Cannonballs
- Sometimes proof is just another word for letting people suffer, says author Malcolm Gladwell. Many times we know something is wrong but since we don’t have proof of the wrongdoing or a workable solution we leave it be, notes HR blogger Tim Sackett.
My opinion: That's deep. However, the question is: "What am I supposed to do about this problem?"
- Are you a “watch me swim” leader? Leadership coach Scott Cochrane compares them to children splashing around the swimming pool, desperate for the grown-ups to notice their aquatic abilities – only these are adults, who insist on letting you know about every accomplishment, no matter how small. They imply credit for achievements they had little to do with and “spin” a lack of results.
- A study shows new hires fare significantly better when they have a one-on-one meeting with their manager during the first week. And although an obvious act, no, it’s not commonplace.
" Organizing " debates - and other MBA fads du jour - miss a far deeper work place conundrum.What I would call management from above devoid of understanding of and engagement with "the floor".
One of the most effective places I ever worked for was a company that had an annual bonus for EVERY employee - based on a fixed percentage of annual profit. It sure focussed everybody's attention. Nobody had time to worry about " the organization "!
Guess what - let employees sort out how the job gets done - let them form cooperating networks, prioritise. Provide a $ bonus incentive for everybody .... Stand back and intervene only when productivity suffers from confusion. Most people are smarter than we think and we need to give credit for such performance.
"How to attract and keep continuous learners": Today I found this article by Jesper Bendtsen in the Globe and Mail:
Chief people officer, Top Hat, Toronto
When it comes to recruiting talent, the most progressive and high-growth companies today place their highest premium on hiring continuous learners: the kind of people who are adept at picking up new skills and new technologies, can think strategically as well as tactically, and make a habit of adding to their knowledge base.
For every candidate who walks through the door, employers are trying to find out if that’s the kind of person they are – whether by inquiring about their learning habits or simply asking them point blank.
For every candidate who walks through the door, employers are trying to find out if that’s the kind of person they are – whether by inquiring about their learning habits or simply asking them point blank.
This new recruiting imperative is true in nearly every industry, but it’s particularly crucial in the tech sector, where business plans, revenue models, competitive environments, and job descriptions are in a constant state of flux. The iterative nature of the high-growth tech world means that staff need to be able to absorb new information quickly and act fast on what they learn.
For example, here at Top Hat, we’re on a major mission to shape the future of higher education by improving learning experiences, course content and student success. To achieve this, it’s imperative for our selection process to identify people who are willing and able to stretch themselves.
For example, here at Top Hat, we’re on a major mission to shape the future of higher education by improving learning experiences, course content and student success. To achieve this, it’s imperative for our selection process to identify people who are willing and able to stretch themselves.
Admittedly, nearly every company is on the hunt for that same kind of talent, and every company claims to have lots of them already among their ranks. The real question is how to retain them. Continuous learners can be among the most challenging to keep and to keep happy. By their nature, they are motivated by – and hungry for – new opportunities.
Companies don’t always walk the talk on this one. On the one hand, they fill their ranks with continuous learners so that the fundamental pace of learning within the firm will be effortlessly fast. On the other hand, they don’t create workplaces that allow the organization to capture learning, share it and act upon it in a coordinated way.
Latte machines are a great perk, but they can’t provide talented, growth-oriented people with the sense of professional growth they crave – nor do they keep an organization working seamlessly together in pursuit of common goals.
Latte machines are a great perk, but they can’t provide talented, growth-oriented people with the sense of professional growth they crave – nor do they keep an organization working seamlessly together in pursuit of common goals.
To create the kind of workplace that will truly reward continuous learning, companies have to demonstrate their own credentials in three key areas:
Make high-impact continuous learning part of the corporate culture
Fast-growing companies need their staff to pick up skills on the fly: project management, team leadership, client relations and myriad other skills. They rely on the natural abilities of their continuous learners to keep things moving, especially in the early going.
But then what? If a company truly values continuous learning, it will invest in training to solidify and certify those new skills, and add still more to its employees’ toolboxes – skills that will help them better manage projects and measure outcomes. Team leaders should know what skills each team member is acquiring and encourage their continued professional growth.
But then what? If a company truly values continuous learning, it will invest in training to solidify and certify those new skills, and add still more to its employees’ toolboxes – skills that will help them better manage projects and measure outcomes. Team leaders should know what skills each team member is acquiring and encourage their continued professional growth.
Create workspaces designed to encourage collaborative learning
Research shows that people learn better when they learn with others, and they learn best by talking. Workspace design should support those dynamics. Open-concept floorplans with lots of common workspaces encourage both planned collaboration and serendipitous collisions.
Companies that want everyone to learn from everyone else don’t provide closed-door offices to employees it deems important; everyone’s personal workspace, from team leaders up to C-suite executives, should be open to what’s going on around them. Top Hat’s Toronto office features a multitude of meeting rooms, all of them behind glass walls, so that attendees and whiteboard plans are never closed off to anyone.
Companies that want everyone to learn from everyone else don’t provide closed-door offices to employees it deems important; everyone’s personal workspace, from team leaders up to C-suite executives, should be open to what’s going on around them. Top Hat’s Toronto office features a multitude of meeting rooms, all of them behind glass walls, so that attendees and whiteboard plans are never closed off to anyone.
Restructure the way employees work together
Some companies design workspaces to support collaboration, then neglect to structure their work teams and processes for the same purpose. An office full of smart, engaged continuous learners is full of ideas about how to make teams work better; companies need to listen to their ideas and give them the latitude to enact them.
And they shouldn’t be afraid to spread ideas that work throughout the organization. At Top Hat, our marketing and HR teams apply the agile principles that work so well for our development teams, conducting their own daily stand-up meetings, scrumming their projects and working in sprints.
And they shouldn’t be afraid to spread ideas that work throughout the organization. At Top Hat, our marketing and HR teams apply the agile principles that work so well for our development teams, conducting their own daily stand-up meetings, scrumming their projects and working in sprints.
Above all, companies that truly value the smartest talent must demonstrate the ability to inspire and lead with purpose. Smart people know how to read between the lines. They won’t stay long with a company whose leaders’ words don’t match their deeds, or whose values don’t align with their business practices.
fantasy land - the real world of working in Canada is far from 'the best qualified gets the job or promotion. ' I have seen this so many times . I saw a PHD guy get denied a job he really wanted in a lab , for a Lab clerk to get it ( friends of the HR club ) . Ultimately companies suffer from the freindocracy
Also, employees should be rewarded with raises and promotions at some point when they have developed new skill sets.
It's great to work somewhere that provides new learning opportunities, but at some point, in a world where living costs have increased so dramatically, it's demotivating to continuously learn skills that directly benefit an employer and receive positive feedback, but not actually be financially compensated for that.
I feel a lot of management advice these days focuses too much on how you can keep employees happy without ever paying them more.
It's great to work somewhere that provides new learning opportunities, but at some point, in a world where living costs have increased so dramatically, it's demotivating to continuously learn skills that directly benefit an employer and receive positive feedback, but not actually be financially compensated for that.
I feel a lot of management advice these days focuses too much on how you can keep employees happy without ever paying them more.
Had a policy in my department - everybody had to give s presentation once a year on some new high tech advance ! They had to find and structure the material, generate the presentation, and deliver it during one of our monthly review meetings as part of the agenda. It was a very successful and challenging career development exercise. None of the external consultant fluff courses BS.
No comments:
Post a Comment