Q: reward outcome or reinforce process? A: Yes!

Posted on by
Reply

When we go about assisting people to become better leaders, it’s important to understand the dual role of reinforcing process and outcome, and how they work together.  It’s not enough to say, “I want us to win win win!” without also rewarding the stuff that helps us get there along the way in the most positive sense.  After all, there is nothing wrong with playing the game with integrity.

For those who are parents out there, you may be able to understand the difference between supporting process v. outcome when it comes to helping your child learn and develop.  Let’s say your kid is learning to play baseball.  Let’s look at two different scenarios when it comes to positive reinforcement:

“You know, it makes me happy and proud to see you when you help your team win the game.”  –> reinforcing outcome

“I really like the way you looked around first to make sure that no one was on base, then threw the ball to your teammate when the time was right.”  –> reinforcing process

Look at these two statements.  Is one better than the other?  Not necessarily.  Both work hand-in-hand to support your child to learn and grow in a new direction.

But here’s food for thought: what if your child did not win the game?  Does that change how you view his or her learning and development?  Does it change the way you view the process?  Sometimes certain outcomes happen by accident.  For example, it’s possible that you child’s team wins (or loses) the game because the team he or she plays simply is not fair competition.  Or, perhaps your child’s team gets ranked higher simply because another team did not qualify based on some arbitrary rules set up by an outside entity.

The “prize” in an organization frequently look like bonuses and titles/promotions that people receive for a job well-done.  But both you and I know that people have also arrived to these “outcomes” by other means.  It is true that people have also just been lucky to be in industries that have huge sums of money to reward any/all leadership.  Alternatively, titles and promotions sometimes come into play simply because others were laid off/re-structured, or just politically aligned in some way, and not necessarily because of taking the “right” action in terms of process and effort.

I recently worked with a C-level executive who told me that his work is measured by outcomes.  This is not a surprise.  Most people who are in senior roles are responsible for specific outcomes- often, specific and measurable outcomes.  After all, it’s about accountability and ensuring success of the organization!  But have you thought that reinforcing the process might be just as important as reinforcing the outcome?  As an executive, do you know in your heart that you did everything you were supposed to, in order to support the best outcome possible?  If you didn’t “win” the game, does it mean you would have played it differently?

What we choose to reward and reinforce is an important question for organizations to ponder.  Consider that employees and leadership alike work towards how they believe they are being measured.  If they feel that the yardstick is simply about getting to the outcome, or the “number,” then that’s what they’ll be working towards.  But we don’t always hear about how leadership is more about rewarding behaviors that support the outcome.  Consider that both should work together, and both the outcome and the process to get there should also be recognized and rewarded as well:

“I think the way you conducted yourself at that meeting in front of the our COO was really fruitful to help us earn a great reputation as a department.”

“I think the amount of time you spend/level of effort you put into helping your direct reports grow and develop personally and professionally shows me that you are a great leader.”

This is fundamentally a question of how we define “success.”  If others- especially those whom we report to or have authority over how we proceed- have different ideas of what success may look like, it may be a big challenge to feel successful, even if we are taking the “right” actions to bring ourselves to what we think is a better place.

process improvement- resistance happens here, too

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier today I was in conversation with someone who does process improvement for an unnamed County in Southern California. This gentleman told me that one of the biggest sources of resistance comes from the fact that these employees have been with the organization for sometimes 20 to 25 years. If one can only imagine what it is like to spend this number of years doing work something the same way, over and over again, day in and day out. It’s creates more and more inertia to say the same, rather than change.

Government employees are important workers-especially those in the front line-because they handle much of the administrative tasks that help local communities run smoothly.  They help you process paperwork that is sometimes a bit more like busy work- like ensuring that your eyesight is in check so that you can renew your driver’s license- but these checkpoints and related activities are vital to ensure that you don’t get in a car accident!

This process improvement person definitely started the right way with the organization he was working with. He began by engaging with the people who perform the main functions of the work and got their input on how to make things better. I’d be willing to bet that these individuals may have been waiting for years to have someone ask them for their input on how to improve on this process.  Such a methodology only encourages ownership on the future vision, instead of rejection of it.

He said to me that it is sometimes frustrating trying to manage this change process. So in order to incentivize these county employees, he tries to point at best practices from other similar organizations. That’s what I call: the Carrot method.  On one hand you want to appeal to individuals by awarding them -this speaks to trying to get the best out of one another in a positive way. It is unfortunate, however, that the stick method is a more common tool to “motivate” for new behavior.  Instituting fines and penalties result for not following the new paradigm of work, or adopting some sort of policy that mandates adherence to the new behaviors, “or else…” Not fun, popular, but effective.

Where is your organization in this spectrum? Are new and innovative ideas on how to work readily accepted and heard?

Social media: identifying the “why” will shape your strategy

Posted on by
Reply

The following is a re-post from an article I wrote for examiner.com:

When organizations begin to engage in social media… why do you think they’re doing it?

As mentioned early on in Groundswell, it’s the “why” that matters.  A lot.  To say that “our competitors are doing it, and therefore we should too,” is insufficient. And the reason is clear- if an organization chooses to engage in this space, it needs to know why.

People sometimes say, an organization must engage in this space “or else” it may be left behind. This may or may not be true, depending on the customer demographics that are actively engaging in this sphere. In other words, are your grandparents’ retirement community on Twitter? If their demographic is not active in this space, then perhaps there is not too much of a drive to engage in this form of social media. Additionally, other reasons related to implementation/sponsorship issues persist for an organization.

The “Why” question is an important one to examine. It may lead us to better understanding as to the end-goal of engaging in this sphere. It may also frame the context of the conversation you begin to have with your clients, and may impact how you work.

Traditionally, or perhaps should we say- more commonly, we have seen social media utilized as an extension of Marketing and PR efforts. Consumer-centric organizations that engage in the social media space often identify this activity as “Social CRM”, or sCRM. Essentially, it is a means to manage the processes implemented by a company to handle its contact with its customers, through the usage of social media technology.

Adam Metz, a management consultant working with organizations in the adoption of social media technology, would agree with this. In his work, he feels his objective is to help brands get the customer “from Facebook to Safeway.” This means that he shows brands how to acquire the social customer, track their data, monetize that customer, and prove the results.

But there are other reasons to engage in this space. And of course, your organization has its reasons as well.

In the article, “Corporate reputation in the era of web 2.0: the case of Primark”, the authors looked closely at a grocery market chain that was identified as the “most unethical retailer in the UK” according the Ethical Consumer magazine. External stakeholders created content on review sites, blogs and on YouTube where there were many videos with comments threads, and much discussion around this supermarket’s ethical stances and claims. Instead of communicating through the BBC to answer to these accusations, the supermarket chain bypassed the mass media channel and began to talk directly to their clients on the web.

Shifting from the old, transactional paradigm previously understood as grocers (suppliers) and shoppers (consumers) to a relational one where both parties become partners and collaborators implies relinquishing control, especially on the part of the grocery chain. Indeed, Primark found that the old quid pro quo model based on “expediency, implicit paternalism and hard sell techniques are being replaced by a relational model based upon involvement (participation), co-ownership and reciprocity.”

A potential result of this practice was that managers have to change how they work: in addition to managing inventory through internal indicators such as business forecasting tools, it now had to listen to some ridiculous tool called Twitter to understand what the upcoming trends are.

Is this such a bad thing? It’s true: listening to the public for what to stock on shelves can really mess with your business modeling tools. But the reality is that you have to know why you’re in the social media space in the first place.  Your organization cannot ask for feedback and then not do anything with it– your customers will definitely be angry, especially when giving feedback when elicited comes with the expectation that action will follow.

So, identifying the Why will help you with the How.  You’ll be that much better positioned to step forward from there.

Large Scale Change = Large Scale Commitment (or is it?)

Posted on by
Reply

The following is a re-post from an article I recently wrote for examiner.com:

“Large scale change” often means managing the people, processes, systems, such that they are working in alignment with the agreed-upon strategic direction(s) for your company.

While this is a very simple statement, it does not express the magnitude of this change and what it means for you and your organization.  A large-scale change project has a great deal of implications, especially for that of the CEO. What does it mean to stand in front of your staff and state declaratively: “This is the next direction we are going to go.” What risk does this statement carry? Or asked differently: what would happen if things don’t work out the way that you hope?

Let’s go down this road for a moment.  So, perhaps it’s a lot of time and effort that is lost, both by you and your staff. There could be a lot of precious wasted time that cannot be recovered. Perhaps there are a lot of people depending on you, so it’s your credibility and sense of authority that’s on the line.

And of course, there are other factors. Really, you know exactly what’s at stake. So you do your best to insulate yourself against these risks and dangers, performing assessments and identifying solutions in a preemptive fashion. That lessens the feeling that you are flying by the seat of your pants.

But it doesn’t take away the fact that things still happen down the road. Let’s say you are half way into a project, and many things occur that you were not able to anticipate in your initial analysis. Was the budget under estimated? Was the time line too optimistic? Oh well is the usual thought.  Keep going anyway, because we’re too deep into the project.

So in reality, the magnitude of the change effort is measured by the commitment involved on all levels, especially by those who call the shots in the system. The bigger the change effort, the bigger the commitment involved. And vice versa: if the commitment piece was easy, it would not be considered a “large” scale change of any sort.

So, let’s think about this differently.  Professor J. Gregory Dees states that the language of the challenge/opportunity can be re-framed not as a question of “whether” it will happen, but “How can it happen?”  That is, how can we manage the process to get from point A to Z?  What can we do along the way to ensure success?  How can we educate ourselves and others along the way so that we are as prepared as possible to meet the challenges down the road?

The more time and effort we spend in the “How can” category, the more we are able to understand the context and texture of the change, and therefore are able to commit to this effort.

That’s the funny thing about human nature: we can allow our minds to get stuck in the dichotomous either/or realm in the world of outcomes.  But when we begin to explore the process by which we plan to arrive in these outcomes, we tend to be better off. This is not always a frame of mind that is accessible for many of us, especially when we are highly accountable (or at least, feel highly accountable) to make certain outcomes happen.

Does that sound like your job?

How can we re-focus our attention to the process by which we arrive at an outcome, instead of believing the reality of the ancillary implications of “what if?”

the future: how to make sense of it?

Posted on by
Reply

What is obvious: we are in an age of great change, due to the rapid pace in which technology is shaping our lives.

What’s not so obvious: our ability to make sense of what is happening cannot keep up with the pace of this change.

What we know: the sense-making process requires some degree of stability in order for the story to take hold.  Paraphrasing Joseph Campbell: stories/myths have been created and were told over time because we have had ample opportunity to create some understanding of our environment.  For instance: indigenous cultures may observe the cold weather changing to warmer temperatures over time (over the course of a decade or longer) and would have stated that the work of some larger force was at hand- perhaps a deity.

There is very little observable logic that dictates how we live in today’s technological environment.  That rhyme/reason left when we began to interface with one another across distance, using electricity and other tools that were invented by man.  With it, left our ability to conclude with any degree of certainty about how to make sense of our environment that may be agreed upon by a whole group of people, much less a society.  The access to vast amounts of information shifts our constructs so quickly that it’s simply too difficult to land at any end point of any story.

It’s an interesting time for us.  I can’t help but ask: how are we to operate on a day-to-day level if the stories that make up the fabric of our lives are changing so quickly?  How are we to see into a future and work towards it, especially when the ground beneath us is shifting?

identity construction in the brave new world

Posted on by
Reply

These days, I am interested in exploring individual identity and authenticity in the workplace in the age of web 2.0 technology- specifically, how one will shape the other and vice versa.  Perhaps this topic was originally inspired by  post-modernist Foucault-influenced professors from my undergrad years, or more recently inspired by Lady Gaga and her ability to build a personal brand and stay true to it.  Either way, identity construction in the web 2.0 space is my mind a lot these days.

Workplaces functioning in an age of web 2.0 have a huge implication on individual identity and authenticity.  I call it the Brave New Workplace… and have some questions in my head to start off this topic:

- Rethinking org structure: orgs and their way of working (from the industrial era) is coming apart… the space of work no longer values the traditional structures of power (information hoarding).  What are the implications for individuals and organizations in this era of greater “engagement” and perhaps greater transparency in the workspace?  Will the workplace feel more democratized, or will hierarchies hold true?

- Historically, we have accepted a degree of in-authenticity at work. We have not been able to communicate, behave and act in alignment of our values, and have “hidden” pieces of ourselves that we perceive to be in congruent with the accepted/agreed-upon norms of the particular culture of the organization.  How can technology enable us allow us to be more of “ourselves,” or at least the parts of ourselves that we voluntarily reveal?

- With the advent of current and future technology, there is great potential to turn the workplace into one that is more reflective our best selves because as we begin and continue to act in alignment with our true selves.  The question is: are we ready to “go there?”

Readiness

Posted on by
Reply

What does “ready” look like?  This is a big concept.  I often think that true readiness not only stems from support from the above, but all around the table.  In the process of adopting a new means of doing something- whether it’s adopting a form of technology, or anything else that is new, different and unusual for what is current, normal and usual- one must consider what is working in favor and what is working against this new idea.

Here’s something we’re all grappling with these days.  Have you tried dipping your toes into the deep blue waters of web 2.0? Similarly, has your organization began to swim in the shallow end of this same pool?

Every org has varying degrees of “ready” when it comes to adopting new technology.  For instance, my organization recently explored utilizing Second Life as a means to deliver diversity training in “virtual” conference rooms and other clever solutions.

Let’s explore a few factors on what’s working in favor of and what’s working against this idea at my organization.

What’s working in favor of adopting Second Life as a L&D tool:

  • Some associates at the organization are already utilizing this technology in their off time = less learning curve for these folks.
  • A virtual environment holds potential to facilitate education delivery for different learning styles.  Perhaps the virtual environment may seem more engaging than a lecture or a live facilitated workshop to some.
  • Furthermore, it holds potential for a more robust influence for those with which a degree of anonymity/face-saving is factor.

What’s working against adopting Second Life as a L&D tool:

  • $$$.  Sometimes new technology  is extraordinarily cost-prohibitive for an organization like CHP, an entity that is funded by the state of New York and other sources that are in the throes of budget cuts due to the current economic environment.
  • While some people here are able to our work environment are ready, willing and able to learn in a virtual context, others are not prepared to do so.  So more than one learning curve exists for these individuals: comfort with a web interface for learning and comfort with Second Life as a platform.
  • Current IT systems may not support this platform at all.  I have noticed that my work computer, which runs Microsoft 2003 (not 2007), slows down in the late afternoon when everyone goes on the internet to surf.  Second Life, with its need for significant bandwidth and other resources, will be hindered by the technology we have right on our desks.

Readiness. That is the key.  It does not always lie with the decision-makers… it has to do with the people, processes and systems that are already in place.

on the use of language

Posted on by
Reply

Does language empower us, or/and does it limit us?  Are certain languages being used by those who have more power than others (in a relative sense)? And can we intentionally harness language as a form of technology?

I believe that language is a form of technology that we take for granted.  Much of our experience as human beings is largely defined by the words we utilize to operate on a daily basis.  To me, it’s a given that if we are limited in our vocabulary, it limits our experiences as well.   If I as a person do not have a facility for language that goes beyond survival, for example, then much of my vocabulary will be focused on that of resources, “lack,” etc.  Accordingly, I may operate in the world with these premises.

Throughout my career, I’ve noticed that the one thing that has allowed me to transcend many industries is the ability to learn the language of each sector very quickly.  I’ve worked in retail/fashion, finance, and now in health care.  More than that: different sub-groups within organizations have different ways of describing processes.  For example, the IT division will have different ways of describing how something works compared marketing division (for various reasons).

Much differentiated language exists in other planes as well.  For example, I’ve also operated as an independent small business owner, so I also understand the language (and therefore framework) for what it means to be fully responsible for an enterprise, and not just a piece of the pie that makes up the organization.  Suffice to say, language defines how we approach our work and how we take in information.

Language should not be taken in the traditional definition that we understand it.  This is not differentiating based on ethnic/national subdivisions.  We as a nation may speak English (more or less), but the reality is that our experiences are not the same.  Language is premised upon experience.  So what’s really going on is how context shapes language (and vice versa).

But I believe that it can be used intentionally, to create the experiences we want.  While we may be shaped (and perhaps limited) by the very words we use on an everyday basis, there has to be a way to leverage language as a tool to prescribe a new future for ourselves.

it’s complicated

Posted on by
Reply

In my current line of work, I help operationalize and integrate diversity practices, which include intangible concepts such as inclusion and respect, into the everyday work life of hospital administrators, doctors, nurses and support staff.  The ultimate goal is to help change the culture of each location such that it can better serve the patient population that it serves.

To say that this is a challenge is an understatement.  Because operations in just one hospital setting is rarely a linear or a straightforward thing, much less the five hospital sites that my organization oversees (seven, if you count each hospital individually).  There are many business units within each hospital setting, each with its own set of priorities and therefore a different way of managing processes.  Each department has its own way of doing things- for example, if we adopt a specific way in which diversity and core teachings are being actively integrated into the hiring practices of the neurology division, these process changes are not necessarily going to translate to the cardiology division.  And managing processes for hiring onto the administrative level definitely does not translate to the clinical level.

What I’m seeing is that even though something is being implemented from top-down (in this case, the heads of each hospital report to the COO and CFO at the corporate level), initiatives are not always incorporated as smoothly as one would assume under the top-down model.  There is a dynamic between administrative staff on the hospital level with the corporate level that can be, at best, described as complicated.

Perhaps we can say that diversity and its tenets of inclusion and respect are important, just based on idealism alone.  But this does not always get the level of attention or prioritization it may require.  This is when one of my professors say that what is the utmost importance that the authorizing sponsors are on board with an initiative.  Or perhaps we can look at this in an economic approach, look a this as a value-added concept, and try to appeal to how incorporating these practices can help the bottom line.

I guess it depends on the language that each of these departments and levels speak in.  So the reality of this is, integration of diversity practices will require a highly individualized regime for each group.  There are a whole host of issues to consider… how to get the person at the top of the division to be the authorizing sponsor?  How to get the people on the front line to integrate when it may be in contradiction to other priorities for the sub-group, like time efficiency?

The work is identifying not only the language, but in creating common ground through a common vocabulary.

Are you positioned for success?

Posted on by
Reply

It matters, you know.  And what positioning means is this: are your change initiatives supported by the powers-that-be?  Do they even know about it?

Let’s think small for a moment.  Perhaps what you are looking to do is really quite simple: getting a vending machine installed on your floor so that you don’t have to go outside to get a can of soda.

Who do you have to engage with in order to get buy-in into your idea?  Better yet, who can sponsor your idea?  Are the resources available to support this initiative?  If not, how do you think this objective can be accomplished?

Let’s think bigger.  What if you want to take a survey of your fellow employees to see what their satisfaction is with their work?  Well, you should be able to do that, right?

Not so fast.  What if you bring up this idea to your boss, and while he thinks it’s a good idea, his boss, that is the VP of Some Important Division, doesn’t think it’s the best use of time or resources.  What happens now?

Change does not come easily.  This is why positioning is so important.  Because in the end, you need the power of sponsors to come on board with this idea and support it 100%.  And sometimes that is difficult, from where you sit.  After all- you can see the subtle benefits of having a vending machine on your floor (people can get back to work faster), or the positive outcomes of an employee survey (maybe it can alert the management to some challenges that should be addressed), but in the end, if you have to champion ideas upward, it can become a long haul.

It’s not impossible, however.  You can also try to build a coalition of support around yourself.  Perhaps if you got a petition together to get people to sign for a vending machine.  Or perhaps you can convince others in your firm that an employee satisfaction survey would be just what you all need, and others can help champion up collectively.

Sounds easy?  Perhaps it is.  Assuming the politics at play are in your favor, and that you won’t suffer retribution for your suggestions.  Or, assuming your division is making so much money that it can, in fact, ask for what it wants (vending machine?? Sure!!  How about a new trading floor??  Why not?!).  But if things were this easy… no need to work so hard, right?

So the question is: where do we sit?  And how can we position ourselves to have the greatest impact with our ideas, if we wish to try?  Who will we need in our corner?  What other resources will be important?  And how can we get others to invest in our ideas?

The questions you may need to ask are bigger than you think.  Let’s say you’re trying to champion up to the top of your division, because you think this person wields the most control.  Just as an exercise, put yourself in her shoes: what is she worried about?  What would be in alignment with her strategy for the future direction of this division?  What are the biggest goals she wishes to accomplish this year?

And perhaps your idea might happen to be right in alignment with these goals: greater productivity from employees?  Well, maybe a vending machine might help address that.  Greater general work satisfaction to avoid pervasive absenteeism?  An employee survey might just be the thing to address these ideas.

But be ready if it’s not.  What I mean is: be ready if a vending machine or an employee survey is not the top priority, and else feels like throwing noodles at a brick wall.

And also, be ready if the top of your division does not call the shots, even though she may make it appear like it does.  This may never surface, as managers and senior managers in a deeply hierarchical organization will never say how little power they “really” have.  That would work work against the premise of having authority, would it not?

So how do you position your ideas?  Are you positioned for success?  Who’s going to go to bat for you?