Recent articles in New York Times and the McKinsley Quarterly make the case that not only is big data here to stay, it’s essential to driving your business success.
However, big data and analytics still don’t replace leadership and business acumen. I’m not suggesting that leaders ignore analytics and data. More than ever, leaders need to draw upon the insights generated by analytics or they and their organizations will quickly disappear. However, those insights need to be used to support the leader’s decision making, not replace it.
Analytics can tell you a lot about what has happened, what is happening, and increasingly, what is likely to happen. But, what analytics still can’t tell us is what SHOULD happen. That requires leadership.
For example, in another New York Times article, “How Companies Learn Your Secrets”, author Charles Duhigg explains how Target’s customer analytics has become so sophisticated that they can predict, with a high degree of accuracy, whether a woman is pregnant and even when she is due. The analytics can tell Target what products to market to expectant mothers, who to market to, and when.
However, analytics don’t tell you whether it’s always a good idea to send out those promotional materials. That requires common sense and judgment.
A Target manager found himself in a bit of hot water when he received an angry call from a father asking why Target was suggesting baby products to his teenaged daughter. It turns out that Target knew about his daughter’s pregnancy before he did. Yikes!
Another area that requires balance between leadership understanding and analytics is knowing what questions to ask in the first place. Analytics are only as good as the framing of the question they are intended to answer.
Clayton M. Christensen’s book, The Innovator’s Dilemma is filled with examples of companies that drove themselves to obsolescence by acting upon data about current needs while being blind to disruptive technologies that solved problems that current data didn’t address.
Finally, while analytics can tell you what opportunities exist, their potential return, and even their likelihood of success, they can’t tell you where you want to be in five years. Analytics won’t tell you if those opportunities are consistent with your mission and vision, integrated with your brand, or something you want to do. All of those questions require leadership and judgment.
The new reality of the business world is that big data is here to stay. However, big data doesn’t replace leadership. Questions of vision and strategy still require leaders to think, extrapolate, and make judgment calls. The winners will do so using data as a foundation to supplement their understanding. The losers will blindly follow the numbers without understanding the context or repercussions of what they are saying.
-------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
Real leadership is influencing that which you don’t control
Do your goals include outcomes that depend on people outside of your direct control? It’s no secret that there are a lot more inter-dependencies in today’s work environment than in the past. It’s hard to have any real impact without drawing upon people who you don’t formally lead.
Yet, more often than not, leaders frame their role, goals, and efforts around those things that fall directly in their span of control. While this might make things easier and more attainable, it also reduces impact. More importantly, it distorts the leader’s view of his or her effectiveness.
Many leaders measure their effectiveness based on their employees’ engagement or team productivity. It’s true that not everyone in a leadership position can manage their people effectively. But, using your team’s engagement and effectiveness sets the bar pretty low for assessing leadership effectiveness. After all, if you can’t engage and enable the people for whom you have control over job assignments, rewards, recognition, feedback, support, resources, and goals, then you probably shouldn’t be leading.
Alternatively, some leaders take pride in their ability to hit all of their goals. This could be a good measure of leadership. However, they often define those goals so narrowly that it’s almost impossible to miss. For example, a corporate quality team’s goals and accountability should be for the overall quality of an organization’s products and services. However, in one case that I saw, the team wasn’t willing to elevate their goal to that level. They argued that they didn’t control the people in the business units who actually had to use their processes, training, and tools (e.g., you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink). So they watered down the goal to something that was “attainable” – making training, tools, etc. available and of high quality. They hit their goal but had little impact. Delivering on goals that are entirely within your scope of control isn’t a measure of leadership effectiveness, it’s your job. If you believe that you can't get people to do things unless you "control" them, you may want to rethink your role as a leader.
As John Maxwell states, real leadership is about influence. The best test of influence isn’t how well you compel action from those who report to you. The real test is how well you influence those people for whom you have no direct control.
Chip and Dan Heath provide a compelling example of this type of leadership in their book, “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard”. The Heaths tell the story of Donald Berwick. Berwick was the CEO of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). In 2004 he saw a major problem in healthcare. One of the greatest health risks faced by patients in hospitals was being in the hospital. Medical error, infections, and inefficiencies were the fifth leading cause of death or injury in a hospital. On average, two hundred and sixty-eight people died each day as a result of medical error. That’s the equivalent of one jumbo jet crash, every day for a year. Berwick decided that this was unacceptable.
In 2004, in a speech before a conference of healthcare administrators, Berwick stated his goal of saving 100,000 lives in 18 months by improving safety, quality, and efficiency. But, here’s the catch. Berwick had no formal authority over any of those hospitals or administrators. He was not a regulator or government agency. They certainly didn’t report to him. He was just a guy with a staff of seventy-five people who knew that a change had to be made.
Berwick could easily have stated the challenge to the administrators but then confined his personal goals to those things that he and the Institute for Healthcare improvement could directly control such as developing white papers or training or gathering data and best practices. However, had he stopped there, most likely his impact and the outcome would have been quite small.
Instead Berwick stated the challenge and assumed responsibility for the goal. This forced him to change his focus and role as a leader. He still had to produce training and white papers and collect best practices. However, he also had to actively and constantly engage the administrators and find ways to motivate them and influence their actions. He met with them regularly. He brought them data. He showed them what others were doing. He went as far as introducing administrators to families who lost loved ones due to medical error. In other words, he focused his energy outside of his immediate span of control and had to rely on influence, communication, vision, and informal accountability.
Eighteen months later Berwick once again appeared before the group to report the result. Based on their calculations, the hospitals that participated in his “100,000 Lives” campaign prevented approximately 122,000 deaths.
Think about the difference in Berwick’s impact between defining his world in terms of what was in his direct control versus including that which wasn’t.
Leadership in an interdependent world is quite different from leadership in a discrete world. If you define your role and goals only around what you can directly control, you probably won’t see much impact. Leadership isn’t only about what you do with the resources you control. It’s increasingly about how you influence those you don’t. Set your goals around real change and real impact. Then, figure out how to rally, support, and enable the people who you don’t control.
---------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Yet, more often than not, leaders frame their role, goals, and efforts around those things that fall directly in their span of control. While this might make things easier and more attainable, it also reduces impact. More importantly, it distorts the leader’s view of his or her effectiveness.
Many leaders measure their effectiveness based on their employees’ engagement or team productivity. It’s true that not everyone in a leadership position can manage their people effectively. But, using your team’s engagement and effectiveness sets the bar pretty low for assessing leadership effectiveness. After all, if you can’t engage and enable the people for whom you have control over job assignments, rewards, recognition, feedback, support, resources, and goals, then you probably shouldn’t be leading.
Alternatively, some leaders take pride in their ability to hit all of their goals. This could be a good measure of leadership. However, they often define those goals so narrowly that it’s almost impossible to miss. For example, a corporate quality team’s goals and accountability should be for the overall quality of an organization’s products and services. However, in one case that I saw, the team wasn’t willing to elevate their goal to that level. They argued that they didn’t control the people in the business units who actually had to use their processes, training, and tools (e.g., you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink). So they watered down the goal to something that was “attainable” – making training, tools, etc. available and of high quality. They hit their goal but had little impact. Delivering on goals that are entirely within your scope of control isn’t a measure of leadership effectiveness, it’s your job. If you believe that you can't get people to do things unless you "control" them, you may want to rethink your role as a leader.
As John Maxwell states, real leadership is about influence. The best test of influence isn’t how well you compel action from those who report to you. The real test is how well you influence those people for whom you have no direct control.
Chip and Dan Heath provide a compelling example of this type of leadership in their book, “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard”. The Heaths tell the story of Donald Berwick. Berwick was the CEO of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). In 2004 he saw a major problem in healthcare. One of the greatest health risks faced by patients in hospitals was being in the hospital. Medical error, infections, and inefficiencies were the fifth leading cause of death or injury in a hospital. On average, two hundred and sixty-eight people died each day as a result of medical error. That’s the equivalent of one jumbo jet crash, every day for a year. Berwick decided that this was unacceptable.
In 2004, in a speech before a conference of healthcare administrators, Berwick stated his goal of saving 100,000 lives in 18 months by improving safety, quality, and efficiency. But, here’s the catch. Berwick had no formal authority over any of those hospitals or administrators. He was not a regulator or government agency. They certainly didn’t report to him. He was just a guy with a staff of seventy-five people who knew that a change had to be made.
Berwick could easily have stated the challenge to the administrators but then confined his personal goals to those things that he and the Institute for Healthcare improvement could directly control such as developing white papers or training or gathering data and best practices. However, had he stopped there, most likely his impact and the outcome would have been quite small.
Instead Berwick stated the challenge and assumed responsibility for the goal. This forced him to change his focus and role as a leader. He still had to produce training and white papers and collect best practices. However, he also had to actively and constantly engage the administrators and find ways to motivate them and influence their actions. He met with them regularly. He brought them data. He showed them what others were doing. He went as far as introducing administrators to families who lost loved ones due to medical error. In other words, he focused his energy outside of his immediate span of control and had to rely on influence, communication, vision, and informal accountability.
Eighteen months later Berwick once again appeared before the group to report the result. Based on their calculations, the hospitals that participated in his “100,000 Lives” campaign prevented approximately 122,000 deaths.
Think about the difference in Berwick’s impact between defining his world in terms of what was in his direct control versus including that which wasn’t.
Leadership in an interdependent world is quite different from leadership in a discrete world. If you define your role and goals only around what you can directly control, you probably won’t see much impact. Leadership isn’t only about what you do with the resources you control. It’s increasingly about how you influence those you don’t. Set your goals around real change and real impact. Then, figure out how to rally, support, and enable the people who you don’t control.
---------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Monday, January 30, 2012
The Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon Cooper on the importance of context
In the Big Bang Theory episode, “The Herb Garden Germination”, Sheldon Cooper, the brilliant yet socially awkward physicist greets his roommate Leonard who has just arrived home with dinner:
Yet context is often the first casualty in a world of information overload, tight deadlines, and hectic schedules.
Ironically, most of the time that saved by skipping over the “background” more than gets made up for in rework, confusion, slow decisions, and poor productivity.
It’s not that people won’t do their job without context; they can’t. It’s that simple.
Are you providing enough context to your people? Make these simple changes and you should see your people’s performance increase:
-----------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Leonard: HeySheldon’s simple, off-handed observation provides an important leadership lesson. Context matters. Words, ideas, facts and data have little meaning without proper context.
Sheldon: Hey
Leonard: Hope you’re hungry.
Sheldon: Interesting. A friendly sentiment in this country, cruel taunt in the Sudan. It’s a lesson in context.
Yet context is often the first casualty in a world of information overload, tight deadlines, and hectic schedules.
Ironically, most of the time that saved by skipping over the “background” more than gets made up for in rework, confusion, slow decisions, and poor productivity.
It’s not that people won’t do their job without context; they can’t. It’s that simple.
Are you providing enough context to your people? Make these simple changes and you should see your people’s performance increase:
- When making a request for information, explain how you intend to use that information.
- When passing information along, don’t just say, “FYI”. Explain why you are providing the information and what you’d like them to do with it.
- When asking someone to attend a meeting, explain their role in the meeting and what knowledge and experience you’d like them to bring.
- When giving out to-dos and tasks, remind people of the outcomes toward which they are working.
- When stating a decision, draw a connection to your business strategy and goals.
-----------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Story versus Storytelling
I often recommend to leaders that their presentations or other communications tell a story. I sometimes get some strange looks and reactions: “I’m just reporting quarterly sales, are you saying that I need to tell a story about how one of our customers bought the products?” or “My boss doesn’t have time for stories, he just wants me to get to the point.”
Such comments demonstrate the confusion between “story”, which is the manner in which a message is structured and “storytelling” which is a form of communication.
Over the past twenty years or so, storytelling has become a staple in leadership communication training. There are many books on how effective leaders use stories to motivate their workforce or create a vision.
Storytelling is about weaving a compelling narrative full of descriptions, details, emotions, and reflections. It can be an effective and useful communication tool. But as with any tool, there are times for which it is best suited and times for which it might not work.
Story, on the other hand, is important regardless of the style of communication you are using. It’s not about what you communicate; it’s about how you communicate.
Story means having a structured, connected, and logical flow to whatever is being communicated. Having a coherent story in your message improves its clarity and impact.
That may sound obvious, but many presentations or reports don’t have that clear simple structure. They simply provide a series of successive facts (e.g., data on performance, lists of key initiatives, strategies, organizational, structures, etc.). While the facts might be related topically, they often aren’t linked conceptually. For example, one slide might be key initiatives followed by quarterly sales, then quarterly expenses. This is just information. There is no story. You aren’t helping the audience see how sales, expenses, and initiatives relate. Nothing would be lost of those three slides were reversed because there is no connection between them.
In a presentation that has a story, the slides are conceptually related. Each slide is a continuation or an elaboration on the prior slide. Or, a new slide might be the conclusion drawn from the prior slide(s).
This isn't about just having an advanced organizer and then a subsequent slide for each of the bullets. That’s still just information. Thinking through how those points interact with, support, and create meaning from one another and making that link clear to your audience is what story is about.
A story-based approach to the sales/expense data might look like this:
Slide 1:
Title: Prior to last quarter, we were experiencing major declines in sales.
Contents: Historical sales data
Slide 2:
Title: Historically, we’ve had great success with direct marketing
Contents: Relationship between direct marketing and sales
Slide 3:
Title: Therefore, we implemented the following initiatives around direct marketing
Content: Initiatives
Slide 4:
Title: To support these initiatives, we had to put more money into personnel costs
Content: Personnel-related expenses showing differences between prior quarters
Slide 5:
Title: This extra investment paid off, however, as we saw a spike in sales
Content: Sales data
You don’t have to put the story text slide's title (although it is a good way to see whether you have a coherent story and flow) but you do need to communicate it. In fact, in most cases, the story is more important than the specific data. Remember data should support the story of how you are running your business, it shouldn't be the story.
Sometimes a presenter has the story in his or her head but doesn’t communicate it. This shifts the burden of creating or finding meaning to the audience. It also increases the likelihood that they might miss your point.
More often than not that story doesn't exist. The slides are just arranged in some topical fashion. The presenter simply drains the facts from each and moves on to the next point. This leaves the audience wondering why the information was being presented in the first place.
Look through your most recent presentation. Is there a clear flow between your slides? Does one logically lead to the next? Here is simple test to see if you have an underlying “story” in your presentation. Re-order the slides (or talking points, if you aren’t using slides) from the body of the presentation. If the presentation still makes sense and does not lose any meaning, you are probably just reporting facts.
You don’t have to tell stories to have a “story” in your communication. But you do need to help your audience clearly see the idea that you are laying out.
-------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com
Such comments demonstrate the confusion between “story”, which is the manner in which a message is structured and “storytelling” which is a form of communication.
Over the past twenty years or so, storytelling has become a staple in leadership communication training. There are many books on how effective leaders use stories to motivate their workforce or create a vision.
Storytelling is about weaving a compelling narrative full of descriptions, details, emotions, and reflections. It can be an effective and useful communication tool. But as with any tool, there are times for which it is best suited and times for which it might not work.
Story, on the other hand, is important regardless of the style of communication you are using. It’s not about what you communicate; it’s about how you communicate.
Story means having a structured, connected, and logical flow to whatever is being communicated. Having a coherent story in your message improves its clarity and impact.
That may sound obvious, but many presentations or reports don’t have that clear simple structure. They simply provide a series of successive facts (e.g., data on performance, lists of key initiatives, strategies, organizational, structures, etc.). While the facts might be related topically, they often aren’t linked conceptually. For example, one slide might be key initiatives followed by quarterly sales, then quarterly expenses. This is just information. There is no story. You aren’t helping the audience see how sales, expenses, and initiatives relate. Nothing would be lost of those three slides were reversed because there is no connection between them.
In a presentation that has a story, the slides are conceptually related. Each slide is a continuation or an elaboration on the prior slide. Or, a new slide might be the conclusion drawn from the prior slide(s).
This isn't about just having an advanced organizer and then a subsequent slide for each of the bullets. That’s still just information. Thinking through how those points interact with, support, and create meaning from one another and making that link clear to your audience is what story is about.
A story-based approach to the sales/expense data might look like this:
Slide 1:
Title: Prior to last quarter, we were experiencing major declines in sales.
Contents: Historical sales data
Slide 2:
Title: Historically, we’ve had great success with direct marketing
Contents: Relationship between direct marketing and sales
Slide 3:
Title: Therefore, we implemented the following initiatives around direct marketing
Content: Initiatives
Slide 4:
Title: To support these initiatives, we had to put more money into personnel costs
Content: Personnel-related expenses showing differences between prior quarters
Slide 5:
Title: This extra investment paid off, however, as we saw a spike in sales
Content: Sales data
You don’t have to put the story text slide's title (although it is a good way to see whether you have a coherent story and flow) but you do need to communicate it. In fact, in most cases, the story is more important than the specific data. Remember data should support the story of how you are running your business, it shouldn't be the story.
Sometimes a presenter has the story in his or her head but doesn’t communicate it. This shifts the burden of creating or finding meaning to the audience. It also increases the likelihood that they might miss your point.
More often than not that story doesn't exist. The slides are just arranged in some topical fashion. The presenter simply drains the facts from each and moves on to the next point. This leaves the audience wondering why the information was being presented in the first place.
Look through your most recent presentation. Is there a clear flow between your slides? Does one logically lead to the next? Here is simple test to see if you have an underlying “story” in your presentation. Re-order the slides (or talking points, if you aren’t using slides) from the body of the presentation. If the presentation still makes sense and does not lose any meaning, you are probably just reporting facts.
You don’t have to tell stories to have a “story” in your communication. But you do need to help your audience clearly see the idea that you are laying out.
-------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Learning from our teenagers
With the election primaries upon us, we hear are hearing a lot about the youth vote and how to appeal to it. Sometimes we may question what our young people are thinking. However, if you listen closely, there is a lot of wisdom in their simple, straight-forward response to you and to life. This entry is a re-posting from several years ago. Listen to your kids - you'll certainly become a better parent. But, they might also help you become a better leader.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that we were supposed to have learned everything we needed to know in Kindergarten. It's hard to argue with sharing, saying "thank you" and playing nice.
However, from a leadership point of view, I think we need to look a little farther down the road. I know teenagers may seem like an unlikely source of business wisdom. However, if you pay attention, their messages are right on. More importantly, they are simple and to the point:
• So what?
• Yeah Mom, I’ll do it later
• No way—I’m not doing that!
• Are we there yet?
• How will I ever use this when I grow up?
• You just don’t know what it’s like for kids today
• Is that it?
Try to bring a little more of that "inner" teenager to work with you. Just leave the iPod at home.
So what?
Great leaders create meaning and purpose for their people. Don't just bark out orders. Help people understand the big picture. People will rally around purpose more than they will a task.
Yeah Mom, I'll do it later
You can’t do everything. Some things matter more than others. Keep the 80/20 rule in mind. Eighty percent of the value you create comes from twenty percent of your effort. Prioritize your work to ensure that you are doing the most important things for yourself and for your organization. Put off those things that are not critical to the organization’s success.
No way - I'm not doing that
Learn to say 'no' and mean it. Protect your time, and more importantly, your team's time. Keep the administrative and busy work to a minimum if you can't eliminate it entirely.
Are we there yet?
Teenagers don’t care about the plane trip, they just want to get to the beach. Your boss and customers are similar. They don’t care about all the stuff you “do”, it is what you accomplish that gets noticed. Stay focused on results--don't just get caught up in activity.
How will I ever use this when I grow up?
Your people's time is valuable. It might be nice for them to learn your company's history during orientation, but it probably won’t help them do their job better. Understand what is keeping your people from performing and focus on that. Keep the "interesting" stuff to a minimum and make it available off-line--if they want to read it.
You don't know what it’s like for kids today
What motivates you might not motivate others. Their goals are probably not the same as yours. Treat each person as individual. Talk to your people directly. Don't rely on your managers and supervisors to give you the scoop. And, don't let the employee survey be your main source of input from your team. Get to know them yourself. The same holds true for your customers.
Is that it?
Your kids want complete solutions. They want the latest smart phone, the apps, the downloads, the leather carrying case, the skins, and the rapid-charger. Give them just one and they'll look at you like your nuts. Your business needs complete solutions too. If a problem is worth solving, it’s worth solving completely. Don’t cut corners or skimp. It is better to have one problem fully solved than five problems partially solved. The partial solutions often breed new problems of their own.
Following the wisdom of a teenager can greatly improve your communication, team effectiveness, and overall impact. Of course, there are probably a few things that your teenagers can learn from you too.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that we were supposed to have learned everything we needed to know in Kindergarten. It's hard to argue with sharing, saying "thank you" and playing nice.
However, from a leadership point of view, I think we need to look a little farther down the road. I know teenagers may seem like an unlikely source of business wisdom. However, if you pay attention, their messages are right on. More importantly, they are simple and to the point:
• So what?
• Yeah Mom, I’ll do it later
• No way—I’m not doing that!
• Are we there yet?
• How will I ever use this when I grow up?
• You just don’t know what it’s like for kids today
• Is that it?
Try to bring a little more of that "inner" teenager to work with you. Just leave the iPod at home.
So what?
Great leaders create meaning and purpose for their people. Don't just bark out orders. Help people understand the big picture. People will rally around purpose more than they will a task.
Yeah Mom, I'll do it later
You can’t do everything. Some things matter more than others. Keep the 80/20 rule in mind. Eighty percent of the value you create comes from twenty percent of your effort. Prioritize your work to ensure that you are doing the most important things for yourself and for your organization. Put off those things that are not critical to the organization’s success.
No way - I'm not doing that
Learn to say 'no' and mean it. Protect your time, and more importantly, your team's time. Keep the administrative and busy work to a minimum if you can't eliminate it entirely.
Are we there yet?
Teenagers don’t care about the plane trip, they just want to get to the beach. Your boss and customers are similar. They don’t care about all the stuff you “do”, it is what you accomplish that gets noticed. Stay focused on results--don't just get caught up in activity.
How will I ever use this when I grow up?
Your people's time is valuable. It might be nice for them to learn your company's history during orientation, but it probably won’t help them do their job better. Understand what is keeping your people from performing and focus on that. Keep the "interesting" stuff to a minimum and make it available off-line--if they want to read it.
You don't know what it’s like for kids today
What motivates you might not motivate others. Their goals are probably not the same as yours. Treat each person as individual. Talk to your people directly. Don't rely on your managers and supervisors to give you the scoop. And, don't let the employee survey be your main source of input from your team. Get to know them yourself. The same holds true for your customers.
Is that it?
Your kids want complete solutions. They want the latest smart phone, the apps, the downloads, the leather carrying case, the skins, and the rapid-charger. Give them just one and they'll look at you like your nuts. Your business needs complete solutions too. If a problem is worth solving, it’s worth solving completely. Don’t cut corners or skimp. It is better to have one problem fully solved than five problems partially solved. The partial solutions often breed new problems of their own.
Following the wisdom of a teenager can greatly improve your communication, team effectiveness, and overall impact. Of course, there are probably a few things that your teenagers can learn from you too.
Monday, January 2, 2012
The power of close-ended questions. Sometimes they are ok.
At some point, in the spirit of collaboration and dialog, leaders were taught that open-ended questions are more effective than close-ended questions. In many instances that is true. Open-ended questions promote dialog and discussion. But, as with any rule, it is important to understand the context and assumptions underlying the rule. Otherwise it is easy to fall into the trap of applying the rule at the wrong time (e.g., “My boss ordered new computers for Joe and I”). I often see leaders rephrase a close-ended question. When I ask why they switched they tell me that good leaders are supposed to ask open-ended questions.
Open-ended questions are more effective if your goal is to understand a process, However, if your goal is to understand an outcome, close-ended questions are far more efficient.
For example, a leader was trying to understand how well a direct mail campaign was working. She asked her people a series of open-ended questions. How were they approaching the campaign? What was working? What areas needed improvement? After thirty minutes she had a very clear understanding of their process. She still didn’t know whether the direct marketing campaign was affecting sales. That required a direct, close-ended question.
Another leader wanted to know if his managers were effective leaders. He asked the manager’s direct reports to describe the manager’s behaviors and actions. As with the other leader, he developed a great understanding of the activities taking place but received no insight on the results of those activities.
Don’t be afraid of close-ended questions when you have a specific, discrete question that you need answered.
Rules of thumb, in any context, can be helpful as long as you understand the context and assumptions underlying those rules. Sometimes a close-ended question is best while other times an open-ended question is needed. Be sure to have multiple tools in your toolbox and learn to use them appropriately.
--------------------------------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Open-ended questions are more effective if your goal is to understand a process, However, if your goal is to understand an outcome, close-ended questions are far more efficient.
For example, a leader was trying to understand how well a direct mail campaign was working. She asked her people a series of open-ended questions. How were they approaching the campaign? What was working? What areas needed improvement? After thirty minutes she had a very clear understanding of their process. She still didn’t know whether the direct marketing campaign was affecting sales. That required a direct, close-ended question.
Another leader wanted to know if his managers were effective leaders. He asked the manager’s direct reports to describe the manager’s behaviors and actions. As with the other leader, he developed a great understanding of the activities taking place but received no insight on the results of those activities.
Don’t be afraid of close-ended questions when you have a specific, discrete question that you need answered.
Rules of thumb, in any context, can be helpful as long as you understand the context and assumptions underlying those rules. Sometimes a close-ended question is best while other times an open-ended question is needed. Be sure to have multiple tools in your toolbox and learn to use them appropriately.
--------------------------------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Accuracy versus precision
“You’re on the bus and running a little late for work. In your hurry, you forgot your watch and your cell phone is at the bottom of your briefcase, so you ask the woman next to you what time it is. She glances at her watch, which reads 8:33:46, and replies ‘Eight-thirty.’
Did she lie? Why didn’t she say, ‘Eight thirty-three and forty-six seconds A.M.?’ ”
- How Many Licks?: Or, How to Estimate Damn Near Anything
by Aaron Santos.
by Aaron Santos.
Santos’ scenario is a great example of the difference between accuracy and precision. The woman gave an accurate yet imprecise answer. But why do that? She had the more precise data yet she chose not to use it.
The woman would probably determine that you didn’t need that level of precision. Knowing the exact minute or second wasn’t going to change anything. Santos also suggests that she realized that by the time she gave you the more precise answer, it no longer would have been correct. So, she chose a response that provided the best answer to your question based on her assessment of your need.
Often we think of accuracy and precision together. In reality they are quite different attributes of data. They should be treated that way.
Accuracy is the degree to which your data reflect reality. Saying that the time is eight-thirty was accurate. Saying eight o’clock or nine o’clock would be less accurate.
Precision is the level of granularity to which the data are reported. Eight thirty-three is more precise than eight-thirty because it is reporting down to the minute (as opposed to five-minute intervals). Eight thirty-three and forty-six seconds is even more precise.
Accuracy and precision are separate issues. Greater precision does not guarantee greater accuracy. For example, if the woman forgot to adjust her watch for Daylight Savings Time, her statement of eight thirty-three and forty-six seconds would still be precise yet it would be very inaccurate.
Confusing precision with accuracy can be dangerous, yet many leaders fall into this trap. Of course, it’s usually more subtle than a time change. For example, if you asked two people for a report on your quarterly sales and one came back with $150,000 and the other came back with $132,431.53 who would you be more likely to believe? Many people would believe the second person. Our brains tend to have an unwarranted bias toward specificity.
So which is more important - accuracy or precision? Both are important but in different ways. Accuracy is an absolute requirement. You should not be using data that do not reflect reality.
Precision is a bit more complicated. Greater precision isn’t always better. In fact, greater precision can create problems.
Your data should only be as precise as your decision-making. In other words, if changes at the smallest increment in the data don’t change your decision or actions, you don’t need that level of precision. For example, consider the earlier example of the woman on the bus. Changes to the individual minute or second aren’t going to change the man’s behavior. However, suppose that the two weren’t on the bus but were waiting at the bus stop. In that case, knowing the time to the exact minute is more important as that could be the difference between catching the bus and missing the bus.
I often encounter reports whose data are too precise. For many of the decisions that leaders have to make, changes in the tens, ones, tenths, or hundredths place don’t make a difference. That’s not to say that such a level of precision is bad. It just depends on context. For an engineer, a scientist, or a surgeon, changes at those levels (or even smaller changes) can have catastrophic results. There is no arbitrary cut-off point at which there is too much precision, it is solely dependent on the types of decisions being made. The right level of precision is the one that informs actions. Too much can cause over-reactions, too little can cause missed opportunities. Of the two ends of the continuum, having too much precision is a more common problem.
Too much precision creates distractions. As measurements become more precise, they become more sensitive to change. The hundredths place is more sensitive than the tenths place, which is more sensitive than the numbers to the left of the decimal point. When numbers change, we have a natural tendency to want to understand the cause of the change. I once spent forty-five minutes with a group of leaders who were trying to explain a .07 change in one of the questions on an employee satisfaction survey. In the end, the discussion was pointless as the change itself didn’t matter and therefore didn’t require any new or different action. Despite that, the team still felt a need to explain the change.
Misaligned levels of precision can cause you to spend a lot of time trying to make sense of changes that don’t matter. That slows down and possible hinders decision-making.
Take a look at your data. Is it accurate in the sense that it truly answers your question? Or, have you possibly fallen into the trap of using highly precise measures that may not actually reflect what is going on. Then, look at the level of precision. Will you alter your decision or actions if the last digit changes? If not, you may want to think about decreasing the level of precision at which you are reporting.
------------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Your brain isn’t designed to be analytical
Analytics and data-driven decision making have become major areas of focus for many leaders. In response, leaders are asking for more data and more tools to analyze the data. Yet, despite the increased attention and increased data, decisions don’t always improve.
Data and analytical tools are important. However, they aren’t enough on their own. They aren’t even the most important part of leading with data. Roger Martin, Dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, summarized the issue in his March, 2011 HBR editorial, “Don’t Get Blinded by the Numbers”
The problem is that our brains aren’t designed to be analytical. That may surprise some people. After all, the brain is often characterized as a sophisticated computer, more powerful than any currently available technology. That part is true - the brain is a phenomenal information processor. But, that’s not the same as being an analytical engine. In fact, in many ways the brain has developed shortcuts to avoid expending a lot of resources on analytics.
To understand this, it is important to remember how and when our “modern” brain developed. The last significant change to the brain and its function occurred about 40,000 years ago. Life was a bit different then. People weren’t trying to make sense of click-through rates or customer ‘experience’ metrics. They certainly weren’t occupied with operating profit, net present value, or shareholder value calculations. Things were much more simple. The brain’s primary focus was to foster survival. Ironically, that still is the focus, but our brains haven’t adapted to differentiate their response to physical threats versus non-physical threats such as your boss, your competitors, or barriers to your business performance.
To keep its owner alive 40,000 ago, the brain got pretty good at recognizing patterns. It also got good at ignoring peripheral stuff in an attempt to stay focused on the important stuff. After all, the amount of data we receive every minute of every day is too overwhelming to process consciously. Therefore, our brains take over the heavy lifting. The brain constantly monitors the environment making you conscious of those things that need your attention while managing the rest behind the scenes.
Forty thousand years ago, this worked pretty well. If you saw your buddy get eaten by a big furry animal, your brain would start to overemphasize big furry animals when determining what to bring to your attention. If that tragic event happened within a week or two, your brain would be especially attuned to it.
However, in our current business environment, the threats are quite different. New threats surface all of the time. Overemphasizing past or highly visible events might not help you navigate the future. As I mentioned in my last post, often what we expect to see, based on past experience or bias, influences the way that we view and interpret data.
For example, when our star performers have less than stellar performance, we don’t always re-adjust our opinion of them. Rather, we tend to find excuses for their failures that enable us to continue to view them as stars. Their colleges on the other end of the spectrum, those we believe to be bad performers, receive the opposite treatment. Their contributions are often downplayed in order to support our contention that they are poor performers.
In his book, The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge referred to this as the “Ladder of Inference”. The lowest rung on the ladder is observable data. All of the other rungs have to do with the distortions created by your brain in its attempts to make sense of that data. Often, the higher we get on the ladder, our conclusions become further removed from reality.
The bad news is that there is not a lot you can do individually to combat these problems. The good news is that there is a solution. Finding meaning in data should be a collaborative effort. The more eyes, and therefore, experiences, that you put on the data, the more likely you are to get to its real meaning.
Your brain is a miraculous tool for processing information. But, like any tool, when used for an application for which it wasn’t designed, it doesn’t always perform in an optimal manner.
-------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Data and analytical tools are important. However, they aren’t enough on their own. They aren’t even the most important part of leading with data. Roger Martin, Dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, summarized the issue in his March, 2011 HBR editorial, “Don’t Get Blinded by the Numbers”
“The huge amount of data...encouraged nearly everyone to believe that a firm’s success was driven by the quantity of its data and the ability to model them…Martin’s comment reminds us that it’s not just about the numbers. In fact, often leaders have the right data, they just don’t interpret them correctly.
…More and more we’re coming to see that strategy is as much about interpreting as it is about analyzing.”
The problem is that our brains aren’t designed to be analytical. That may surprise some people. After all, the brain is often characterized as a sophisticated computer, more powerful than any currently available technology. That part is true - the brain is a phenomenal information processor. But, that’s not the same as being an analytical engine. In fact, in many ways the brain has developed shortcuts to avoid expending a lot of resources on analytics.
To understand this, it is important to remember how and when our “modern” brain developed. The last significant change to the brain and its function occurred about 40,000 years ago. Life was a bit different then. People weren’t trying to make sense of click-through rates or customer ‘experience’ metrics. They certainly weren’t occupied with operating profit, net present value, or shareholder value calculations. Things were much more simple. The brain’s primary focus was to foster survival. Ironically, that still is the focus, but our brains haven’t adapted to differentiate their response to physical threats versus non-physical threats such as your boss, your competitors, or barriers to your business performance.
To keep its owner alive 40,000 ago, the brain got pretty good at recognizing patterns. It also got good at ignoring peripheral stuff in an attempt to stay focused on the important stuff. After all, the amount of data we receive every minute of every day is too overwhelming to process consciously. Therefore, our brains take over the heavy lifting. The brain constantly monitors the environment making you conscious of those things that need your attention while managing the rest behind the scenes.
Forty thousand years ago, this worked pretty well. If you saw your buddy get eaten by a big furry animal, your brain would start to overemphasize big furry animals when determining what to bring to your attention. If that tragic event happened within a week or two, your brain would be especially attuned to it.
However, in our current business environment, the threats are quite different. New threats surface all of the time. Overemphasizing past or highly visible events might not help you navigate the future. As I mentioned in my last post, often what we expect to see, based on past experience or bias, influences the way that we view and interpret data.
For example, when our star performers have less than stellar performance, we don’t always re-adjust our opinion of them. Rather, we tend to find excuses for their failures that enable us to continue to view them as stars. Their colleges on the other end of the spectrum, those we believe to be bad performers, receive the opposite treatment. Their contributions are often downplayed in order to support our contention that they are poor performers.
In his book, The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge referred to this as the “Ladder of Inference”. The lowest rung on the ladder is observable data. All of the other rungs have to do with the distortions created by your brain in its attempts to make sense of that data. Often, the higher we get on the ladder, our conclusions become further removed from reality.
The bad news is that there is not a lot you can do individually to combat these problems. The good news is that there is a solution. Finding meaning in data should be a collaborative effort. The more eyes, and therefore, experiences, that you put on the data, the more likely you are to get to its real meaning.
Your brain is a miraculous tool for processing information. But, like any tool, when used for an application for which it wasn’t designed, it doesn’t always perform in an optimal manner.
-------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Friday, December 9, 2011
The Twelve Days of (Leadership) Christmas
Back by popular demand...and, it really does fit into the tune of the original song!
And, the 11/28 USA Today reported that the price of the actual gifts for the twelve days of Christmas are up 4.4% to $101,119 based on the annual Christmas Price Index compiled by PNC Wealth Management.
The list below is still free so take advantage of it!
----------------------------
On the first day of Christmas my leader gave to me
expectations stated clearly
On the second day of Christmas my leader gave to me
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the third day of Christmas my leader gave to me
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the fourth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the fifth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the sixth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the seventh day of Christmas my leader gave to me
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the eighth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
eight new ideas
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the ninth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
nine fewer meetings
eight new ideas
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the tenth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
ten minutes daily
nine fewer meetings
eight new ideas
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the eleventh day of Christmas my leader gave to me
eleven introductions
ten minutes daily
nine fewer meetings
eight new ideas
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the twelfth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
twelve monthly “sit-downs”
eleven introductions
ten minutes daily
nine fewer meetings
eight new ideas
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
And, unlike the real gifts in the twelve days of Christmas gifts, most of these are free!!!
Happy Holidays.
And, the 11/28 USA Today reported that the price of the actual gifts for the twelve days of Christmas are up 4.4% to $101,119 based on the annual Christmas Price Index compiled by PNC Wealth Management.
The list below is still free so take advantage of it!
----------------------------
On the first day of Christmas my leader gave to me
expectations stated clearly
On the second day of Christmas my leader gave to me
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the third day of Christmas my leader gave to me
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the fourth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the fifth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the sixth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the seventh day of Christmas my leader gave to me
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the eighth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
eight new ideas
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the ninth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
nine fewer meetings
eight new ideas
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the tenth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
ten minutes daily
nine fewer meetings
eight new ideas
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the eleventh day of Christmas my leader gave to me
eleven introductions
ten minutes daily
nine fewer meetings
eight new ideas
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
On the twelfth day of Christmas my leader gave to me
twelve monthly “sit-downs”
eleven introductions
ten minutes daily
nine fewer meetings
eight new ideas
seven bits of feedback
six focused outcomes
five books to read
four encouraging words
three stretch goals
two engaging tasks
and expectations stated clearly
And, unlike the real gifts in the twelve days of Christmas gifts, most of these are free!!!
Happy Holidays.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Believing is seeing
You might be thinking that I got the title backward. Isn’t the old expression “seeing is believing”? Maybe so, but it’s not accurate. The reality is that very often our experience and expectations have a greater impact on how we view information than the other way around.
For example, which lottery ticket has a greater chance of
winning?
2, 5,16,18, 27, 36
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Statistically, both have the same chance as every number
has an equal probability of being chosen.
Was that a surprise? For some it
might have been; others already knew the answer. But let’s take it one step
further. Suppose that I was holding each ticket and told you that you could
only take one. Which would you choose?
Most people when asked this question take the first ticket. Even those who
come into the exercise with an understanding of the statistics tend to make
that choice.
People tell me that they’ve never seen the numbers
1,2,3,4,5,6 before (or any consecutive set of winning numbers). Despite knowing the statistical answer, the
fact that we haven’t experienced a consecutive number causes to reshape our
view of the data and conclude that it is less likely. As it turns out, no one has ever seen 2, 5,
16, 18, 27, or 36 before either but that’s not as obvious so we discard that
fact when thinking through the issue.
Believing is seeing - what we have seen or expect to see changes what and
how we perceive the information in front of us.
Las Vegas exploits this phenomenon to lull gamblers into a
false sense of security. The electronic display
next to a roulette table shows the numbers that have been spun recently. As with the lottery, every number on a
roulette wheel has an equal chance of winning.
Each spin is independent. If the
number five comes up six times in a row it still has the same chance of coming
up on the seventh spin as does any other number. But our brains trick us – when was the last
time you saw the same number come up seven times in a row? The casinos make us think they are helping us
by providing all of this extra data. In
reality, they are exploiting the fact that believing is seeing. The data isn’t helping the gambler make a
better bet, it’s causing him or her to make a higher bet by (falsely) increasing
the gambler’s sense of confidence.
Another classic example of the believing is seeing
phenomenon is Roger Shephard’s table illusion.
Look at the two tables in the picture.
Measure the length and width of each one. They are the same. Yet, even after you verify this you still
won’t be able to make yourself see them as the same. The image hitting your retina and registering
in your brain (e.g., the data) is of two equally sized parallelograms. However,
you don’t see with your eyes. You only
take in data with them. Your brain combines
that visual data with your past experience to create the image that you “see”. Everyone has experienced perspective. Things in the distance look smaller than
things that are closer. When you look at the Shephard illusion, your brain is
trying to reconcile the data and experience.
And, as is often the case, it is allowing your experience literally to shape
your view of reality – believing is seeing.
Finally, in his book “How we decide”, Jonah Lehrer
describes how this phenomenon resulted in a group of rats outperforming a group
of Yale students in an experiment.
In the experiment, researchers randomly placed food on one
side of a T-shaped maze. While the
individual placement was random, the experiment was designed so that the food
would be placed on the left side 60% of the time. The rats quickly learned the trick and
started going to the left thus achieving a 60% success rate overall. The students didn’t fare as well. They only found the food 52% of the
time. The problem was that the students
were convinced that there was a pattern and used that “knowledge” in their
predictions. But as Lehrer pointed out,
“The problem was that there was nothing to predict; the apparent randomness was
real.” But believing is seeing. The students believed that there was a
pattern. Most likely, their brains overemphasized those instances in which they
guessed correctly and under-emphasized when they were wrong. This resulted in them continuing to see a
pattern that just wasn’t there.
How often does your experience with a person shape the way
you view their current behavior. When one of the “superstars” on your team
doesn’t perform up to par, do you re-evaluate your opinion of him or her? Or, do you find yourself looking for reasons
(excuses) to explain the poor performance forcing the data to conform to your
experience.
If two people come late to a meeting, one a high performer
and one a low performer do you treat their tardiness the same? Or do you assume that the high performer was
just really busy while the low performer was slacking off as usual.
Do you over-emphasize events or facts that confirm your
biases while ignoring those that refute them?
Leaders often tell me that if they could just have the
right data in front of them, they’d be able to make good decisions. Yet, I don’t think it’s that simple. The problem isn’t in seeing the right
data. The problem is in seeing the data (in
the) right (way).
Believing is seeing.
Take time to think critically and challenge your assumptions and
conclusions about your data. You might
be surprised at what you find out.
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates,
a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Don’t do what’s asked…do more
Last year’s Celebrity Apprentice finals pitted Academy Award Winning Actress Marlee Matlin against country singer John Rich.
Both celebrities had strong track records throughout the season. Both showed tremendous leadership, creativity, and results. But when the final curtain went down, John Rich was the winner.
The final competition was to develop a marketing campaign and promotional event for Seven Up Retro. Even though the task was focused on promoting Seven Up, Rich continued to ask his guests for donations to his charity (all contestants on Celebrity Apprentice play for a charity of their choosing). He raised $275,000 the night of the Seven Up Retro promotional event. Trump seemed impressed and asked Matlin for her reaction. Matlin argued that it shouldn’t have an impact on Trump’s final decision because the task wasn’t to raise funds, it was to run a promotion. She also argued that she raised far more than $275,000 when she was project manager during the actual fund-raising task several weeks prior (in fact Matlin’s project raised more money than all prior Celebrity Apprentice Fund-Raisers combined).
I have a lot of respect for Marlee Matlin and thought she did a great job all season. However, I believe that her response to Trump knocked her out of contention to win.
At the time, Trump said that Rich’s fund-raising would not play a role in his final decision but I have a hard time believing that. Does Donald Trump want people who simply follow his directions and do their assigned tasks (albeit well)? Or, would he rather have a person who, in the context of completing a task, finds additional opportunities to create value and reach his goals?
Of all of the success that John Rich had throughout the season, his actions in the final task firmly established him as a leader. Throughout the season he stated that his main goal was to raise money for his charity, St. Jude’s hospital. He never took his eye off the goal. Regardless of the task ahead of him, he found a way to move closer to that goal.
I often hear leaders complain that they could have achieved a different or better result if they had been given the chance. In my workshops, leaders who fall short in activities will often shift the blame to me saying that my instructions didn’t specifically tell them to do X or Y (of course, the instructions never say that they CAN’T do X or Y).
That’s not what leadership is about. A good leader knows what he or she wants to accomplish and figures out how to make it happen, regardless of what was specifically asked of him or her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Both celebrities had strong track records throughout the season. Both showed tremendous leadership, creativity, and results. But when the final curtain went down, John Rich was the winner.
The final competition was to develop a marketing campaign and promotional event for Seven Up Retro. Even though the task was focused on promoting Seven Up, Rich continued to ask his guests for donations to his charity (all contestants on Celebrity Apprentice play for a charity of their choosing). He raised $275,000 the night of the Seven Up Retro promotional event. Trump seemed impressed and asked Matlin for her reaction. Matlin argued that it shouldn’t have an impact on Trump’s final decision because the task wasn’t to raise funds, it was to run a promotion. She also argued that she raised far more than $275,000 when she was project manager during the actual fund-raising task several weeks prior (in fact Matlin’s project raised more money than all prior Celebrity Apprentice Fund-Raisers combined).
I have a lot of respect for Marlee Matlin and thought she did a great job all season. However, I believe that her response to Trump knocked her out of contention to win.
At the time, Trump said that Rich’s fund-raising would not play a role in his final decision but I have a hard time believing that. Does Donald Trump want people who simply follow his directions and do their assigned tasks (albeit well)? Or, would he rather have a person who, in the context of completing a task, finds additional opportunities to create value and reach his goals?
Of all of the success that John Rich had throughout the season, his actions in the final task firmly established him as a leader. Throughout the season he stated that his main goal was to raise money for his charity, St. Jude’s hospital. He never took his eye off the goal. Regardless of the task ahead of him, he found a way to move closer to that goal.
I often hear leaders complain that they could have achieved a different or better result if they had been given the chance. In my workshops, leaders who fall short in activities will often shift the blame to me saying that my instructions didn’t specifically tell them to do X or Y (of course, the instructions never say that they CAN’T do X or Y).
That’s not what leadership is about. A good leader knows what he or she wants to accomplish and figures out how to make it happen, regardless of what was specifically asked of him or her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Hold people accountable for their decisions only
Imagine this scenario. You’ve been given a sales target by your boss. You have three direct reports. You tell each one where you’d like them to focus and set appropriate targets. All three leaders exceed their targets but your department misses its overall target. What rating do you give them on their performance review – fails to meet expectations, meets expectations, or exceeds expectations?
This scenario came up during a recent discussion with a leadership group. Half of the group felt that the direct reports didn’t deserve anything above “meets” because the department failed to meet its goals. The other half felt that the direct reports deserved an “exceeds” rating since they exceeded the targets given to them and that the supervisor deserved a “does not meet” since he or she chose the wrong areas in which to focus.
I tend to side with the second group. Departments don’t miss goals, people do. In this case the leader was accountable for the overall department’s goal His or her team was accountable for their assigned piece. Rolling the three direct reports into the department’s success creates an unfair and unrealistic level of accountability.
You can’t hold people accountable for your decisions or the decisions of others. You should only hold them accountable for their own decisions and actions.
I see this problem outside of the business world in the field of education. Teachers often have little input into the focus, curriculum, or policies of their school, yet are held accountable for the quality of learning in their classroom. Teachers should be accountable for their students’ achievement, but they should also be allowed to make the decisions as to how to best foster that achievement. The same is true of leaders and business decisions and results. It's not fair to tell someone to do something and then penalize them because it wasn't the right thing to do.
A second area of misalignment in decision making and accountability often comes between corporate and business-facing functions of a company. This misalignment is a bit more tricky due to the often competing goals of the two parts of the business.
Leaders in corporate departments need to look out for the welfare of the organization as a whole. Leaders in a specific business unit, while remembering they are part of a larger entity, are usually held accountable for their specific area's results. Therein lies the problem.
For example, consider a procurement director who creates a preferred vendor program (in order to reduce costs). Such a director might successfully lobby to require all leaders in the organization to only use vendors in the program. If preferred vendor usage increases and vendors costs decrease, the procurement director is rightfully rewarded. However, what if the new vendor program excludes a vendor (or set of vendors) who are uniquely qualified to help one of the business units and that unit's performance slips? Does the procurement director, whose program excluded these critical vendors get held accountable? No, he or she is rewarded. The business unit's leader is penalized because he or she is accountable for the performance of the unit. Corporate policy is important, but it's unfair to hold someone accountable for actions that were dictated by someone who is accountable to a different set of goals and expectations.
The last misalignment between decision making and accountability comes with data. Often departments that gather, process, and report data are not the departments that actually use the data. Standard reports while easier and more efficient for the reporting group aren’t always more effective for the leader who is trying to make a decision. Yet that second group of leaders are held accountable for the quality of decisions made using the standard reports.
I’m often surprised at how hard it is for a front-line leader to get the data that he or she needs to run the business. Someone in a data department is making the decision about what data that leader “needs”, what data the leader can use, and the format in which that leader will receive it. There are important legal, ethical, and social reasons to safeguard certain data in an organization. However, when that safeguarding is so aggressive that it squelches any meaningful use of the data, the value of having the data in the first places ceases to exist.
If you find yourself in the position of telling someone else what information, people, or resources he or she needs or what actions or investments he or she should be making, stop and step back. Ask yourself whether you will be held accountable if this leader’s performance slips in response to your requirement. If the answer is “yes”, continue on, you have every right to be involved. If the answer is “no”, reconsider your requests or actions. Is there a way to get your need met while enabling the other leader to make the actual decisions for which he or she will be held accountable?
All leaders need to take time to assess the alignment between decisions and accountability. In an ideal world, people at all levels would only be held accountable for their decisions and actions. In a practical world, that can’t always happen. But, as leaders we can be more deliberate about whether we hold people accountable for executing our decisions and how far we step into other people’s business when we tell them what they need, when they need it, and what they have to do with it.
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Do you have number sense?
In the “Good Cop, Bad Dog” episode of Modern Family, Gloria Pritchett (Sofia Vergara) brings home an aspiring but somewhat naïve entrepreneur named Guillermo (Lin-Manuel Miranda). She wants her husband Jay (Ed O’Neill), a successful executive, to give Guillermo some business advice. Their conversation begins like this:
Guillermo: Are you aware that last year Americans spent $40 billion on dog training?
Jay: Well, that’s not true
Guillermo: I was surprised as you are
Jay: No you were surprised because it’s not true
Guillermo: What is this multi-billion dollar industry missing?
Jay Pritchett: Multi-billion dollars
Guillermo: I have devised a revolutionary way to communicate . . .
Jay has number sense. He isn’t an expert in dog training nor is that his business. Yet, he has a broad enough understanding of business to know that Guillermo’s claims don’t make sense.
Recently, on ABC’s World News, Dianne Sawyer stated, “as of tonight, it [The Occupy Wall Street Movement] has spread to more than 250 American cities, more than a thousand countries -- every continent but Antarctica.” (October 10, 2011)
Some people, upon hearing that statement were probably impressed by the movement’s growth and support.
Critics of Sawyer and the movement were quick to jump on her error. Her statement reflected a number that is five times greater than the total number of countries in the entire world.
It’s unlikely that Diane Sawyer believes that there are that many countries. She was probably rushed and possibly reading from a cue card. But, someone gave her that number. Unlike Jay Pritchett, that person didn’t apply simple number sense to determine whether the data seemed reasonable. And Sawyer, for whatever reason, didn’t do a quick reality check on the fact she was reporting.
Number sense sits at the intersection of business acumen and critical thinking.
In the case of Sawyer’s comment, you don’t have to be a geography expert to realize something is wrong with her number. Some simple logic would cast suspicion.
· Sawyer's statement excluded Antarctica leaving just six continents to house one thousand countries.
· The remaining six continents would each need to have around 166 countries on average.
· Even if you don't know much about the other continents, you probably know that your continent has far fewer than 166 countries. Therefore, the remaining five would have to average MORE than 166 countries each to make up for yours.
· Without knowing specifics, you probably also have some ballpark guesses about other continents either those closest to you or those really big ones with relatively few countries such as North America and Australia.
· That leaves an even higher requirement for the few remaining continents that you know little about.
It quickly becomes clear that one thousand is an outrageous number. That thought process was probably even more elaborate than most people would need.
That’s an application of number sense. It’s not about knowing detailed numbers. It’s about having a few general numbers/facts on hand and the ability to use them to reason through a problem.
Successful leaders have good number sense. They can tell if the size of a projected market for their product seems reasonable. They can quickly think through the bottom line impact of small changes in their business model.
As a leader, part of your business acumen development should focus on number sense. By getting familiar with some basic facts and using those facts to vet the claims that you hear you’ll be able quickly to discern good data from data that isn’t credible.
Here are some facts that would probably create a good foundation for your number sense:
General
What is the population of your country?
What is the population of the countries in which you do business? About what percent are adults versus children?
What is the population of the world (currently approx. 6.97 billion people)
What is the GDP of your country?
How many households are in your country?
How many people are in your country’s workforce?
Business
What is the size of your company’s customer base?
What is the size of your industry’s customer base?
How many of each of your products are sold in a given year?
How many employees do you have in your company?
What are your company’s annual revenues?
Do you need to look up all the details to know if a fact or figure seems reasonable, especially one that might not be specific to your job, role, or business? If so, it might be time to brush up on your number sense.
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
When is enough, enough?
How much analysis is enough? You can always find more data, more questions, and more procedures that can be applied to data. It can be daunting. It can also lead to “analysis paralysis,” which seems to be the main concern of the leaders with whom I work.
Five simple criteria will help you assess the thoroughness of your analysis. These aren’t rocket science but they will help create some diligence and structure to your analysis.
You’ve probably done a thorough analysis if:
· You’ve answered your question
· You’ve used multiple, disparate, and distinct sources
· The data are consistent –there is low variability
· The result makes sense and can be explained easily
· You’ve found the exception (there always is one)
You’ve answered your question
This might seem obvious. But it’s probably the biggest mistake on the list. Too often, we jump into the data without clearly defining (or without defining at all) the question we are trying to answer. We just start reading the reports, left to right, top to bottom.
Before you jump into the data, figure out what question you are trying to answer. Then figure out the criteria (or sub-questions) that will help you answer that question. Now, go answer those questions. When you are done, you’re done.
But how do you ensure that you haven’t missed an important sub-question? The answer is easy – talk to people before jumping into the data. Find out if they agree with the model that you’ve laid out (question and sub-questions). Ask if there are other questions that you need to answer.
More importantly, ask the person to whom you will be presenting the data. That will help you avoid doing unnecessary analysis and will help ensure that you don’t repeatedly go back to the drawing board answering additional questions. It also improves your chances of gaining buy-in on your findings since you already know what that person is looking for.
You’ve used multiple, disparate, and distinct sources
The two most important words here are disparate and distinct. Using sources that share the same beliefs or agenda isn’t much better than using just one source. For example, using only environmental organizations as sources of data on global warming might not give you a fully credible view. Mix your sources. Often opposing groups use similar data for their analysis. What’s different is their interpretation of that data. If two opposing parties use the same data, it is probably pretty credible. If their data is different, keep searching until you find some common facts upon which both agree. If you can’t, try to find some additional sources that might be more objective in the first place. A current example of this is our national debt. Most politicians seem to agree on the size of the debt. That number is pretty safe. There is huge disagreement on how much the debt will be reduced by various proposed initiatives. Therefore, that data is probably more suspect. The Congressional Budget Office was established to provide an impartial quantification of budgetary information. On the issue of savings, they are probably a better source than the spokesperson for either political party.
The data are consistent
I monitor my credit score on a monthly basis. The three agencies never match. But, they are consistent. All three paint the same picture of me for creditors. If they varied widely, that would be a problem. Keep looking at the data until it begins to converge. It doesn’t have to match, but if the data is telling three different stories, you need to get some clarity.
The result makes sense and can be explained easily
If you have to take a lot of exotic twists and turns to build your argument, be suspicious. One of the many reasons cited for the financial crises of the past several years is that financial instruments and analyses became too complicated to understand. Clarity and simplicity are both results of clear thinking and analysis. Keep working until your argument is clear, concise, and easily understood.
You’ve found the exception
If all of your data fully supports your conclusion, you might be suffering from “confirmation bias”. Confirmation bias is the result of only seeking information and data that support your view. Even the best solutions don’t work every time. If you’ve looked hard enough to find the exceptions, you’ve probably done a thorough analysis.
There is always more data and more questions. However, if you’ve been diligent in your analysis, you can be confident that your conclusions will hold up. They might not always be right, and there might be something that you missed, but you and your analysis will still be credible.
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Best Practices are Stupid!
In their book, Hard Facts, Dangerous Half Truths, and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-based Management, Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton make an interesting observation about best practices:
…a pair of fundamental problems render casual benchmarking ineffective. The first is that people copy the most visible, obvious, and frequently least important practices…. The second problem is that companies often have different strategies, different competitive environments, and different business models—all of which make what they need to do to be successful different from what others are doing. Something that helps one organization can damage another. This is true particularly for companies that borrow practices from other industries, but often is true for organizations even within the same industry.” (emphasis added)
So if success depends on being different why do so many companies spend so much time, effort, and money trying to identify and implement other companies' best practices? Perhaps it’s because they don’t know what else to do.
Until now.
My friend and innovation guru, Steve Shapiro has just released his fifth book on innovation, “Best Practices are Stupid: 40 Ways to Out-Innovate the Competition”. Steve takes Pfeffer and Sutton’s argument one step further. How can you beat your competition if you are implementing their practices? Best practices might bring you up to par with everyone else, but they aren’t going to put you ahead. If you want to get ahead, you need to, as Shapiro states in the title, “Out-Innovate the Competition”.
Steve’s new book follows closely in the tradition of his prior books. He makes complicated ideas easy to understand, challenges conventional wisdom, packages his ideas in easy to digest nuggets, and along the way tells some great stories.
If you are just looking to catch up with your competition, Steve’s book may not be for you. But, if you are looking to leap ahead and become the organization to which everyone else aspires, then I strongly recommend that you order “Best Practices Are Stupid” today.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Data-driven targets
How much data do you collect and analyze to determine whether you are hitting your targets? Many of the organizations with whom I work spend considerable amounts of time gathering and reporting performance data. Leaders pour over reports in an attempt to ensure that the data is accurate and complete. Some even spend so much time analyzing data that they never get to a decision.
Ironically, despite all of the effort put in to tracking progress against targets, there is often little data or analysis used to set those targets in the first place.
One organization with whom I worked had a customer satisfaction target of 83.75 (out of 100). I asked them why it was 83.75. Why not 83 or 84? Was there some data that said that 83.75 was the level at which they optimized their return on their investments in customer experience. Was 83.75 the point of diminishing return where it would start to cost more to improve satisfaction than they’d recover in sales? Of course not. The target was set based on the prior year’s result of 83.15. Management wanted to do better and 83.75 seemed better (the word “seems” is generally a red flag that you’ve moved out of the realm of data). They had no data as to whether it was attainable inside or outside of their organization or what impact a .6 increase might have. They just wanted a number that was higher than the prior year. But higher isn’t always better. Sometimes the incremental cost to improve on a metric doesn’t yield a proportional return. Yet, I often find leaders who set targets based on an arbitrary increase or decrease from their prior year’s performance. Simply using last year’s data as a baseline is not being data-driven. Being data-driven means that there is clear, factual evidence that hitting your targets will provide the outcomes that you desire.
Many years ago, the organization that administered our employee engagement survey sent us two interesting benchmark charts. The first showed the level of employee engagement for those companies with the most highly engaged employees. The second showed the level of engagement for the highest performing companies (from a business performance perspective). The two charts were quite different. The companies with the most engaged employees weren’t necessarily the companies with the highest business performance. The higher performing companies did tend to have highly engaged employees and there is an increasing body of research supporting that. However, they don’t need to have the most engaged employees. There is a point at which increases in engagement no longer make a difference (from a business performance perspective).
My boss made the wise decision to target our engagement at the levels of high performing companies rather than the most engaged companies. This is an example of a data-driven target. He used the data to determine which target best met his goal. His goal wasn’t to be on the list of organizations with the most employee engagement. His goal was to improve business performance. In doing so, he prevented us from over investing and over-optimizing our metric.
Unfortunately, when targets are set with little to no data or analysis, people misuse and misunderstand them. Either they don’t get taken seriously (e.g., “It doesn’t matter that we missed it, it was unrealistic to start with”) or they are taken too seriously or misapplied (e.g., “Let’s see if we can beat the target by 50%).
The second problem might seem counter-intuitive. What’s wrong with beating a target? If you want $100 in sales and you make $200, isn’t your company doing better? That depends. If you had to sell the second $100 of merchandise at a loss, in order to get the sale, then exceeding the target hasn’t helped.
Good targets should have meaning. They are a guide as to where you want to be. If they are truly based in data, then the goal should be to hit them or get as close as possible to them (just like a bulls-eye in darts) not exceed them. Exceeding a data-driven target could be an indication that some other part of the business is being sub-optimized.
A few hints that your targets might not be data driven:
· The precision of the metric is at a greater level of detail than your ability to perceive a difference in performance. (e.g., satisfaction targets that are expressed into the tenths or hundredths place or revenue/cost targets that are expressed to single dollar or cents place).
· They are the same for disparate groups or business areas
· They are based solely on an increase or decrease of the prior year’s performance
· They don’t have an upper or lower limit
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
