Managers provide process, Leaders provide content

Do you ever notice how meetings that begin as a discussion about a particular issue, quickly devolve into a debate about the right process for discussing the issue. Typically, at the end of such meetings, there is no consensus on a process, or more importantly, a solution for fixing the issue.

Sometimes this happens overtly - someone stops the discussion to advocate for their favorite tool or model. More often it happens implicitly. People answer the main question about what needs to be done, with further statements about how to figure out what needs to be done. For example, if the question were, "How can we best meet our customer's needs?" a reply might be, "We need to identify their top three buyer values." That sounds Ike a way forward. A clear plan. But, in reality it just prolongs the issue. Of course you need to figure out the three buyer values. That's the point of the meeting. You should be talking about what those are.

A good leader isn't constrained by the process. He or she knows what needs to be done to improve the business. So why doesn't this happen? In the organizations in which I've worked, I've seen three main drivers:

1. A risk averse culture - Process is safe. Content is risky. Opinions demonstrate what a person knows (or doesn't know).
2. Lack of understanding of the business - Discussing process requires no understanding of the business. It's an easy way to "contribute". Giving an opinion about what needs to be done requires both understanding and having put in some thought on how the business works. For many leaders, getting a deep understanding of their business is sacrificed for managing the tactical day to day details of their unit.
3. A focus on activity versus outcome - Many business cultures still reward work rather than results. Suggesting a process creates the illusion of progress. It can be documented, planned, and tracked. Specifying a solution can seem ambiguous. People might not see how to implement the solution. The person proposing the solution might not be able to lay out the specific steps and deliverables. It might be criticized as not being "pragmatic".

All three of these are individual and organizational leadership issues. They require greater attention to who is being put into leadership roles and for what reason. People who are promoted based on their ability to do tactical things and think in tactical ways, will probably continue to do tactical things and think in tactical ways, just at a higher level. Leaders are those people who know how to bring content and context to a problem to move things forward. In the interim, the best way to improve the quality of meetings is to start inviting people who can bring content, regardless of their role or level.

Noel Tichy recommends that leaders develop a "teachable point of view", something for which they have a unique and worthwhile perspective to share. I think leaders should take that one step further. Good leaders should have a general point of view on all aspects of their business. Some of those might be worthy of becoming their teachable point of view. More importantly, good leaders need to bring that point of view to the table.

Leaders need to step up and focus on content. They should be able to share their vision, point of view, and opinion regardless of the context in which is was solicited.

Are you asking the right questions?

What are the three most important questions you use to determine whether you are being successful? If you are like many people, your answer might be:

1. Am I adding value?
2. Am I focused on the right things?
3. Am I meeting my customer's needs?

Those seem reasonable but they are the wrong questions. More importantly, they are the wrong type of questions. All of those questions are process questions. They create the wrong focus.

Process questions remove accountability. Take the question, "Am I adding value?" It's not quite passive voice, but it's close. It's as if the work you do and creating value are two separate things. Once you've done the work you are looking back to see if it happened to add value.

Instead, before you do any work, you should ask yourself the question, "What work will add value". Then, your "success" question should be an outcome question. For example, it might be, "Did I lower costs?" or "Did I improve our customer experience?" Those are outcome questions. Instead of going along hoping that the work you do will add value (in retrospect), you are proactively working toward those things for which you define as adding value. You are taking responsibility and accountability for your actions.

The same is true for the other two questions. Don't ask if you are focused on the right things. You should know what those are. If you don't, then your first step is to figure that out. Then, you should ask yourself if you are doing those specific things.

I see process questions a lot. There is a place for them - they should help you figure out the outcomes that you care most about. However, if you want to have a meaningful impact on your organization, you should be measuring your success against outcomes.

Don’t let your vision get hijacked

Here’s a challenge. You have to get your organization to work in new ways but your workforce is well versed and even committed to the old ways. Sound familiar? Many leaders are finding themselves in this position. They have a vision but can’t seem to get it executed.

Certainly, sometimes the issue is the leader. There is no shortage of people who are put into leadership positions without regard to whether they can actually lead others. But, there is another major problem. Leaders who get their vision hijacked. The leader often exacerbates the problem. He or she tries to give the hijackers a break or a chance to turn things around. The problem is that they seldom do.

There are two kinds of people who hijack a vision: those who can’t do it and those who won’t do it. The first group is a reality of the business environment. Things change. New ways of doing business, new assumptions, and new technologies all make it harder for the workforce as a whole to stay relevant. While not ideal, this first group can be turned around. The second group is more problematic. This isn’t about simple motivation (e.g, reward strategies, recognition, etc.) This group doesn’t buy into the vision and actively tries to subvert it.

If you are serious about changing culture or implementing a vision, you need to figure out where your people fall. Taking the two questions, “Can this person get it done?” and “Does this person want to get it done?” yields four possible results (see graphic). Once you know where your people fit, you need to take action.

Drivers
Drivers are the people who can and want to implement your vision. They should be running your most critical initiatives. Give them the resources, latitude, and support to deliver.

Detractors
Detractors can’t deliver the vision and don’t care to anyway. You need to move them out of your organization as quickly as possible. Often leaders make the mistake of letting these people linger. They assume that while they aren’t driving the vision, they might be helpful for lower level work. That’s not the case. This group winds up draining your resources and energy. Having no one in their place is better than keeping them around.

Subverters
Subverters are the most dangerous group. They are skilled and can get things done. They probably have a lot of influence. The problem is that they are using that against you. Subverters can add value if they come around. So, that’s your action. You need to sign them up or sign them out and you need to do it quickly. While they are deciding which option they want, they shouldn’t be put on critical tasks. This might sound counter-intuitive. The reality is that an average performer who is bought in will often out perform a super star who is not. Don’t reward these people by letting them stay in the spotlight. Until they decide whether they want to be in, assign them to operational or maintenance tasks.

Hopefuls
Hopefuls want to deliver your vision but don’t have the skills to do so. Like the subverters, these people should be given a chance. However, you don’t have to be as aggressive. Give them a chance to retool. Support them. Put them in supporting roles learning from the drivers. These people are the core of your future workforce. Help them out. But, be realistic as well. If after reasonable effort, they still can’t deliver, they might be a mismatch for your organization.

It’s both natural and admirable to want to give people the benefit of the doubt. And you should. But, you need to do so in a measured, purposeful way. Too many leaders watch their vision stagnate while waiting for people to turn around.