Anyone who has had a prescription filled in the past twenty-years is probably used to dealing with a pharmacy-tech. Most, if not all of a customer’s interaction is with the tech. Most of the entire process of filling the prescription is now done by the tech.
That wasn’t always the case. There was a time when a pharmacist performed the entire process (except perhaps ringing up the transaction). There are many reasons for the change (cost, efficiency) but underlying those reasons was a common root cause – capacity. A typical pharmacist could only fill so many prescriptions per hour. Even the best pharmacists working at peak performance could only deliver marginal performance increases (in relative terms compared to today’s model). The problem was that pharmacists were constrained by their own capacity. At some point, an individual pharmacist couldn’t produce more.
The pharmacy-tech position addresses this problem. The pharmacist’s expertise isn’t needed in every step in filling a prescription. Off-loading the steps that didn’t require that level of expertise allows the pharmacist to better leverage his or her skills. This model allowed the pharmacist to make a greater overall contribution. His or her production capacity is now a function of the number of techs. In other words, if there are three techs, for every hour worked the pharmacist gets three times (or more) production than his or her own capacity. This is where the cost savings comes in since it's cheaper to hire three techs than two additional pharmacists.
I often see new leaders fall into the capacity trap. Prior to becoming a leader these people’s success was often driven by their individual contribution and production. When they become a leader, they continue to try to do a lot of the work themselves. The leader might not trust the new team to get the work done. Other times, they feel they can do it faster than their people. Often, they are frustrated that the people around them aren’t “getting it" and don’t want to waste their time bringing those people up to speed. Sometimes, it’s just easier. Whatever the reason, as soon as this happens, the leader is caught in the capacity trap.
Leaders need to understand that their value doesn’t come from their individual contribution. Those days are over (see my earlier post, Experts Don’t Always Make the Best Leaders). The real value of a leader comes from an ability to maximize the contributions of those around him or her. The leader’s contribution is in his or her vision and direction, not in the execution of that vision. That’s the role of the team.
No leader, no matter how good, can outperform six or seven teams of people. One great leader leveraged through six or seven teams can outperform an entire department.
If you think that you can get more done by executing on your own, think again. You might get each individual project done faster and perhaps a little better. When you line them all up end to end, you’ll find that it takes much longer to deliver than if you were doing them in parallel through your people.
---------------------
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.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Reality TV – Lessons to avoid
Reality TV – Lessons to avoid
As reality television shows winnow down their contestant pools and begin their final stretch to finding a winner, the hosts often start asking the competitors the same question, “Why should you get picked to win?”
In most cases, the answers are the same. The contestants argue that they've worked hard, it’s always been their dream to sing, dance, or run a company, or they can’t think of doing anything else in life.
Recently I asked a group of leaders a similar question, “What value do you bring to the organization?” The answers were surprisingly similar in nature. The leaders talked about what they like to do and how hard the work at doing it.
I don’t doubt either group’s sincerity. They gave good honest answers. The problem is that the answers were inwardly focused.
Too often we focus on what we want or get out of an organization (or from a person) rather than what we have to offer.
If you want to be the next American Idol, America needs to know that you will have their interests at heart and will be the best person to meet those interests. If you want to run one of Donald Trump’s organizations, don’t tell him that it would be a great experience where you can learn a lot. Tell him that you’ll make him money.
If you want your boss to select you for the next high profile role, don’t tell her that you’ll work hard. Tell her that you will get the job done (or that you’ll make it so she can work less).
Somewhere along the line the personalized, “me” culture of consumerism has swept into the workplace. It’s time that we recalibrate.
You wouldn’t buy a product just because the manufacturer worked really hard to produce it or the store worked really hard to sell it. You’d only buy it if it created value for you.
It’s the same for the relationship between you and the organization for which you work. The only difference is, in that scenario, you are the producer and the organization and its customers are the consumers. You exist for them, not the other way around.
--------------------------
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.
As reality television shows winnow down their contestant pools and begin their final stretch to finding a winner, the hosts often start asking the competitors the same question, “Why should you get picked to win?”
In most cases, the answers are the same. The contestants argue that they've worked hard, it’s always been their dream to sing, dance, or run a company, or they can’t think of doing anything else in life.
Recently I asked a group of leaders a similar question, “What value do you bring to the organization?” The answers were surprisingly similar in nature. The leaders talked about what they like to do and how hard the work at doing it.
I don’t doubt either group’s sincerity. They gave good honest answers. The problem is that the answers were inwardly focused.
Too often we focus on what we want or get out of an organization (or from a person) rather than what we have to offer.
If you want to be the next American Idol, America needs to know that you will have their interests at heart and will be the best person to meet those interests. If you want to run one of Donald Trump’s organizations, don’t tell him that it would be a great experience where you can learn a lot. Tell him that you’ll make him money.
If you want your boss to select you for the next high profile role, don’t tell her that you’ll work hard. Tell her that you will get the job done (or that you’ll make it so she can work less).
Somewhere along the line the personalized, “me” culture of consumerism has swept into the workplace. It’s time that we recalibrate.
You wouldn’t buy a product just because the manufacturer worked really hard to produce it or the store worked really hard to sell it. You’d only buy it if it created value for you.
It’s the same for the relationship between you and the organization for which you work. The only difference is, in that scenario, you are the producer and the organization and its customers are the consumers. You exist for them, not the other way around.
--------------------------
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, April 4, 2011
Good evening Clarice – the power of memories
Do you remember the movie “The Silence of the Lambs”? If so, which character do you remember most? Could it be Clarice Starling or Dr. Hannibal Lecter? If so, you are in good company. Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins won Academy Awards for their portrayals of these two key characters. You probably wouldn't be surprised to find out that Jodie Foster’s character has the most screen time in the movie.
What might surprise you is that Hopkins only had about sixteen minutes of screen time in the nearly two-hour movie. He set a record for the shortest role ever to receive the best actor award. Yet, his character dominates our memories of the movie.
How could Anthony Hopkins leave such a memorable impression in just sixteen minutes? It’s simple, our brains often confuse intensity or novelty with prominence. We tend to over emphasize things that catch our attention.
So how does that translate outside of our movie-going experience? Often it translates to where and how we focus our attention.
I remember once hearing about a major, systemic problem at one organization. Everyone had their own story about how this particular problem created havoc for the organization and its customers. After some digging, we were able to trace every person's story to the same, single incident that occurred several years prior. It wasn’t a systemic problem after all. It turned out to be an anomaly that was burned into the collective psyche of the organization.
We can learn two critical lessons from Hannibal Lecter’s influence on our memories. First, don’t trust your memory or even the collective memory of the organization. Before committing to solving a major problem, make sure that the problem actually exists in the way that everyone recalls it. Second, make every interaction, whether with employees or customers, count. It only took sixteen minutes (13% of the entire movie) for Hannibal Lecter to etch himself into our minds as the greatest villain of all time (according to the American Film Institute). Just think what one bad interaction can do for your or your company’s reputation.
Incidentally, did the title of this entry seem a bit off? Don’t you remember him saying, “Hello Clarice”? That’s another problem with our memories. Sometimes our brain alters our memories based on what it expected rather than what actually occurred. Since most of us tend to greet people with “Hello” rather than “Good evening”, our brains tend to modify the memory. That's why sometimes your memory of what was said during a meeting, might not match what others recall. It could be that you are remembering what you intended to say. Or, perhaps everyone else is remembering what they expected to hear. That's why it is so important to follow up and recap meetings and conversations.
Our brains aren’t optimized to reflect reality. They are optimized to keep us alive. That often means that they alter our memories to create emphasis. Forty-thousand years ago that was probably good for a hunter and gatherer trying to navigate life on the savanna. For people trying to navigate organizational life in the 21st century, it sometimes creates problems.
---------------------
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.
What might surprise you is that Hopkins only had about sixteen minutes of screen time in the nearly two-hour movie. He set a record for the shortest role ever to receive the best actor award. Yet, his character dominates our memories of the movie.
How could Anthony Hopkins leave such a memorable impression in just sixteen minutes? It’s simple, our brains often confuse intensity or novelty with prominence. We tend to over emphasize things that catch our attention.
So how does that translate outside of our movie-going experience? Often it translates to where and how we focus our attention.
I remember once hearing about a major, systemic problem at one organization. Everyone had their own story about how this particular problem created havoc for the organization and its customers. After some digging, we were able to trace every person's story to the same, single incident that occurred several years prior. It wasn’t a systemic problem after all. It turned out to be an anomaly that was burned into the collective psyche of the organization.
We can learn two critical lessons from Hannibal Lecter’s influence on our memories. First, don’t trust your memory or even the collective memory of the organization. Before committing to solving a major problem, make sure that the problem actually exists in the way that everyone recalls it. Second, make every interaction, whether with employees or customers, count. It only took sixteen minutes (13% of the entire movie) for Hannibal Lecter to etch himself into our minds as the greatest villain of all time (according to the American Film Institute). Just think what one bad interaction can do for your or your company’s reputation.
Incidentally, did the title of this entry seem a bit off? Don’t you remember him saying, “Hello Clarice”? That’s another problem with our memories. Sometimes our brain alters our memories based on what it expected rather than what actually occurred. Since most of us tend to greet people with “Hello” rather than “Good evening”, our brains tend to modify the memory. That's why sometimes your memory of what was said during a meeting, might not match what others recall. It could be that you are remembering what you intended to say. Or, perhaps everyone else is remembering what they expected to hear. That's why it is so important to follow up and recap meetings and conversations.
Our brains aren’t optimized to reflect reality. They are optimized to keep us alive. That often means that they alter our memories to create emphasis. Forty-thousand years ago that was probably good for a hunter and gatherer trying to navigate life on the savanna. For people trying to navigate organizational life in the 21st century, it sometimes creates problems.
---------------------
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)
