Who're you looking at?

I am a huge fan of the COVID-19 induced shift towards remote working.

Two of the main benefits for me have been:

1. Less time wasted commuting and travelling to meetings.
2. The ability to meet with anyone with equal ease regardless of physical location.

However, I also understand that remote working might not suit everyone.

Some people have complained of 'Zoom fatigue'. Others struggle with unsuitable home-based workspaces and inadequate child care arrangements. Still others simply miss the buzz and camaraderie of being in a physical office.

I argued in How do you solve a problem like remote working? that the opportunity we now face is not that everyone can work remotely. Nor is it that we'll eventually be able to get everyone back into the office. Rather, it is to recognise that different people have different preferences. Different people are better suited to different environments. Some people are more productive when remote, others are more productive in the office. Once we recognise that, we can take steps to accommodate a broader, more flexible range of working styles and arrangements. And we will benefit from the diversity that affords.

We have a lot of experience with in-office work. As a result, the pros and cons are quite well understood.

But we understand remote work less well. We simply have less experience of it. And to best secure the benefits described above, we need to understand the pros and cons of remote working better.

I've heard many explanations of why some people struggle with remote working. One person told me it was because we couldn't smell and feel over video conference. I am not sure if they mean we're smelling and touching a shared physical space, or each other (!) but either way, I am not convinced by that as an explanation.

I've also heard it said that some people find it stressful that they themselves appear on the screen when video conferencing. I am not sure why that should be stressful, but you can, in any event, disable that in most video conferencing systems.

A more likely explanation is that we miss out on some of the non-verbal cues when video conferencing.
I confess that at first, I dismissed this as an explanation. After all, I can see participants facial expressions and body language quite clearly.

But then I realised there is one element of body language I cannot see on a group video conference. I can't see who the other participants are looking at. I can see if they are looking at the camera or not. But I can't necessarily see if they are looking at the screen or not (the screen and camera may be physically separated). More importantly, I can't see which of the faces on the screen they are looking at.

Who people are looking at is very important. It shows where their intention is. It can show if you're paying attention to the speaker or ignoring them. People tend to look (physically) to the person with the greatest perceived authority. But we lose those cues in a group video conference.

On the positive side, this can help to break down traditional authority. To create a more egalitarian environment where people are valued more for their contribution than for their position. Meeting facilitators have been trying to achieve this for at least as long as I have been in the workplace! In that sense, remote working could be an even greater step forward than I had previously appreciated.

On the other hand, perhaps it is exactly that loss of positional power which has many people feeling uncomfortable with remote work in the first place!

What do you think? Please let me know in the comments.

Do you know what you've got?

I was talking to the MD of a medium sized business the other day. He told me excitedly how they had just hired someone with technical experience in an area he was keen for his business to get into. At last, he suggested, they would be able to develop this part of the business with confidence.

He was quite surprised when I told him that I had been talking to another existing and more senior member of his team who also had extensive technical experience in that same area. And this other person had only been hired about a year ago. Had he not known about this area of expertise when he'd hired him, or had he simply forgotten? If he'd had a desire to get into this area, had he not discussed this issue and the organisation's capability with his team?

There is a danger in formulating strategy, in analysing an organisations strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, from within the ivory tower of the C-suite. To succeed in strategy, you've got to get out there and talk to your staff, customers (and prospects) and partners. You've got to build relationships and engage with people around strategic issues on an ongoing basis.

Leadership: it's about the followers

I remember being told, on a course on Situational Leadership, that the leader is simply the person with the best idea of what needs to be done next.   I've always liked that definition as I think it so clearly distinguishes between leadership and authority or positional power.   However, I've also always thought it lacked something - something to do with the role of the followers.   After all, what is a leader without followers?

And so I was really very taken with the video that Derek Sivers linked in his post Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy.   It provides a microcosm of leadership, all within only 3 minutes.   I've linked it below from YouTube:

Leaders have the best idea of what needs to be done next

In this video, the first dancer was clearly the person with the best idea of what should be done next.   But how do you define "best" in this context.   I am not sure that there is or can be an objective and verifiable best.   But there can be no doubt that, at least at the end, all of the other dancers had decide for themselves what they thought was best, and that's probably all that matters.   When it comes to leadership, "best" truly is in the eye of the follower.

In his post, Why Steve Jobs doesn't listen to customers, Shaun Smith suggests that Apple's success owes a lot to Steve Jobs' ability to understand not what customers say they want, but what they are on the edge of wanting.   A leader needs the ability to know what followers were just about to think; to be able to discern the wants which are forming in the backs of followers' minds but that even they have not quite recognised yet; to be able to articulate people's not yet recognised or expressed thoughts.

Leaders have the courage to act

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the first dancer had the courage of his convictions to stand up and dance - and potentially to make a fool of himself.   There could have been many people who previously thought to themselves "I really feel like dancing", but it was the first dancer who had the courage to act.   Derek Sivers usefully points out that the courage of the first few followers should also not be underestimated.

In organisations today, too many people are afraid of putting their heads above the parapet.   So, even if they know what needs to be done next, or even just think they know what needs to be done next, they keep it to themselves, keep their heads down and defend their little patch of empire.   Being a leader involves taking risks; being willing to take a contrarian view; holding to that view when the pack pronounces you wrong.

Leaders embrace their followers as equals

Notice how the first dancer reacted to the arrival of the first follower.   He embraced as an equal, even mirrored him, adopting some of his dance moves.   This generates buy-in as the followers feel that they are active contributors to the process, rather than simply passive followers.   It also requires humility and open-mindedness on the part of the leader.   The leader must recognise that each follower has a contribution to make: possibly a unique, but certainly a value contribution. The leader must recognise that their (the leader's) was is not the only way or even the best way.

Leaders lead by example

The first dancer did not stand up, and make an impassioned speech to try and motivate everyone else to dance.   He just stood up and started dancing himself.   As followers joined in, he made no attempt to organise them or to tell them how they should or should not dance.   Quite the opposite in fact.   The leader simply led by example, adapting his example to the needs of his followers as he went along.   Importantly, a leader would never expect someone to do something that you would not be prepared to do them self.

It's not about the leader

You'll notice that as more and more followers join in, the original leader disappears from sight.   Presumably, he's still in there somewhere, but he's not out front or raised on a podium or doing something different to the followers.   Ultimately, he was lost in the movement he created, with no sense of self-promotion.   The leader recognises that the movement, the result,  is more important than the person who started it.   Of course, there are examples of leaders who are desperate for the limelight, to remind us that it was them who started all of this, but that is something different to leadership.

Derek Sivers points out that it is the leader who gets the credit whilst the first followers are overlooked.  However, I believe that this often not the case.   Often the original leader is overlooked and someone more politically astute and self-serving steps in and claims the lion's share of the recognition.   As Harry Truman said, "You can accomplish anything you want in life provided you don’t mind who gets the credit".

The leader's methods are subtle

At the end of the soundtrack to the video, we hear a voice from the crowd asking: "How did he do that? How did he do that?"  This reminds me of a quote from Sun Tzu: "All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."   Just as the leader knows it is not about the individual, he also know it is not about the methods.   As a result some leaders make it look easy, belying the effort they put in and the risks they took.   Worse still, sometimes leaders are perceived as being simply lucky.   But as Arnold Palmer once said "It's a funny thing, the more I practice, the luckier I get".

What most distinguishes leadership from management is that leadership attracts followers, who volunteer something, or something extra, whilst management requires sub-ordinates, who do what they are told to do only because they're paid to do it.

Management Gurus

Here is a list of Management Gurus worth familiarising yourself with:

• John Adair - Action Centered Leadership
• H. Igor Ansoff - the Father of Strategic Management
• Chris Argyris - Learning Organisations
• Chester Barnard - Functions of Executives
• Meredith Belbin - Belbin Team Inventory
• Warren Bennis - Leadership Studies
• Edward De Bono - Lateral Thinking
• Alfred D. Chandler - Structure follows Strategy
• W. Edwards Deming - Statistical Process Control
• Peter Drucker - Knowledge Work Productivity
• Henri Fayol - General Theory of Business Administration
• Gary Hamel - Core Competencies
• Michael Hammer - Business Process Reengineering
• Charles Handy - Portfolio Workers
• Frederick Herzberg - Motivator-Hygiene Theory
• John Humble - Management By Objectives
• Elliott Jacques - Requisite Organisation
• Joseph M. Juran - Quality Management
• Rosabeth Moss Kanter - Change Management
• Robert S. Kaplan - The Balanced Scorecard
• Philip Kotler - Marketing
• John P. Kotter - Leadership and Change
• Theodore Levitt - Globalisation and Marketing
• Rensis Likert - Management Styles (and Likert Scale)
• Douglas McGregor - Theory X and Theory Y
• Abraham Maslow - Hierarchy of Human Needs
• Elton W. Mayo - Human Relations Movement (including the Hawthorne Studies)
• Henry Mintzberg - Organisational Configurations
• David P. Norton - The Balanced Scorecard
• Kenichi Ohmae - 3C's Model
• Richard T. Pascale - Continuous Renewal in Organisations
• Tom Peters - In Search of Excellence
• Michael Porter - Competitive Strategy
• Reg Revans - Action Learning
• Edgar H. Schein - Organisational Culture
• Richard J. Schonberger - Lean Six Sigma Process Improvement
• E.F. Schumacher - Small is Beautiful
• Peter M. Senge - The Fifth Discipline
• Alfred P. Sloan - The Ideal Manager
• F.W. Taylor - Scientific Management
• Robert H. Waterman Jr. - In Search of Excellence
• Max Weber - Authority in Organisations

Please feel free to add your own recommendations in the comments.

Why banning Facebook could be bad for business

Many organisations still insist on banning access to Facebook at the office.   Here's why that makes no sense:

• The reason companies give is usually that Facbook is a potential timewaster.   However, banning Facbook won't stop bored employees from wasting time.   I've worked in an organisation that banned Facebook even as its staff read "Hello" magazine at their desks.   The onlyway to stop saff wasting time is to give them interesting work that keeps them engaged and motivated.   The fact is, it's easier to ban Facebook than it is to stop staff reading "Hello" magazine or to give them interesting work that keeps them engaged and motivated.   So companies ban Facebook in order to be seen to be taking taking decisive action against grafters.   But no-one will be impressed.
  
• If staff can't access Facebook on their computers, they'll simply do it on their cell phones.   And that's bound to be slower and so take more time.
• Sooner or later (if not already) the best and brightest staff will start to avoid the sorts of companies that implement such antiquated, restrictive and futile policies.   Graham Jones writes that social networking is increasingly a part of how people think about the world - soon, they'll expect to find access to it in place in the same that way we now exect the telephone and e-mail to be in place (and to allow a certain, albeit limited, personal use).  Companies that ban Facebook will be seen as punishing the creative and innovative,whilst failing to address the underlying problems of the unengaged and underperforming.   So you'll get fewer stars, and more staff reading "Hello" magazine at their desks.   (You may think this is not an issue in the current economic environment, but people won't just forget when the economy turns, and companies won't learn fast enough.)   
  
• And don't be fooled into thinking that Facebook is just about teenagers, Facebook is growing fastest in the core employment ages.

So, instead of banning Facebook, you could use and channel it within your business:

• Encourage your staff to build networks and reslationships with suppliers, customers and competitors.   And find ways to leverage those relationships.
• Your staff could be your best advocates, and achieve more than your conventional marketing initiatives.
• Your staff can use those networks to stay up to date with what is happening in your industry.  It'll be cheaper and more effective than conventional training.
• Your staff can get closer to your customers - learning what they think about your products and services and how they us them, and collaborating with them on ways to improve them.
• And finally, if all of the above is not enough, according to the University of Melbourne, employees who use Facebook and watch YouTube are more productive than those that don't.

If a company has problems, banning Facebook will not solve them.   Your staff can either use Facebook to evangelise your company / product during office hours, or criticise it from the privacy of their own homes.   Either way, they will speak and be heard by their peers.   You can influence which it will be.
Of course, I've used Facebook purely as one popular example of social media.   The same logic could be applied to Twitter, Digg, SocialMedian, and a host of other services.   If you're not up to date on what these are and how they are or could be being used within your company, its time to catch up.

Decisiveness...Ambiguity

Conventional wisdom values decisiveness in leaders. But delaying a decision until the last possible moment may mean you have additional information available to you before making a decision, based on late development or just on watching how other people have responded to the situation. The ability to deal with the ambiguity that exists before a decision is made may be the more valuable skill.

Situational Leadership

Situational Leadership is a model developed Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey which suggests that we need to adapt our leadership style to the specifics of each situation and/or follower. Looking at the amount of support behaviour and directive behaviour called for in the situation, it arrives at 4 leadership styles:

1. Directing: Leaders define the roles and tasks of the 'follower', and supervise them closely. Decisions are made by the leader and announced, so communication is largely one-way. (Suitable for staff with low competence and low commitment.)
   
2. Delegating: Leaders are still involved in decisions and problem-solving, but control is with the follower. The follower decides when and how the leader will be involved. Read more on delegating. (Suitable for staff with high competence and high commitment.)
   
3. Supporting: Leaders pass day-to-day decisions, such as task allocation and processes, to the follower. The leader facilitates and takes part in decisions, but control is with the follower. (Suitable for staff with high competence and variable commitment.)
   
4. Coaching: Leaders still define roles and tasks, but seeks ideas and suggestions from the follower. Decisions remain the leader's prerogative, but communication is much more two-way. (Suitable for staff with some competence and low commitment.)
   

NewCo / OldCo

I blogged recently on the 4 Horizons approach to corporate project portfolio management. One of the questions that frequently arises with Horizon 3 and Horizon 4 projects is whether you should try and launch these within the existing business, or within a separate start-up management structure.

The attractions for doing it within a separate management structure are reasonably obvious:
1. You can bring in fresh people with fresh ideas (rather than the existing problem who may be seen as part of the problem rather than part of the solution),
2. Who can start with a blank slate, and
3. Are not encumbered by the daily grind of problems in the old world which take up the valuable time they should be spending on developing the new proposition.

However, the disadvantages are also significant:
1. The staff working in the existing business will become alienated by (and potentially obstructive towards) the new idea,
2. It will be hard to motivate them to work on what will undoubtedly be perceived as a less exciting proposition, which will not get the investment they want to fix the problems they face every day, and
3. Ultimately (and possibly more importantly) this lack of enthusiasm in the existing business will spill over into its clients, who may start to look more actively at competing propositions. (The result being that by the time the new proposition is ready to launch you have lost the advantage of your existing client base!)

Branding the new offering becomes a complex decision. Do you retain links with your existing brand (and hence customer-base) and live with the juxtaposition of the new and the old under a single heading, or do you go for an entirely new brand with all of the investment that that requires.

At some point, if you try to separate your new and existing propositions too much, you are effectively funding a start-up from the profits generated by your existing business. At this stage the shareholders might legitimately ask why you did not return the excess funds to them so that they could decide for themselves if they wanted to invest in the risk inherent in a start-up venture. (In most cases, it would probably be inappropriate for them to do so as the risk profiles of the existing and new businesses would be so far apart.)

However, there is a win-win situation where the "new" proposition can be positioned as breathing new life into the "old" proposition. This is particularly the case where the new proposition is:
1. A product line extension, especially where the new product complements and enhances the existing product, or
2. A vertical extension, forwards or backwards into the value chain, where the new proposition represents an improved component supplied into the old proposition, or a revolutionary way of packaging and selling the old proposition.
(The launch of Egg by Prudential is a well-known example which attempted to achieve both a product line and vertical extension in a single new startup business.)

Whichever way you go, Horizon 3 and Horizon 4 projects require particularly strong leadership to inject new life into a business without alienating the those staff and customers who are heavily invested in the existing business. The aim being to bring your existing staff and customers along through a journey, rather than to canibalise them and risk destroying whatever value you have already created.