Thursday, November 22nd, 2007
Over the course of the stuck in the middle series which have examined several leadership personas (the geologist, collaborator, Visualist, Vassalizer, amoeba and the fence mender) - to date these were leadership styles which represented themes in execution - today’s Leader is different. Today’s leadership persona is really about a type of leader who sources their content from a fairly interesting media type, not quite pulp fiction, not quite the economist.
So where does this leader source their idea’s? The dreaded In flight magazine - yes that rag which is saturated in hokey travel, the latest gadgets to get and trends in business. The leader who manages by in flight magazine or a MBIFM is typically fairly conservative and not overly creative. I would like to think a CMO, CEO or other C with the tendacies of finding “good ideas” in magazines would find them in Ad Age, CIO.com or another credible source, but the Get Me One Of These (GMOOT) orders from this leader are typically sourced in Sky Magazine, WorldTraveler or the American Way magazine. Don’t get me wrong - I’ve got cool logo gear and have had great meals thanks to in flight magazines, but I’ve never had a great idea because of one. So why is it that this leader uses in flight magazines rather than real magazines? I really don’t know, I think it might be that he or she just spends too much time on a plane and is possibly too cheap to buy a magazine at Hudson News. In years gone by when airline’s supplied other magazines, it was a lot harder to figure out this leader, but in days of cut backs and snack packs it’s considerably easier. Not only is this leader conservative, they might just be a little naive as well in thinking others haven’t read the article as they usurp and pervert the concepts gleaned from Salt Lake to Denver. In general - don’t all of us spend the 7 minutes required on a flight to read the important headlines and articles? For this leader ideas from Sky Magazine become an imperative - if his or her organization isn’t doing it yet - they should be and NOW. The reality is that if it’s already in an in flight magazine you might be a little late, but I do believe in the adage that it is better late than never, but does it really need a SWAT team? Take this month’s management duh on customers and the product from Continental Magazine:
“I think companies have spent too much time thinking about their products and their brands, and not enough time thinking about their customers,” explains Rust, who serves as chair of the Department of Marketing at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business. “Really, they ought to be organized around customers, rather than around products and brands.”…“It’s a matter of communicating with customers interactively. We do something. They react in a certain way. They communicate with us. We have various touch points with the customer. And you can take a look at that relationship in terms of how it unfolds over time.”
The problem with MBIFM’s isn’t the idea, but how they misinterpret the idea. The quote above is as much about target market and “the Product”, as it is about transforming how a company interacts with their customer in new channels and in a transparent way. If you are effectively managing a product customer communication, understanding and interaction should always be part of the plan - I digress. As a use case, this type of an article for a MBIFM will start with challenging the team to not talk about the products and deemphasize the brand rather than encouraging an open culture which embraces communication with the customer via social media.
NOTE: The article never used the term social media, so this use case also proves out that you only get cursory information in such magazines.
The poorly pitched project kick off and the general misunderstanding caused by sleepy reading will take the SWAT team at least 3 meetings to correct course on. I’ve actually brought a suspected article to a meeting once to clarify things on the 4th meeting, I was getting annoyed that folks were taking the leader a little too seriously/literal on the project charter and initial interpretation. This group mentality is the difference between the sprit and the letter of a leaders charter, the same type of over simplification a MBFM makes when acting on in flight content.
The impact of MBIFM’s reading habits are peppered in most of their interactions and sometimes used as proof points that they are well read, cool and worldly. They talk about travel to Iceland, new gadgets and great places for dinner in other cities they’d like to eat at. Don’t get me wrong, I use Sports Illustrated to have sporty things to chat about - so you can’t fault them, but please don’t tell me how cool the hot springs are in Iceland.
At the end of the day, these platinum medallion travelers have 3 to 5 paragraphs of all things new and they will wield this knowledge as a sword. To account for this type of leader, I recommend you make sure to spend some time every month to read the airline Hub’s magazine for your airport thoroughly and browse other airline mags online where available. Few things are more fun than quoting back factoids from an article, building out a conversation by speaking to a featured Spa in North Carolina or the scallops at LaCôte in New Orleans with this leader. Bottom line: While most of these ideas are typically a late and not fully understood - they are well intentioned and can be used for good within the organization.
A MBIFM’s group is very easy to execute in, since every new leader idea is all about NOW and allows for idea extension in the execution phase. Meaning it offers the the thoughtful middle manager the opportunity to streamline the concept and steer the SWAT team towards new versions of the idea. Usually if an idea is in American Eagle Latitudes, there’s already a new permutation in practice and you can actually use a late idea as an opportunity to innovate.
So how do you find one of these in your office if you don’t travel or prefer not touching a magazine touched by hundreds of other people? Look for the leader with really cool things to play with in their offices which they probably ordered from Skymall and who has inspirational posters from successories. You could also just make it part of your online reading, so stay armed and ready with your own MBIFM Content at iTravelNet’s Directory of In-Flight Magazines.
CONFESSION: I once used an in flight magazine source to prove an idea wasn’t whacky and out there. I did of course use it as a trojan horse to move the project to a new incarnation of the concept.
Technorati Tags: Sky Magazine, WorldTraveler, Skymall, in flight magazine
Posted in Leadership, Stuck, Travel | No Comments »
Sunday, October 14th, 2007
As I continue to look at leadership tactics and styles, one of the more interesting management personas is the Vassalizer. A leader can be an all-in Vassalizer or only possess some of the traits, depending on their skills and ambitions. The root of the word isn’t in Vasaline, as in a smooth operator or slick mofo - but instead vassal. The Vassalizer is one who makes vassals, my own definition. Yes, I could have called it the Lord persona, but I prefer more a obtuse reference on this since this persona in principle is slow to recognize and generally hard to wrap your head around.
So with my newly coined word for the maker of vassals being a little obscure, I’ll proposed another title which may work to help conceptualize this persona: the bizaaro team builder. Yes, bazaaro as in Superman’s Bizaaro World where everything is opposite.
So where a typical team builder guides, coaches and assembles people towards a common goal for the good for group, this is not how it works in the bizaaro serfdom. The Vassalizer creates an group of indentured folk over time who are working to ensure his or her success, while convincing them all is right with the world and there is only upside for them.
Make no bones about it - you like this person, they’re intelligent, you find them mildly interesting as a person and they appear to be executing more than the average bear from a distance. Just remember actively does not equal results, but the Vassalizer LOVES cross functional status reporting and activity is the key metric presented for his/her team, while other groups are just not producing the necessary results for his/her team to meet their obligations to the business.
This persona is more interested the status report than the actual work - the status report becomes the vehicle for building the serfdom. He who’s group authors the status report wins, no really…. This is a power which can be used for good or ill and the later is the Vassalizer’s use case. Perhaps we should ensure we are all aligned on what a vassal is.
vas·sal [vas-uhl] –noun
1. (in the feudal system) a person granted the use of land, in return for rendering homage, fealty, and usually military service or its equivalent to a lord or other superior; feudal tenant.
2. a person holding some similar relation to a superior; a subject, subordinate, follower, or retainer.
3. a servant or slave.
So if this persona makes folks vassals - how does this happen? The befriending happens immediately and you WILL like this person. Apparently nice, seemingly intelligent and someone you want to align with, but you can’t come into their tent until they invite you. The Vassalizer wants to first make sure you are just a little dimmer than him/her before you are eligible for being drafted on their team.
This persona looks for the lesser endowed members of the organization who can help his/her agenda and might have some career risk on the next couple of status reports. This leader waits for the appropriate status report where they can “help” a lesser leader by shaping the status report, just a little - to relieve any potential negative fallout for a vassal candidate. Once this public save is done, the team building begins.
There is no such thing as a free lunch and should someone allow the creation of a revisionist version of a status report, they are officially a vassal in the serfdom of the Vassalizer. The functional leader may not know immediately, but once the next report is shaped, it is quickly understood they are beholden. Once the functional leadership is stacked, on to middle management. After all the world needs blacksmiths and cobblers for the whole feudal system to work.
With leadership quorum secured, a Vassalizer will begin recommending middle of the road middle managers in other groups, groups where they have serfs - pronounce them as wunderkinds. These newly indoctrinated serfs should be involved with nearly every project - regardless of need or skills. Often these serfs introduce limited assistance to the goal of the project, but they do champion the agenda of the leader who has anointed them as landed super tenants.
With multi-level moles on nearly every key project this person now starts building their serfdom in earnest. The other special thing about being a serf, is the Vassalizer sets up meetings before the meeting for this band of serfs, effectively serfdom status reporting, kinda like being a club. The club also has meetings after meetings to ensure alignment for the next reporting period and correct course on any items which could be negative for the serfdom. In fact, during the real meeting him/her may actually remain fairly silent and appear in agreement to decisions or direction, while having the indentured present alternative versions or paths sponsored by the leader of the cabal. Yes, I am mixing metaphors. I’m a little conflicted on this persona, as it may actually be good for some and helps mediocre people move on to better things, even if above their contribution and skills - so it’s hard not to fall inline with the opportunities presented by the Vassalizer.
Each status report represents another opportunity to show the organization how him/her could ultimately do things better, even if they are silent on report, since the objective status report speaks for itself. The real interesting thing is the serfs often don’t understand the impact they are having on the business, their own careers and the livelihoods of those not in the kingdom of servitude.
Over time this person may pick up a significant set of resources and other functions to ensure success for future projects, since the newly made vassals effectively confirm all the assertions by the leader when queried, since it is in fact in their best personal interest.
The only way to combat this control freak leader is to document early, often and wide. I hate micro-messaging on a project, but that is what you have to do. Confirm open items, missed dates, decisions and provide a more open version of project status. Artificial escalation through the of “cc” line on emails is recommended, in fact go a little larger than appropriate. Use up levels, but also cross functional up levels when writing you horribly generic and optimistic notes on where the project is, while weaving in the project reality as a subtext. Word choice is critical.
By using soft inferences and recommended solutions you can effectively limit the impact of this person on your life and the part of the organization you are responsible for, but not necessarily the organization.
Organizations take a little more time to realize the negative impact of this leader type, since they appear to have the confidence of fellow leaders, understand how to improve the NEXT project and are in general seemingly OK folk.
The warning signs that you have this type of leader are fairly hard at the business level to detect, since the are symptoms which mimic other non-benign things - people resigning, forceful recommendations to exit others and project misses.
People leave all the time and it can be easily rationalized that they are getting more money or some other intangible. Ultimately people have choice and opportunity, so this easily explained away and seldom do folks burn bridges, so they don’t disclosure all the reasons for leaving.
This person will strenuously influence the exiting of key dissenters out of the business and ultimately people are taken out all the time, so any person is as good as the next and hey - remember we like and trust the Vassalizer. I mean the Vassalizer is a hands on micromanager who seems to understand the nuances of every project.
The final symptom, slipped projects is just a fact of business. Projects slip all the time, so what the heck and the status reports clearly explained how someone else impacted the success and timeline.
Time is the only real foe of this leader, over time the patterns will emerge and become easily recognizable by those who have been cleverly enlisted in the cabal and now somehow report to the Vassalizer. New members of management quickly see the behavior and a global feedback theme begins to develop and is openly socialized at multiple levels of the organization. Churning out dissenters ultimately backfires, at least the Vassal could previously discount feedback from those who him/her helped leave the business. Project participants who have repeatedly been burnt by an inaccurate status report begin to see the pattern and may begin to be more demanding on how things are reported.
At the end of the day, patience is a virtue and ultimately who knows what happens with the Vassalizer- maybe you get whacked in the process, but at least you have your integrity. All you ever have is your integrity, so protect and honor it. Integrity is the central required attribute from which all other parts of leadership develop.
Technorati Tags: Bizaaro World, status report, team building, feudal system, middle managers, cabal, micromanager, leadership
Posted in Stuck | 1 Comment »
Friday, September 14th, 2007
I appreciate Robert Frost’s questioning of why fences make good neighbors in Mending Wall. It seems like a construct at opposition to getting along and a free existence. It is however, not so in more effective business, groups and organizations.
Many leaders and individual contributors are very focused on building, mending and extending their fences. This too seems oddly inconsistent with a friendly little workplace, but alas it is how it is. Perhaps fence mending is a corporate culture issue as much as a personnel concern.
So what type of fences exist in corporations? Organization, process and the ad-hoc fence - all of these magically remove accountability of ownership when someone throws something over the fence. The fence mender can be a leader or a individual contributor, as a mid-level leader this is an persona which if effectively dealt which can dramatically improve the execution and cross-functional execution.
The fence mender is consistently proving the value of fences for lack of ownership, since they are consistently defining the fence with forwarded emails and copious “cc-ing” of folks, hoping that someone will pick it up.
Real easy to improve interactions in this mode - just ignore it or follow up with the mender and clarify alternative next steps for that person to work. The other way to change this organizational behavior is to find revenue risk or to optimize the process (less boxes and arrows). This behavior existing in both Product and Process roles, which I’m not sure I agree with some of the conclusion/assertions, I do like the construct, since in Howard’s description most Fencer Menders are in product jobs, from what I have seen, but the most damage (revenue or risk can be done process-centric roles.
Since a fence mender can be a worker bee too, it’s just an opportunity for growth. If you manage the fence mender, it represents an opportunity for embracing accountability and personal ownership of an issue which has found it’s way to you.
As a rule, if a customer, team member or manager (actually these are all customers if you think about it) reaches out to you it is implied that they are looking for the Menders assistance - and assistance to closure. So in fact a fence mender is anyone in the organization who is willing to flip things “over the fence” and use the fence or the public throwing over the fence as an excuse for why something didn’t go well.
In the Vassal organization ( A Vassal leader is not one we have examined yet - but think BIG organization), there are even fences in the same organization and even within smaller groups/team. Typically these organizations are horribly overstaffed and each person has a very small zone of ownership, skill requirement and little to no accountability.
In principle, a Fence Mender organization is overly process-centric (way too many swim lanes and boxes), lacking creativity (I do what is in my box) and generally the domain of the mediocre (just get it out of my box). To that end:
‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
- R. Frost
It appears the only person who is given offence is the “customer” in need of something. So why is it that fences make good neighbors?
Technorati Tags: Robert Frost, Mending Wall, cross-functional, process-centric, swim lanes
Posted in Stuck | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007
A good amount of people in most workplaces work a real day’s work, but there are few/a small handful that believe being a pass-thru entity who provides verbose email updates qualify as work. The visualist is mainly focused on visibility and will eagerly sign up for any action. That’s when the real fun starts.
FAST FORWARD: Meeting end +30 minutes: The visualist stops by the office and meanders his/her way to a discussion on “who might know this” or “who might know that” or “who could”. After the information is divulged in a way that he or she can comprehend - they disappear - so they’re kinda magician’s as well.
Action item due time -30 minutes: Visualist stops by and plays back their assessments of the status, asks for input and thoughts around next steps. You give it up and - WHOOSH - gone like a phantom.
Status Meeting -12 minutes: Some how in the time you chatted a 3 page missive is sent which is effectively only 3 bullets of update, 2 bullets of next steps and a bunch of “here’s how tough it was” and “thanks to xxxx”. Ah the visualist value add - bloated communication, kudos and poor word choice.
Meeting: He or she boastfully brings in their update printed and reads it, like they aren’t sure they know it outside of the script.
So the fun part with this type of self-proclaimed leader starts when you go for the details. Go into the details, he or she will need to publicly engage the person who did the work or state they need to follow up with the work doer for additional validation and clarity, after fumbling towards an answer.
The other slightly mean thing to do is to send them off to the wrong people, this only works with short deadlines. Or goof with them on next steps… So while the stuck series speaks to leadership and middle management influence, the visualist is typically a climber who believes they are a leader. I mean they typically are in the office early.
These people typically think note taking and action management with the leadership is leadership. Some time’s note taking is just note taking. Typically these peoples ego’s will provide a quick burn from which only a phoenix will rise.
Posted in Stuck | No Comments »
Wednesday, August 15th, 2007
The Collaborator sorta sounds like a super hero - not so much, but I can see the spandex garb in my head, so I’ll run with it.
The collaborator is an interesting leadership persona - on the surface it is a label, mode of operation and general concept which is good - right up until something requires accountability. So let me state - a product, deliverable or just plain anything is just plain better with help. In fact a group can always produce a better product, but there always lingers the group think risk, which ignored, not understood or believed to be a myth by the collaborator. Think Abilene paradox! - agreement is a bear.
Usually the better product is produced through iterations and review, rather than sharing the creative process, model development or production activity. Everyone has a role and value they bring to the table, but the leadership super hero - The Collaborator - believes ALL phases of delivery are best done with 12 people (4 on a dial in number, 6 people in the room and 2 following up after the fact via email). While with a geologist, I just put together some diagnosis concepts, the collaborator requires a little more work to flesh out and help folks understand how to thrive in a collaboration lifestyle - err “workstyle”.
So in a collaborative reality the delivery time lines are COMPLETELY manageable and by manageable - I mean lot’s of headroom, but due to the number of meetings - the whole thing is a little over complicated from a production process perspective. The meetings become a great opportunity to get input - in fact this leader prefers volume of input to validity of input. So in the model - the more commentary the better, I find myself becoming a play-by-play analyst of my daily work life (update emails, update meetings, update blog posts..) and acknowledging each item of input through a series of “let me know sure I fully understand - you believe <insert random input provided by a direct report of the collaborator>” or rapid response email requesting more quality insights which can help delay the next rev of uninspiring delivery.
This is the best leadership model to survive/hide in, all you need is input and participation in the process, since the team will develop all parts of the deliverable. In fact, it is almost preferred to start with a framework, rather than a draft of something - since no single person is accountable in this model. The model by design makes EVERY work product a success and while I never participated/witnessed, I suspect there are group hugs if I was able to attend all of the typical 3 hour review meeting.
Facts, stats and logic are your magic bullet under this leader persona - in fact if you can present the facts in the way that the leader believes it was a product of the team, you WIN and get to participate in future love fests which produce watered down messaging, minimalist risk taking and in general a place to call your own on the Phrog farm.
Jerry Harvey on Phrogs:
All organizations have two essential purposes. One is to produce widgets, glops, and fillips. The other is to turn people into phrogs. In many organizations, the latter purpose takes precedence over the former. For example, in many organizations, it is more important to follow the chain of command than to behave sensibly.
Phrog is spelled with a ph because phrogs don’t like to be known as frogs, and they try to hide their phroginess from themselves and others by transparent means… For one who has been a person, it’s a great come down to be a phrog.
Technorati Tags: leadership, group think, group hugs
Posted in Leadership, Stuck | 4 Comments »
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007
As part of the stuck in the middle series, I will develop multiple personae for examination - the first one is “The Geologist”. The Geologist can be a leader or an individual contributor whose actions of each are on opposite poles of detail - too much or too little.
The Geologist as a leader, says “Bring me a rock” - most often in business this cliche has many use cases, but in my view its the project sponsor, manager or executive who only knows they need something which has a hardness on Moh scale than talc, but clearly we don’t have time for diamonds or a meaningful/supportable/executable explanation of what is required.
Don’t get me wrong, I like bullet points like the next person - but not in the project definition phase - conclusions, lessons learns and general presentations - bullet=rock, but not in the “project contract” for lack of a better word.
Typically this leader will not fully understand what they want - “I want a new “X”". The geologist doesn’t know what it is, but they clearly know what it is NOT. So contributors will go labor, come back and get told “not exactly”, go labor - come back, “nope”, so the loop continues…
There is a point in time typically when the geologist realizes 2 or 3 of the loop iterations ACTUALLY were close, they synthesize and go home. This can add as much as N-times of effort, had the leader defined his or her wants the first time or understood their wants.
Now the individual contributor which is a geologist type, endlessly “tumbles” their rock until it is shiny and cool. It’s not at all the right rock, but they have spent so much time that they are convinced it is valuable - kinda of a fools gold deliverable if you will.
When you get a geologist leader AND executor, you are sure to have over efforted products, content and requirements which will total miss the spirit of the project, but not the letter. After all, the Bullet=Rock, so everyone is fairly happy right until the market launch. Speaking of market launches, this can at times be a great persona for embracing the perfection trap.
At some point you have to stop the tumbler, make an assessment and deliver goods - even if it is a ROCK.
management persona
Technorati Tags: leader, individual contributor
Posted in Leadership, Stuck | 2 Comments »
