Friday, September 30, 2016

Paul's Update 9/30



As a leader, communicating can sometimes feel like Groundhog Day. No matter how hard you try to get your message across, it is all too easy to find the next day that you face the same blank stares, predictable objections, and questions that indicate that you failed to make it stick — that people just aren’t getting it.  One reason leaders find themselves in this cycle is that their approach to communication is based on an outdated mental model. It’s a model best described as a “post office.” They view themselves as the sender of a message and others as the receivers. 

The post office model focuses most leaders’ attention on the sending process, rather than the give-and-take of effective conversations. By contrast, true two-way conversations reflect a more open, balanced, and reciprocal sharing of perspectives.

Although many leaders have personally experienced the power of this type of dialogue, few have mastered the art of initiating it. The following strategies can help.

Slow down. If others find you stressed, overloaded, or distracted, they will avoid disrupting your fragile focus. By slowing down and being truly present, you create the opportunity for people to come to you with new information, questions, or ideas.

Create a safe space. Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson’s work shows how important it is to create psychological safety, if you want to explore diverse views and foster ideas.

Ask inviting questions. Questions help you focus a conversation without limiting creativity.

Listen with a willingness to be influenced. The best way to improve communication is to focus on the listening part. When you create time and listen with an open mind, you bring out others’ confidence and encourage them to share their questions, needs and ideas. And as you learn more about their mental models, you can frame your ideas more effectively.

Use reflection to deepen the learning. You can build the skills for dialogue by periodically pausing to reflect on your conversation.

Summarize and ask for commitment. Because two-way conversations are usually wide-ranging, it is very important to recap what was discovered, where you are now, and what is needed next. Where relevant, this is an excellent time to ask for commitments that move the ball forward.

In the end, the real magic of two-way conversations is that they break the cycle of predictable, ineffective communication, replacing it with fresh thinking and actionable solutions. 



Convincing employees to go above and beyond the call of duty may be the epitome of personnel management. We all want our employees to be engaged and motivated. Of course, that’s easier said than done.

Some people are intrinsically motivated to exceed their job descriptions in order to support organizational goals. These self-starters need no external cues to help a co-worker learn a new skill; offer suggestions for process improvement; recruit a new employee; or volunteer for an assignment. Most, however, require some external motivation to go above and beyond their jobs. But can pushing too hard to create “good soldiers” lead to unintended consequences?

To find out, we designed a pair of studies that would measure the ethical repercussions of externally motivated organizational citizenship.

Our first study examined its effect in the workplace. From surveys of 82 work teams representing a wide range of organizations and industries in eastern China, we concluded that efforts to persuade employees to exhibit above-and-beyond behaviors at work initially led to good citizenship behaviors. But they also led to subsequent deviant behaviors such as making fun of a co-worker or taking office property without permission.

Our second study examined the effect of externally motivated organizational citizenship both inside and outside of work. Surveying 180 teams of employees and managers at U.S. organizations, we confirmed that employees who were externally compelled to be good soldiers at work were more likely to engage in deviant actions both inside and outside of work, such as cursing at a coworker or a stranger.

Why the bad behavior? Our research draws upon “moral licensing” theory which asserts, essentially, that doing good things gives us license to do bad things later. 

In both studies, we observed that employees who feel compelled by extrinsic forces (supervisory demands, formal and informal norms, threat of punishment) to exhibit the admirable qualities of a team player tend to develop a sense of psychological entitlement. This entitlement is funded by those recently deposited credits in the moral bank account. And it’s powerful enough to act as a moral license, freeing employees to engage in bad behaviors that can be unrelated to the good organizational citizenship behaviors they’ve been persuaded to exhibit.

In other words, compliance leads to deviance.

To prevent a sense of entitlement within organizations, we advise a two-pronged approach:
  1. Temper the urge to motivate employees to go above and beyond the job description.
  2. Develop a work environment in which people are more intrinsically inspired to participate in pro-organization behaviors. 

Ultimately, the key to avoiding the negative consequences of moral credentialing is to create a culture that values and emphasizes the intrinsic value of good organizational citizenship behaviors.



George Bernard Shaw said ‘The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place’. 

What then is the Illusion of Communication?

Many people talk, yet very few communicate. Do we have an audience or do we think we have an audience and then even if you have an audience why are you assuming they are listening to you? What have you done for them and what is the vision or hope that they will derive from your message?

What should we be doing to ensure that our communication actually took place, what actions should we be looking for?

Leadership starts with us, and you are probably thinking “but this article is about communication” – yes it is and when we are able to effectively communicate we are also able to lead our own lives and possibly the lives of others through our example.

Here are the actions we should be looking for:

  • Listening – did we listen effectively? When we are able to listen to the conversations of others and hear their needs we are able to communicate effectively with them, only by listening to others can we start by showing that we actually care for them.
  • Emotion – playing big and tough, only wanting the facts and not the emotion when we listen is just as futile as only giving facts and no emotion when we communicate. We can be factually correct, but unless we believe in the message and how it will change the lives of others, we have simply given facts and not connected with the emotions of our audience – we are then co-creators of the Illusion of Communication.
  • Questions – only when people start to ask us questions can we really know they listened, without questions we can be very confident that we missed the mark.
  • Feedback – Sometimes the audience will be reluctant to ask questions, we need to be prepared to make broad sweeping generalisations so that we can get a reaction from the audience. This is a controversial way of approaching things but if you are bold enough it can work in your favour. As a leader you should always be ready to communicate with people.
  • Conversation – some of the worst communication we can give is a complete statement, all the facts or say anything where we don’t welcome feedback. NO, that is arrogance not leadership, we never have all the facts, we can never make a complete statement and we always need to show that we care for the opinions of others.

If we are able to follow those simple steps we can begin to seek better ways to listen and understand others, so that ultimately we may be able to communicate a little more effectively with them.



The key to solving complex problems may be to simplify as much as possible and approach them with a beginner's mind.

We all know the merit of simplicity in life and business. But creating simplicity, as Apple’s Jony Ive described, is anything but simple.

"Designing and developing anything of consequence is incredibly challenging. Our goal is to try to bring a calm and simplicity to what are incredibly complex problems so that you're not aware really of the solution, you're not aware of how hard the problem was that was eventually solved." – Sir Johathan (Jony) Ive

This idea of "simplification" is not only complex from a technical or business point of view; it is even more complex from emotional and philosophical point of view. 

Once I had the rare privilege to dine at the sushi restaurant Sukiyabashi Jiro in Ginza, Chūō, Tokyo, Japan. It is owned and operated by sushi master Jiro Ono. Anyone who has seen this master work his craft can sense the devotion that goes into his simple yet complex creations. Master Ono exudes the very essence of the Japanese word Shibumi, which means "effortless perfection." In this context, Shibumi suggests complete harmony, tranquility, and balance.

It is "eloquent silence" and "understanding, rather than knowledge."

Jiro Ono creates each sushi piece with a state of calm and tranquility with a "beginner’s mind" each time — he does not focus on what he made before or what he will make next. It portrays his:

  • Discipline: the ability to say no when something doesn’t fit into his plan
  • Patience: that allows for the true quality of his devotion and experience
  • Strength: to stay focused on his singular purpose

One could argue from Jiro Ono’s mastery that he has "found" simplicity through the complex process of understanding what simplicity meant for him.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Paul's Update Special 9/23





Over the last 30 years, consumers have reaped the benefits of dramatic technological advances. Even with these massive gains, we can expect still faster progress as the entire planet—people and things—becomes connected. Already, five billion people have access to a mobile device, and more than three billion people can access the Internet. In the coming years, 50 billion things—from light bulbs to refrigerators, roads, clothing, and more—will be connected to the Internet as well.

Every generation or so, emerging technologies converge, and something revolutionary occurs. Now we are on the cusp of another major convergence: big data, machine learning, and increased computing power will soon make artificial intelligence, or AI, ubiquitous. AI follows Albert Einstein’s dictum that genius renders simplicity from complexity.

Consumers already encounter AI on a daily basis. Google uses machine learning to auto-complete search queries and often accurately predicts what someone is looking for. Facebook and Amazon use predictive algorithms to make recommendations based on a user’s reading or purchasing history. Given AI’s wide applications, all companies today face an imperative to integrate it into their products and services; otherwise, they will not be able to compete with companies that are using data-collection networks to improve customer experiences and inform business decisions. 

Advances in so-called “deep learning,” a branch of AI modeled after the brain’s neural network, could help doctors identify cancer-cell types or intracranial abnormalities from anywhere in the world in real time. AI can also detect and defend against digital security breaches, and will play a critical role in protecting user privacy and building trust.

As in past periods of economic transformation, AI will unleash new levels of productivity, augment our personal and professional lives, and pose existential questions about the age-old relationship between man and machine. It will disrupt industries and dislocate workers as it automates more tasks. But just as the Internet did 20 years ago, AI will also improve existing jobs and spawn new ones. We should expect this and adapt accordingly by providing training for the jobs of tomorrow, as well as safety nets for those who fall behind.

We can count on technological innovation to continue at an even more rapid pace than in previous generations. AI will become like electrical current—invisible and augmenting almost every part of our lives. 



More companies are adopting sprints: a two- to five-day process that helps companies solve and test design problems. Sprints are effective because they give teams of all sizes the motivation and momentum to turn an idea into a prototype. If your team wants to try working in sprints, follow the process developed by Google Ventures. They've developed a great booklet, which we've summarized here.

How Google Ventures Runs a Design Sprint

PREPARE

This stage is universal to every design sprint, and it belongs to the sprint master, or the person leading the sprint. Assume you'll need one day of preparation for every sprint day. Before beginning the sprint:

  • Formulate a meaningful design challenge the sprint will center around, and identify deliverables.
  • Select and invite the sprint team, which should be between five to eight people.
  • Put together a schedule for every component of the sprint.
  • Lead a design audit to understand the existing issues.
  • Gather supplies that are necessary for each stage: sharpies, paper, tape, sticky notes, and a timer.
  • Choose methods for every stage of the sprint. Compile the challenge, deliverables, schedule, audit results, and methods in a deck.

UNDERSTAND

In the first phase, the team determines user needs, business needs, and technology capacities. This could consist of:
  • User Interviews. Kick off your sprint by asking users how they use a particular product, and why they like or dislike a product.
  • Competitive overview. Find out what other products or services inspire the current product. (Five to ten products should be sufficient.) 
  • Summarizing the learnings and first ideas. Use sticky notes to share the first ideas people generate, and group them into themes. Vote on the best ideas to determine which should be used as a springboard for the sprint.

DEFINE

Break down ideas from the first stage to determine the key strategy and focus. Make them more concrete by defining:
  • The Central User Journey. Put together a map that lists all the stages someone goes through from learning about the product to becoming an expert user. 
  • Design Principles. List the three words that you would like users to use to describe the product. 
  • The First Tweet. Imagine you are launching the product. What is the first Tweet you send out? This can help the team focus their strategy in 140 characters.

DIVERGE

Now it's time to come up with as many solutions as possible:
  • Quick Sketch: Fold a piece of paper in half, and then half again, to create eight rectangles. Give everyone five minutes to sketch one product idea in each rectangle. 
  • Storyboards. Give your team five minutes to sketch a storyboard, or comic strip, demonstrating all the key steps the user must take. 

DECIDE

It's finally time to make a choice. 

  • Zen Voting. Share your sketched ideas with the team, and then vote silently to avoid team bias.
  • Team Review. Evaluates the ideas with the highest votes and decide which ones to prototype. It may be necessary to do more sketching and exploring.
  • Thinking Hats. Encourage everyone to choose a thinking hat (idea generator, optimist, pessimist, technical feasibility, or user advocate) and evaluate the decision from that point of view. 

PROTOTYPE AND VALIDATE

Lastly, create a mock-up, demo, video, or physical prototype of your product, and get it into the right hands:
  • User test. Let a user play with it to see if anything needs to be improved. 
  • Stakeholder feedback. Since the stakeholder holds the checkbook, their review of the product is essential for the sprint to succeed. 
  • Technical feasibility check. Will the existing team be able to carry out production? If not, discuss potential workarounds. 

FOLLOW UP

After the sprint is done, it’s important for the sprint master to create a follow-up plan, share the results and survey participants to learn how to keep making sprints better in the future. 

Takeaway: Google Venture’s sprint method will give your team the momentum and motivation they need to present a quality product prototype to stakeholders in a week. Remember, the plan above isn’t an exact science. You may substitute methods for your own or shorten the time spent on one stage, but make sure to go in order. 



Why should flying deplete us? We’re just sitting there doing nothing. Why can’t we be tougher — more resilient and determined in our work – so we can accomplish all of the goals we set for ourselves? Based on our current research, we have come to realize that the problem is not our hectic schedule or the plane travel itself; the problem comes from a misunderstanding of what it means to be resilient, and the resulting impact of overworking.

We often take a militaristic, “tough” approach to resilience and grit. We believe that the longer we tough it out, the tougher we are, and therefore the more successful we will be. However, this entire conception is scientifically inaccurate.

The very lack of a recovery period is dramatically holding back our collective ability to be resilient and successful. Research has found that there is a direct correlation between lack of recovery and increased incidence of health and safety problems.

And just because work stops, it doesn’t mean we are recovering. In a study released last month, researchers from Norway found that 7.8% of Norwegians have become workaholics. The scientists cite a definition of “workaholism” as “being overly concerned about work, driven by an uncontrollable work motivation, and investing so much time and effort to work that it impairs other important life areas.”

The key to resilience is trying really hard, then stopping, recovering, and then trying again. This conclusion is based on biology. Homeostasis is a fundamental biological concept describing the ability of the brain to continuously restore and sustain well-being. When the body is out of alignment from overworking, we waste a vast amount of mental and physical resources trying to return to balance before we can move forward.

As Jim Loehr and Tony Schwartz have written, if you have too much time in the performance zone, you need more time in the recovery zone, otherwise you risk burnout. The value of a recovery period rises in proportion to the amount of work required of us.

So how do we recover and build resilience? If you’re trying to build resilience at work, you need adequate internal and external recovery periods. As researchers Zijlstra, Cropley and Rydstedt write in their 2014 paper: “Internal recovery refers to the shorter periods of relaxation that take place within the frames of the workday or the work setting in the form of short scheduled or unscheduled breaks, by shifting attention or changing to other work tasks when the mental or physical resources required for the initial task are temporarily depleted or exhausted. External recovery refers to actions that take place outside of work—e.g. in the free time between the workdays, and during weekends, holidays or vacations.”

If you really want to build resilience, you can start by strategically stopping. Give yourself the resources to be tough by creating internal and external recovery periods. You can take a cognitive break every 90 minutes to recharge your batteries. Spend time outside or with your friends — not talking about work. Take all of your paid time off, which not only gives you recovery periods, but raises your productivity and likelihood of promotion.


Wicked Problem Solvers:  Lessons from Successful Cross-Industry Teams

Companies have long cooperated within their ecosystems, working with suppliers, partners, customers, and even competitors. But as the premium on innovating grows, especially for wicked problems—those with incomplete, contradictory, or changing requirements— more organizations are tapping the capabilities of new and far-flung partners. That such cross-industry collaborations can generate radical innovations is clear. How to build and run them is another matter.

Though the practices are presented here in sequence, in reality they are not isolated activities that are executed and then completed. Rather, they evolve as leaders cycle through them, continually optimizing each, using experience from one to inform another. For example, learning from project execution often leads to modification of the starting vision. Let’s look at each practice in turn.

Foster an Adaptable Vision

Project leaders know that a compelling vision motivates team members to work hard and collaborate. The conventional wisdom has been that an unwavering vision is needed to keep people inspired and on track; but in cross-industry teaming, where innovation projects are complex, dynamic, and uncertain, the vision must be deliberately designed to evolve, for three reasons: First, a team’s capabilities are often unclear at the outset. As members’ expertise is integrated, new possibilities come into focus. Second, an adaptable vision provides room for diverse participants to shape it early on and influence it as the work unfolds, both of which are essential to maintaining engagement. And finally, as these novel projects get under way, end users’ needs may change. 

Make project values explicit. While project vision may shift, the motivating values underlying it—its supporting principles—serve as unchanging bedrock.

Invite input and celebrate change. It’s critical to engage team members from diverse industries in developing and reshaping a project vision. 

Promote Psychological Safety

Much has been written about the importance of creating team environments in which it’s “safe” to volunteer crazy ideas, admit errors, and openly disagree without fear of ridicule or punishment. To create a climate that invites people to speak up, leaders commonly model the desired behaviors—being curious, acknowledging uncertainty, highlighting their own fallibility. These and other tactics that promote psychological safety are particularly important  for cross-industry innovation teams.

Acknowledge the experiment. Pointing out that the work ahead is experimental creates an expectation that risk taking, both interpersonal and technical, is essential. 

Reduce legal concerns. To build a safe environment, it sometimes helps to clarify the project’s legal context.

Encourage social bonding. In projects where interindustry trust is low, new innovation teams typically begin with a negative balance of it. That’s why it’s important for leaders to explicitly cast the diverse expertise among participants as a source of solutions rather than of conflict. 

Enable Knowledge Sharing

The insights that come from deep understanding of an industry often seem so obvious to experts that it may not occur to them to explain their reasoning. This creates misunderstanding and conflict. Project leaders should insist that participants share their thought processes, and should help them do so. 

Emphasize professional values. As discussed, clarifying project values is central to building the cohesion that helps cross-industry teams weather a project’s shifting goals. Likewise, cross-industry project leaders must surface the professional values that characterize different disciplines and find the common ground among them. 

Force face-to-face interaction. Left to their own devices, most people will incline toward others in their own business. A real-estate finance professional is not going to naturally sit down with a software developer to share insights. Such connections become even harder to build across geographic, language, and national boundaries. One way to overcome these obstacles is to encourage face-to-face interaction among team members. 

Foster Execution-as-Learning

Because there is no blueprint to follow the best leaders embrace an execution-as-learning mindset that puts a premium on experimentation. 

Test and learn.  At certain points in the process, big ideas (alleviate poverty through better business approaches) must be followed by small action (provide business training to individuals on the ground). Experiments must be narrow and deliberate, to gain insight about what works in unfamiliar territory. 

Welcome “arguable” changes. Any cross-industry project is going to encounter scope changes. During the Autodesk headquarters project, VP Phil Bernstein, himself an architect, offered this typology: avoidable, unforeseeable, and arguable. Avoidable scope changes result from inadequate sharing or poor planning; unforeseeable changes are new requirements that emerge as a project unfolds and more is learned; arguable changes—also emergent—are the result of new, debate-worthy preferences that surface unexpectedly. 

THE MOST audacious innovations simply cannot be created
by single companies or by industries operating alone. Leaders
increasingly find themselves operating in complex business ecosystems where cross-industry teaming is necessary to innovation. To succeed in this world, they must strike a difficult balance: They need to advance their vision by looking beyond their own industry perspective and engaging a host of potentially antagonistic experts with distinct industry mindsets. They must be flexible, open-minded, and humble on the one hand and filled with fierce resolve on the other. Leading this way is challenging, but it’s a learnable skill, and as cross-industry teaming becomes the norm, it is one that no leader or firm can afford to ignore.