"I am not this steeply sloping hour in which you see me hurrying." Rainer Maria Rilke, German Poet
I am not hurrying even though I am in motion, constantly. I am managing my fear that everything I am supposed to be doing will end in my termination. The relentless pace of meetings and reviews hides the hopelessness I feel. Productivity trumps innovation; activity supplants creativity. My attention is not focused because my purpose is unclear. I have passion, but it mostly scares me these days. If I lead with passion and inquire about purpose, I'll lose my job. Meanwhile, I am losing me.
Identity precedes productivity. The courage to be is rarer today than the impulse to do. This is not just an excursion into philosophical speculation. It is a fundamental principle of high performance.
Are we a Research organization with a capital "R" or a development organization that will continue to place our bets on short-term incremental improvements on products already in the market? A student with whom I spoke not long ago at the African Leadership Academy in Joberg described himself as "an Egyption from Cairo who is Muslim who is also African, though my skin is not black, who wants to be a global citizen." He is actively claiming who is!
I am enacting the motion of working hard but am hardly working, in terms of my own deepest values. No matter! Management just asks for more. And I keep on keeping on.
Do you know who you are? Will you speak up? It does matter!
Showing posts with label business performance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business performance. Show all posts
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Necessity of Empty Spaces
Just a few weeks ago as the New Year was upon me, I found myself rummaging through piles, boxes, folders, and computer files, wanting to pause long enough to review some of the rapidly accumulating evidence of past work.
I came across my “facilitator’s guide” for an event I designed and led for business leaders in the Mojave Desert some 15 years ago . We called it “The Necessity of Empty Spaces”. For three days we intentionally used the desert environment to escape from the demands of the workplace just to think, reflect, yes, even meditate. Among other tools, we used the Disciplined Inquiry™ methodology (which I still use with clients today) to work a real business dilemma.
Many creative and talented people today seemingly have no “pause button” which they can hit to escape the relentless demands of doing more with less. It is taking an enormous toll in the workplace as managers attempt to achieve greater and greater efficiencies.
Pacing productivity does not mean simply seeking ways to go further faster. It is essential that we recognize the value, indeed the necessity, of stopping from time to time, of finding and claiming some “space”. When is the last time you were caught in the act of thinking on the job? What is required for you to claim that kind of space for yourself?
The Chief Strategy Officer of a Fortune 50 company, one of my current clients, as part of a recent conversation on this very subject, directed my attention to a speech on Solitude and Leadership that was delivered to the plebe class at West Point last year. I encourage you to find a few moments to read it and then take a walk. Define some space that is intentionally empty. See what happens!
I came across my “facilitator’s guide” for an event I designed and led for business leaders in the Mojave Desert some 15 years ago . We called it “The Necessity of Empty Spaces”. For three days we intentionally used the desert environment to escape from the demands of the workplace just to think, reflect, yes, even meditate. Among other tools, we used the Disciplined Inquiry™ methodology (which I still use with clients today) to work a real business dilemma.
Many creative and talented people today seemingly have no “pause button” which they can hit to escape the relentless demands of doing more with less. It is taking an enormous toll in the workplace as managers attempt to achieve greater and greater efficiencies.
Pacing productivity does not mean simply seeking ways to go further faster. It is essential that we recognize the value, indeed the necessity, of stopping from time to time, of finding and claiming some “space”. When is the last time you were caught in the act of thinking on the job? What is required for you to claim that kind of space for yourself?
The Chief Strategy Officer of a Fortune 50 company, one of my current clients, as part of a recent conversation on this very subject, directed my attention to a speech on Solitude and Leadership that was delivered to the plebe class at West Point last year. I encourage you to find a few moments to read it and then take a walk. Define some space that is intentionally empty. See what happens!
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Greater Incentives, Worse Performance - Really!
"There's a mismatch between what science knows and business does," Dan Pink persuasively asserted as he made his case at TED for re-examining the use of contingent motivators. His TED talk hit my “sweet spot” in terms of professional concerns more than any other. The evidence from experimental tasks using little more than a candle and a box of tacks is compelling. Extrinsic rewards work well with simple tasks and narrow focus. Beyond a certain point, greater incentives actually lead to worse performance.
The most urgent agendas of the 21st century will be repeatedly undermined if we think we can motivate by incrementally increasing promised rewards for those who tackle them. “If, then, rewards don’t work! It makes me crazy!” Pink exclaimed. Yet we persist in trying to motivate our top talent in business today in ways that seem merely to increase stress and kill passion.
The failure of Encarta, Microsoft’s attempt to launch a virtual encyclopedia, contrasted with the massively expanding phenomenon of Wikipedia, is but one example Pink used to document his case beyond the behavioral experiments. “The building blocks for an entirely new operating system for our economy are: (1)autonomy; (2) mastery; and (3) purpose, “ Dan continued.
I resonate deeply with these principles. From the outside looking in on more than one corporate R&D function, it seems nearly impossible to find ways to free highly talented, once passionate scientists and engineers, from “processes on steroids”. I just completed writing a paper on "Gaining Employee Committment in Tough Times, Performance and Potential in R&D Today". Now that I think about it, in the afterglow of TED, we are positioning some practices with clients that are well aligned with what I heard Dan saying from the TED stage.
"Science knows what our heart confirms." No wonder I thought this was one of the best talks of the week.
The most urgent agendas of the 21st century will be repeatedly undermined if we think we can motivate by incrementally increasing promised rewards for those who tackle them. “If, then, rewards don’t work! It makes me crazy!” Pink exclaimed. Yet we persist in trying to motivate our top talent in business today in ways that seem merely to increase stress and kill passion.
The failure of Encarta, Microsoft’s attempt to launch a virtual encyclopedia, contrasted with the massively expanding phenomenon of Wikipedia, is but one example Pink used to document his case beyond the behavioral experiments. “The building blocks for an entirely new operating system for our economy are: (1)autonomy; (2) mastery; and (3) purpose, “ Dan continued.
I resonate deeply with these principles. From the outside looking in on more than one corporate R&D function, it seems nearly impossible to find ways to free highly talented, once passionate scientists and engineers, from “processes on steroids”. I just completed writing a paper on "Gaining Employee Committment in Tough Times, Performance and Potential in R&D Today". Now that I think about it, in the afterglow of TED, we are positioning some practices with clients that are well aligned with what I heard Dan saying from the TED stage.
"Science knows what our heart confirms." No wonder I thought this was one of the best talks of the week.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Tapping the Full Potential of Top Talent
More than one of our clients in the last year has asked the question: “Are we maximizing the contribution or optimizing the potential of our technical employees?” “How do we know if the performance of our R&D pipeline indeed reflects the full potential of the top talent in our labs?”
While looking for a response to that question may be useful, any answer to it is inherently “political”. Why? First, because the criteria for “performance” are not widely understood and accepted the deeper one goes in most R&D organizations. There is often substantial disagreement about how “performance” is recognized and rewarded (and not much dialogue about what performance really means to the professional at the bench). Secondly, human potential cannot be captured by any metric. There is always more potential.
The answer will always be political; the inquiry, however, is essential.
When asked about employee potential, THE most frequent indicator that management points to is the “engagement survey” conducted by corporate HR or global shared services. I was recently sitting in a break-out group with a 10-12 scientists from the R&D function. We were asked to work on the low scores on an "engagement survey" related to “working with the customer”. The entire 90 minutes was spent debating what “customer” means for the R&D group. The group virtually discounted the value of the entire survey because of lack of shared understanding - not just related to ”customer” but other aspects as well for those completing it.
Trying to decode corporate surveys is no substitute for being engaged oneself.
While looking for a response to that question may be useful, any answer to it is inherently “political”. Why? First, because the criteria for “performance” are not widely understood and accepted the deeper one goes in most R&D organizations. There is often substantial disagreement about how “performance” is recognized and rewarded (and not much dialogue about what performance really means to the professional at the bench). Secondly, human potential cannot be captured by any metric. There is always more potential.
The answer will always be political; the inquiry, however, is essential.
When asked about employee potential, THE most frequent indicator that management points to is the “engagement survey” conducted by corporate HR or global shared services. I was recently sitting in a break-out group with a 10-12 scientists from the R&D function. We were asked to work on the low scores on an "engagement survey" related to “working with the customer”. The entire 90 minutes was spent debating what “customer” means for the R&D group. The group virtually discounted the value of the entire survey because of lack of shared understanding - not just related to ”customer” but other aspects as well for those completing it.
Trying to decode corporate surveys is no substitute for being engaged oneself.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Power of Perfection
“If you become widely successful because you do everything right, you’re doomed.”
So said Clayton Christensen, academic, author, and authority on “disruptive innovation” whom I heard speak last week on the state of healthcare in our nation. While I indeed share many of his concerns about our healthcare system, the above comment at the beginning of his presentation was what loomed in my mind at the time and ever since.
Our drive to “get it right” is fueled by a confusion between excellence and perfection. I can’t tell you how many times I hear talented and highly trained PhD professionals working at the lab bench comment on the potential value of an 80/20% solution. Yet seldom is that deemed adequate, either by research professionals or management. Despite the rhetoric, the “line” doesn’t play. Why?
As individuals we're reluctant to attend to a root cause – the need we acquired as individuals, somewhere along the way, to be “perfect” in order to be accepted, recognized, loved. I can “hear” clients thinking, “Don’t go psychological on me!” However, such personality traits, multiplied many times over in a given organization, become embedded in the culture. We are more productive when we don't undermine ourselves and our projects with the unrecognized power of perfection. At least I am.
To know the difference between excellence and perfection is to understand what it means to be human.
So said Clayton Christensen, academic, author, and authority on “disruptive innovation” whom I heard speak last week on the state of healthcare in our nation. While I indeed share many of his concerns about our healthcare system, the above comment at the beginning of his presentation was what loomed in my mind at the time and ever since.
Our drive to “get it right” is fueled by a confusion between excellence and perfection. I can’t tell you how many times I hear talented and highly trained PhD professionals working at the lab bench comment on the potential value of an 80/20% solution. Yet seldom is that deemed adequate, either by research professionals or management. Despite the rhetoric, the “line” doesn’t play. Why?
As individuals we're reluctant to attend to a root cause – the need we acquired as individuals, somewhere along the way, to be “perfect” in order to be accepted, recognized, loved. I can “hear” clients thinking, “Don’t go psychological on me!” However, such personality traits, multiplied many times over in a given organization, become embedded in the culture. We are more productive when we don't undermine ourselves and our projects with the unrecognized power of perfection. At least I am.
To know the difference between excellence and perfection is to understand what it means to be human.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Chronos, Kairos, and Creativity
International authorities responsible for keeping time precise announced that today, the first day of yet another New Year, we were given an extra second of time. How often we hear in our work that there is simply not enough time! Yet time hangs heavy for many these days - the uncertainty of a failing economy is more than a passing moment.
The ancient Greeks had multiple words for "time". Chronos refers to chronological time - the quantitative nature of time as before and after, time which is always scarce. Kairos on the other hand refers to a qualitative attentiveness, time as significant rather than dimensional. Kairos is a passing instant when an opening appears, offering a unique transformational moment for those who see it.
Too often we gauge our productivity in terms of "chronos" rather than training ourselves to be attentive to "kairos". Recently published research, "Time and Organizational Improvisation" argues that improvisation is an ideal basis for a synthesis of chronos and kairos, "blending conflicting concepts such as planning and acting, discipline and freedom, control and spontaneity."
Focusing on time solely as chronos distracts from the creative power of kairos. I look forward to discovering the kairos of 2009 in ways we have not yet imagined.
Happy New Year!
The ancient Greeks had multiple words for "time". Chronos refers to chronological time - the quantitative nature of time as before and after, time which is always scarce. Kairos on the other hand refers to a qualitative attentiveness, time as significant rather than dimensional. Kairos is a passing instant when an opening appears, offering a unique transformational moment for those who see it.
Too often we gauge our productivity in terms of "chronos" rather than training ourselves to be attentive to "kairos". Recently published research, "Time and Organizational Improvisation" argues that improvisation is an ideal basis for a synthesis of chronos and kairos, "blending conflicting concepts such as planning and acting, discipline and freedom, control and spontaneity."
Focusing on time solely as chronos distracts from the creative power of kairos. I look forward to discovering the kairos of 2009 in ways we have not yet imagined.
Happy New Year!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Telling the Truth about Failure
For the last several weeks, as the U.S. financial services industry has crumbled before our very eyes, I have been writing a talk which I will give on several occasions in the next few weeks. The topic, chosen months ago, is "Telling the Truth about Failure: Ambition and Ambivalence". I finally completed a first draft yesterday after more than the usual procrastination. As I look back at the churn and turmoil of the past few weeks, in the U.S. economy as well as in my own creative process, I am more aware than ever of the ways in which we seek to distance ourselves from failure.
I recently participated in a meeting of top tier R&D leaders who were being briefed on the "organizational fitness" exercises which were about to commence (read: downsizing and layoffs). Later in the same meeting, the group reviewed their performance to date as reflected in their Balanced Scorecard. The total points to date indicated they were on a trajectory to achieve 96.5 out of 100 points. There was a long silence as the senior leader asked: "What's wrong with this picture?"
The contradiction slowly began to sink into the participants in the room. The organization's capacity to continue to document performance success while urgently acknowledging threats to its very survival is an ironic example of how commitment to succeed can obscure truth about failure.
When one considers thoughtfully the cultural biases and systemic forces that drive large organizations, there is much more to telling the truth and understanding failure than initially meets the eye.
Telling the truth about failure first requires us to acknowledge that instinctively we all want to distance ourselves from failure. Maybe that's why I had such a hard time writing the past few weeks? Is that what's happening in Congress at the moment? I wonder.
I recently participated in a meeting of top tier R&D leaders who were being briefed on the "organizational fitness" exercises which were about to commence (read: downsizing and layoffs). Later in the same meeting, the group reviewed their performance to date as reflected in their Balanced Scorecard. The total points to date indicated they were on a trajectory to achieve 96.5 out of 100 points. There was a long silence as the senior leader asked: "What's wrong with this picture?"
The contradiction slowly began to sink into the participants in the room. The organization's capacity to continue to document performance success while urgently acknowledging threats to its very survival is an ironic example of how commitment to succeed can obscure truth about failure.
When one considers thoughtfully the cultural biases and systemic forces that drive large organizations, there is much more to telling the truth and understanding failure than initially meets the eye.
Telling the truth about failure first requires us to acknowledge that instinctively we all want to distance ourselves from failure. Maybe that's why I had such a hard time writing the past few weeks? Is that what's happening in Congress at the moment? I wonder.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Intangible Drivers of Performance
"Not everything that can be counted counts,
and not everything that counts can be counted."
Albert Einstein
When I feel especially frustrated or impatient with those who want metrics for anything and everything of value, I reference this quote from Einstein. The play on words makes it almost too easy to throw it away as just another slick slogan. And I fear that's what our clients often do, regrettably.
I recently heard the CFO of a Fortune 50 company speak to a group of senior R&D executives about the impact of non-financial, intangible factors on how Wall Street analysts make their buy/sell recom-mendations. But when it comes to promoting innovation and enhancing performance, it's remarkable to me how quickly leaders revert to their apparent comfort zone of finding or creating metrics which can be analyzed, scrutinized, and then refined in order to make their case for improved productivity.
There is a great map of intangible assets as part of an article, "Do Intangibles Matter?" in the current issue of Chief Executive. Check it out! As the article notes, only one-third of executives polled "claimed that their companies were proficient in monitoring critical non-financial indicators of corporate performance."
What's required to appreciate more fully the impact of these "intangibles"? One place to begin: ask yourself the question, "What's the difference between inspiration and motivation?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
