Category Archives: Managed Conversations

Book Review – “Conversations for Action and Collected Essays” by Fernando Flores

First, I am impressed with how well the information in this book has stood the test of time. I might even go further and say that the material is more relevant in today’s work culture than it was 30 years ago when it was written. Our modern, technology-connected, but personally-disconnected life can certainly benefit from improving how we converse with each other. Dr. Flores offers an astute analysis of how we communicate, from the basic linguistic elements through an appreciation for background concerns, flow, moods, and trust. He deconstructs our everyday exchanges with other people into their essential elements and then constructs a compellingly simple model of the back and forth “dance” that goes on to achieve shared action. The “conversation for action” loop he developed 3 decades ago remains a powerful model for improving knowledge worker productivity.

In particular, I found the discussion of autonomy vs. accountability very relevant in the context of our current generation of workers. Along with shifts toward less loyalty to company and increasing worker mobility, we can sense a growing demand for increasing autonomy in how (and where) work is conducted. There are obvious benefits to this trend, including increased employee engagement and innovation, but maintaining efficient coordination may be more challenging. Adherence to the conversation for action model adds clarity and a modicum of rigour to work conversations that can make accountability explicit and visible. A growing number of case studies attest to the improvements in collaboration the model provides.

The book offers valuable insights like the following:

– We all make “characterisations” of others and of ourselves. We say “he is trustworthy,” “she is unreliable,” “I’m bad with numbers.” “These features are not real; they only exist in conversation…when we forget that characterisation is a conversation, we perpetuate our competencies and incompetencies, and those of others…grounded characterisations allow us to have productive conversations; these are conversations for moving forward together rather than staying stuck in the present.”

– Our background mood affects how we perceive the world and the people around us and how we behave. A person’s mood is driven by their vision of the future. “A common belief is that the future is basically an extension of what is going on today.” To manage moods, therefore, it is necessary to create a different understanding about the future. Dr. Flores suggests “the most important key to generating moods of challenge, confidence, and ambition is to understand that people create the future in the commitments they make to each other and the actions they take together…we invent the future together.” There is key information in this section for any group leader to consider.

– “Leadership is a phenomenon of the conversations of a team, not of an individual. A team participates in a set of ongoing conversations among people who commit to share an explicitly declared mission and to coordinate actions to fulfil the mission. The leader takes action to ensure that these conversations take place and that they are assessed by the team to be effective. The leader is the person who is granted authority by the team to take care of these conversations in an ongoing manner.”

– Language is central to being social. “We build networks of people with whom we participate in conversations.” These are not one-way messages like “take out the trash” or “do this task,” but rather two-way conversations in which two or more individuals share their background concerns, negotiate agreements for taking action together, and continuously develop a shared assessment of how the work and their relationship is progressing. These are the kind of principles we should be mindful of as we design modern work management systems.

Perhaps the gem of the whole book, however, is the last chapter “On Listening.” Using examples as seemingly far apart as a used car salesman and Lech Walesa, Dr. Flores presents an entirely new approach to the practice of listening. Exhibiting keen observation skills, the author exposes the mechanics of dysfunctional conversation patterns that are immediately recognisable and then presents a new model for listening that can achieve genuine engagement between people with entirely different backgrounds. We see how the traditional training on listening skills is flawed, and we learn an observable, but radically new way of participating in conversations that any reader can utilize and benefit from.

My one reservation with the book is that I was left wanting more examples of these principles in practice. The everyday examples in the book are used only for explanatory purposes. I think the book would have benefited from the inclusion of some case studies where the ideas made a difference. I know they’re out there…perhaps in the second edition?

“Conversations for Action” – Perspectives on the Design of Cooperative Work

 

In 1987, Terry Winograd, Professor Emeritus, Computer ScienceStanford University wrote a compelling paper ‘A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work’ which was published in Human-Computer Interaction 3:11 (1987-1988), 3-30.

In the article, Winograd describes what he and his fellow collaborator, Dr. Fernando Flores, called ‘Conversations for Action’ which he asserts form the central fabric of all cooperative work.  “Language is the primary dimension of human cooperative activity.”   Winograd concluded that a language-action perspective would play a major role in developing the field of ‘computer-supported cooperative work’.

He was right, but it has taken more than 25 years and several software attempts to realize his vision.  4Spires is the most recent company to design work management software based on this perspective.

Below is a synopsis of the Winograd article:

People act through language.  The language-action perspective focuses on the form; the meaning and use of language to get things done.  A ‘conversation for action’ follows a certain structure – one party (A) makes a request to another (B).  Each party interprets a future course of action that will satisfy the request.  B can accept (and thereby commit to an outcome), decline, or propose a counter-offer with alternative conditions.  Each of B’s ‘moves‘ then lead to different ‘moves‘ by A, and the conversation can be seen as a dance that eventually leads to a mutual understanding that the requested action has been done or that the conversation is complete without it having been done.

The perspective deals with the structure and coordinated sequence of acts by A and B rather than the actual doing of whatever is needed.  Conversations for action are the central coordinating structure for human organizations.

“We work together by making commitments so that we can successfully anticipate the actions of others and coordinate them with our own. The emphasis here is on language as an activity, not as the transmission of information or as the expression of thought.”

Winograd (and we) are concerned with designing computer systems that support these conversations for action.  Email is still the dominant electronic communication tool, though email does not provide sufficient structure to properly support taking cooperative action.  Email, for example, offers only one, generalized way to begin a conversation – ‘compose email’, and it does not offer any distinction between information sharing and making a request.

The system Winograd and Flores conceived allows for a user to initiate a ‘request’ form which prompts the user to specify a performer, others who will receive copies, a related domain of interest, and a description of the desired outcome and due date.

The recipient, on the other hand, is prompted with the various options for responding (e.g. Agree, Decline, or Counter-Offer) that are generated by a conversational state interpreter.  At each stage of the conversation the user is presented with a display of only those actions that could sensibly be taken next by the current speaker (i.e. A or B).  The program deals with the structure of the conversation, not the content.

“The system has no magic to coerce people to come through with what they promise, but it provides a straightforward structure in which they can review the status of their commitments, alter those commitments they are no longer in condition to fulfill, make new commitments to take care of breakdowns and opportunities appearing in their conversations, and generally be clear (with themselves and others) about the state of their work.”

Unlike email, the basic unit of work is a conversation, not a message.  Rather than just linking email messages by the use of Re: in headers, each message belongs to a conversation.  This key distinction enables a much more powerful retrieval and monitoring of work in progress.  To begin with, answers to basic questions like who has the ball, and what do I have to do next become readily apparent.  Messages can be retrieved based on status, or stage (e.g. open or closed), or role (e.g. performer or observer), or domain (e.g. goal or account), etc.

The system replaces typing parts of the contents of an open email message with more direct and structured interactions which are more efficient.  It is a generic tool in the sense that it is intended for a particular kind of communication (i.e. taking cooperative action) without regard for the topic or functional domain.  It is not built for arbitrary sequences of messages, but for the requests, promises and completions that are at the heart of coordinated work.

Systems designed to support conversations for action are not intended to replace face-to-face verbal interactions, or to lessen the importance of interpersonal relations.  Language acts, in general, can be less effective in the absence of personal relationships.  Much of business involves meetings and the social acts of persuasion, negotiation, and, at times, argument.  Trust is developed and built-up over time and is a key factor to productivity along with the mood and motivation of individuals.  Systems, however, can add substantial value by recording and tracking these agreements and work tasks.

Winograd’s article lays out a compelling case for a new generation of tools designed specifically to support conversations for action.  Email is as inadequate to this purpose today as it was 25 years ago when he wrote the article.  Like Winograd, we here at 4Spires believe the basic unit of cooperative work is a conversation that turns into a commitment to act.  Our solutions draw their differentiation from this work management perspective.

4Spires Brands New Image

 

4Spires (www.4spires.com), the leader in business execution SaaS solutions, has developed a new and exciting image that embodies and brands the spirit of our company, business philosophy, and products.

The essence revolves around the firm’s belief that all actions, all executions, all commerce is achieved in some fashion through a ‘conversation’ between a requester-customer and a performer-provider.  At an elemental-core level, all organizations can be seen as simply an interrelated, fluid network of person-to-person conversations and interactions.

To be most effective as well as for the organization and individuals to receive the greatest benefit, each of these interactions needs to involve a simple four-stage pattern.

  • The cycle begins with a solid foundation (Blue).  One person begins the conversation with a clear description of their needs and expectations; they make a request.  They INSPIRE the conversation.
  • In the second stage, the other person (i.e. the performer-provider) responds with their abilities  and constraints and the two parties make an explicit agreement to deliver (Green).  They CONSPIRE.
  • In the third stage, the performer does the work and delivers what has been promised (Silver).  Figuratively, the performer PERSPIRES.
  • The fourth stage is completed when the requester receives and assesses the deliverable; they ‘crown’ the whole interaction with a close-out comment of satisfaction and appreciation (Gold).  Both parties ASPIRE to have satisfied the original needs.

The pattern is repeated over and over, request – agree – deliver – assess.

Completion of one task-related cycle spawns the next.  Requests become more precise.  Accountability within the organization, for the individual and resultant deliverable is clear.  Results are acknowledged with increased organizational and team cohesiveness.  Feedback is provided on each delivery which fosters heightened business process efficiencies and personal recognition.

This is a virtuous cycle for improving performance in any organization.  It improves execution; it also boosts trust and builds better relationships between individuals, within departments, across the organization and even with customers.

This logo will be associated with our line of “CommitKeeper” products, each one of which is designed to facilitate the creation and support for this beneficial four-stage cycle.  We think the application of this simple idea can dramatically improve personal and organization performance.

4Spires launches CommitKeeper on Salesforce

4Spires is pleased to announce the launch of the newest version of our CommitKeeper product on the Salesforce platform.  This application offers a ground-breaking approach for improving coordination, visibility, engagement, and accountability across all types of team initiatives.  It closes the execution gap between strategy, tasks and results, and it takes collaboration to the next level.

Notable features in this version include the following:

    • New Request.  A simple form is used to make a request for a specific delivery from a performer/provider.  The request can be tagged in multiple contexts for later search and reporting.  This begins a dialog thread that documents the whole delivery cycle.  Socialize the task with the broader community by selecting multiple observers.
    • New Offer.  In addition to using the request form, a commitment to deliver an outcome/result/task by a certain date can also be initiated by the performer/provider making an Offer to a customer/manager/colleague.
    • New To Do.  Create a task for yourself within the same tags so that you have a truly comprehensive list of all the work items on your plate.
    • Supporting Requests.  Execution often involves a hierarchy of dependent tasks.  Delivering on a “parent” request depends on the successful completion of several “supporting requests” which may, in turn, depend on other “supporting requests”.  Visualize up-to-the minute status on the entire network of dependencies.
    • Suppress emails.  To minimize and control email “clutter”, system administrators can suppress email notices without affecting the Chatter stream.
    • Attach files.  Attach files to requests/tasks that seamlessly integrate with the Salesforce document library and version control features.
    • Integrates with CRM objects.  Requests and responses made in CommitKeeper automatically appear in the activity history of the related Salesforce objects (e.g. leads, opportunities, projects, campaigns, etc.).
    • Native and Aloha too.  Built with code native to the Salesforce.com platform, the application fits right in to the user experience with no training required and feels like a “standard” platform utility.  Aloha status means the application does not count against limits imposed by which edition of Salesforce (i.e. Group, Professional, Enterprise, Unlimited) the customer is running.
  • Easy installation.  Just a few clicks and it’s done.

Find it on the AppExchange here.  Sign up for the free 30-day trial.  Please forward to your colleagues who may have interest.

Thanks for your ongoing interest and support.  More soon.

Four Principles for a New Model of Accountability

Accountability, everyone wants more of it, from our political leaders and institutions, businesses, schools, work colleagues, and even our children. Our general understanding of the word, however, and how to acquire more is imprecise and shallow. This is particularly disappointing in the work place context because increasing accountability can indeed improve performance. This post explores the term and proposes a new perspective, based on four principles that can increase accountability.

Let’s begin with definitions and the current perspective. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines accountability as “an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.” The Random House dictionary offers a different perspective defining accountability as “the state of being answerable: obliged to report, explain, or justify something.” It is noteworthy that in its common usage, both definitions emphasize a backward-looking perspective; i.e. holding someone accountable for something he or she did. Often there is also a punitive overtone. It comes down to tracking deliveries and due dates with the question:  “Did you do it, and if so, what are you going to do about it?” Going further, the term is associated with the notion of “accounting” as in checking the score and determining who’s going to pay.

These commonly held notions are actually counter-productive to building more accountability in the workplace. The underlying enforcement and punitive notions about accountability do not create the optimum mood with a prospective collaborator. We need to develop a new perspective about accountability based on four principles:

1)     Accountability is forward-looking.  Accountability should be agreed upfront and not assigned at the end. As a task or initiative is being planned, the parties involved should be talking about who is going to be accountable for each outcome or deliverable. The performer consciously and explicitly commits and accepts responsibility. 

The critical portion of the conversation is at the beginning where the commitment is formed.

2)     Accountability is based on willingness.  There is a critical distinction between being willing to accept responsibility and being obliged to perform a function or produce a deliverable. In an organization characterized by a command-and-control culture, the performer is “obliged” to accept responsibility for delivering an outcome. Accountability is foisted on the performer simply by virtue of their position relative to the requester (e.g. the boss gives the orders).  In effect, the senior person ends up saying “I’m holding you accountable…” This is not the optimum means to boost accountability. Real accountability comes from “the performer’s mouth”.

A performer willing to accept responsibility explicitly declares their commitment and says in effect “You can count on me.”

3)     Accountability is about the quality of the dialog.  Building on the dictionary definition: “the state of being answerable”, what is important is the “answer” from the performer. Instead of the more usual presumption of accountability, the dialog begins with an explicit request that needs to be met with an explicit response. A conversation ensues and a specific agreement about expected results and due date is crafted. Having responded directly to the request and committed to the outcome, the performer has, in fact, taken on the accountability for delivery.

The quality of the dialog between the parties is much more important than recording the assigned due date.

4)     Accountability involves negotiation.  The requester must acknowledge their dependency on the performer by providing an opportunity for an honest response. The performer answers by sharing their capabilities and concerns regarding the request. Commitments that evidence real accountability involve a level of disclosure and dialog that is typically not present when tasks are assigned. Most managers assign tasks and expect accountability to follow along as part and parcel of the assignment. In effect, they are saying “I am assigning you this task and holding you accountable for getting it done on time”. This is not a dialog, only a one-way statement. The performer has not actually “answered”. The performer has not made any personal or public ownership of the task. While we are all familiar with position-power simply “assigning” accountability, a superior approach is to afford the performer a genuine opportunity to negotiate a response to the request.

Negotiation strengthens commitment. 

 

Focusing on accountability can be an effective lever for improving organization performance.  Accountability drives execution. To be most effective, however, we need to replace the current enforcement and punitive notions about the word with a new perspective that keys on upfront dialog and making clear agreements.

“Collaboration 2.0” – More Than Sharing Documents

Recently, I read “Collaboration 2.0: Technology and Best Practices for Successful Collaboration in a Web 2.0 World” by co-authors David Coleman and Stewart Levine.

First and foremost I appreciate that the authors have expanded our view of  what co-laboring is all about.  The commonly held understanding of the word “collaboration” has for too long been hijacked to simply connote document sharing.  For example, a software product review written as recently as October 2011 contained the following line:

“The two most important aspects of cloud computing for small businesses are mobility (reading and editing documents on mobile devices) and collaboration (sharing and co-editing documents).” [My emphasis added]

Collaboration is so much more.  As the authors vividly point out, effective collaboration requires attention to people, process and technology.  They advise their readers “collaboration solutions that only focus on technology will fail if they do not also address the ‘soft stuff’ – relationships, trust, behavior and attitudes.”  Additionally, they suggest “what has been missing and what is a key ingredient for successful 2.0 collaboration are some. . .protocols around the basics of interpersonal communication”.  How to communicate in a virtual environment has the same, and even more, challenges as communications in the physical world.  Technology designs need to be mindful of “creating a context in which people communicate more effectively”.  Coleman and Levine rightly assert the number one communication roadblock is “Lack of Clear Agreements”.

The book’s latter section presents an insightful discourse on what the authors refer to as “Law and Principles of Agreement”, i.e. “Every collaboration is established in language by making implicit and explicit agreements. . . Collaboration and agreement for results is simple, but it is not easy.  It requires thoughtfulness and clear thinking on the front end before you move into action, and then a commitment to get through the rough spots after you begin.”

I could not agree more.  New software solutions are being developed and introduced that go well beyond document sharing to address the “soft stuff”.

To facilitate effective collaboration, technology can:

  • Create a context – a “space” in the virtual world where two or more parties can come together to carry on a dialog about achieving a shared outcome.  Different from email, new technologies enable each party to independently work in the shared space without waiting for the other to respond.
  • Guide behaviors – users make requests and offers to begin a dialog/conversation between collaborators.  Effective and efficient collaboration is spawned and carried through in a well-crafted conversation in which the two participants interact with each other, declaring specific things, in a structured sequence.  The requestor initiates the dialog/conversation by making a clear request of the output or result that would satisfy their concerns, the performer responds by making an explicit agreement to produce a specific outcome at an agreed upon delivery date, the performer presents their output, and the requestor explicitly acknowledges whether they are satisfied thus closing the structured sequence loop.
  • Make agreements explicit – who will do what by when is “on record”.  Document a clear request and the agreement by the performer to deliver by a certain date.  To emulate actual conversations, the software controls require an appropriate response from the performer (e.g., the performer must select one button option: “Agree”, “Decline”, or “Counter-offer”).
  • Provide protocols to guide the conversation flow – the conversation thread is “managed” by the software to include mutually beneficial actions and comments that progress the conversation and close the loop.  These “rules of engagement” must strike a delicate balance and not be overly restrictive; the technology must have sufficient flexibility to support human interactions in ways “natural” business conversations are handled in the physical world, but may include prompts to move the conversation along, to reach mutual resolution, and to complete the delivery.  Both parties in the conversation move forward along an explicit path.
  • Keep and maintain records – track project status, changes, modifications, updates, deliveries and outcome assessment.  Records archive all data and dialog threads associated with completed collaboration agreements for future analysis and learning.
  • Reveal execution in progress – graphically display the real-time status of the whole network of interdependent collaboration conversations associated with specific goals, projects, accounts, etc.
  • Provide metrics – measurement adds management insight and supports interventions to improve collaboration.  Technology can, at a glance, highlight initiatives: still being negotiated, ones on track, those that have been delivered, which are late, etc.  These can be presented on an organization-wide basis as well as on a person-by-person basis.  On time delivery percentages and satisfaction ratings can be quantified to build reputations.
  • Build trust – technology plays the role of a third party to the conversation, monitoring and helping facilitate the development of a successful relationship.  The software is intended to introduce and support best practices and more efficient behaviors while enhancing ways of working.  Beyond capturing data and managing workflow, the software represents a significant organization development intervention that leads to improved performance and results.

Collaboration technology is so much more than document sharing.

One Simple Behavior to Elevate Employee Engagement

There is a growing recognition of the close relationship between an organization’s performance and its employee engagement.  Many observers share a concern that employee engagement is in decline; which is directly affecting how an organization internally and externally meets its obligations.  There is particular concern regarding Millennials.  (For an overview of this age group read The Millennials.)

This article describes one specific management behavior that can elevate engagement.

In a recent article Arthur Lerner, Principal at Arthur Lerner Associates, has done a nice job of describing a hierarchy of the levels of engagement.  He writes:

“This isn’t precisely what Senge et al wrote in The Fifth Discipline, but close and slightly expanded. (The original had four types of compliance – grudging, formal, ‘regular’, and genuine, and require comment to differentiate.  I’ve substituted the words below, which includes adding in coercion as the lowest level, probably needing a line above it because it connotes no willingness.)

It was written well before the current passion for engagement, and has served well in my experience to differentiate some of what others have pointed to in this discussion already.  It presumes leader-follower/hierarchical relationship. Read the following from bottom up:

Enrolled
Committed
__________
Volunteering
Supportive
Cooperative
Compliant
Obedient
Coerced

From the bottom, each higher stage indicates a greater degree in the willingness to subordinate to do what a leader (organization) wants, in particular via greater ‘buy-in’ to the vision and perhaps the goals that underlay what is asked. . .  As it stands, with no explanation, it does not include ways to attain the stages in terms of intrinsic or extrinsic rewards, etc.  The line between volunteering and being committed indicates an internal shift from doing – even enthusiastically – what the ‘other wants’ to taking on internal ownership for the behavior or result desired.  Enrolled connotes going beyond commitment in that someone who is enrolled so fully cares about and wants to see the success that s/he will carry forth even in the absence of a prior leader of the effort.  One could collapse some of the stages as shown, but the drift is definite, and the line is a distinctive qualitative divider.  I won’t go into connections between the stages and progression between them and issues of motivation, enthusiasm, engagement etc. but they are many.”

I like this hierarchy; we can all recognize the levels.  But how do we make changes that move engagement up the hierarchy?  What are the work practices and manager behaviors that can move the needle?

One dimension that is both practical and observable is the character of the dialog that’s going on between the parties.  For the bottom five levels (Coerced through Supportive) the conversation is top-down.  In fact, there is no real dialog at all.  The manager-leader simply tells the team members what they must do.  This ranges from a direct order, with consequences, to a stated need.  The ‘demand’ or assignment changes in style (i.e. harsh direct order to kindly assignment) but not in character.  “I need this done by you by this date”.  It’s a statement.

At the Volunteering level there is a fundamentally different type of conversation.  At this level and for the first time, an actual two-way person-to-person or manager-to-employee dialog occurs.  The difference is the manager asks a question rather than making a statement (e.g. “I need this done, which one of you can get it done?”)  The performer, aware of the need, responds with an explicit agreement to fill the need.  Even though the dialog is still a bit ‘tilted’ in favor of what the manager wants, there is at least an opening for a response to express willingness by the performer.

Something very different happens when moving up to the Committed level.  To get to this level, there must be a genuine dialog between two individuals, more or less on equal footing, where the performer is making an explicit agreement to deliver.  The key change is that this conversation starts with a request (e.g. “Can you complete this project or task by Friday?”) versus beginning with a statement.

What follows is equally important.  The performer has the ability to respond by saying yes, no or by proposing an alternate completion date.  They are able to negotiate what they are able to successfully complete by a specific deadline or make a counter-offer to the request.  Most importantly, with the real opportunity to negotiate, they make a commitment (e.g. “I will get this done for you by next Monday.”).  This statement expressing “ownership” by the performer is the hallmark of the jump to the Committed level in the hierarchy of engagement.

The top level in the hierarchy is Enrolled.  At this stage, the engagement is spontaneous, even anticipatory.  As with the other levels, this one is also characterized by a certain type of dialog.  This level is characterized not by requests from the manager, but by offers from the performers; e.g. “I understand what needs to be done, have the time, resources, and enthusiasm to get it done, and therefore I am making an offer to do it.”).  Again, the performer is engaged in a negotiation with the manager-customer that results in a clear commitment for delivery.

While I readily grant the substantial over-simplification of a complex issue, managers who want to increase engagement can begin by changing one thing – the character of the dialog with the performer(s).  Changing statements to requests is a good first start.  This simple step releases the power of the performer to respond at a higher level of engagement.

 

 

In the Social Cloud Who Gets the Job Done?

The power of social networks is all the rage.

The headlines promise to “harness the power of networks of people”.  One vendor offering “cutting edge social collaboration tools” promotes a next generation wiki in which an issue or problem is sent out to the larger group for everyone to contribute to and try to solve thereby attracting the collective intelligence and input from the larger group.

This is what “Social” solutions are all about – people connect, author, and post – large groups of people sharing ideas and resources in a common forum.

Broadcasting needs and gathering input from the large social group has value, but social networks do a poor job of coordinating work and actually taking (any) action.   At some point everyone has to get off the network and into the real world to accomplish something.

Groups, be they composed entirely of internal or mixed with internal and external personnel, can generate enormous power and innovative ideas, but groups can also diffuse responsibility and accountability for acting on those ideas; the larger the group, the more diffuse.  Information sharing is much different than taking responsibility or even accountability.  The real lever for taking action is not the one-to-many, but rather the one-to-one relationships.

Consider the oft-quoted, but anonymous story about the four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

“There was an important job to be done and Everybody was asked to do it.  Everybody was sure Somebody would do it.  Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.  Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody’s job.  Everybody thought Anybody would do it but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it.  It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.”

Taking action comes down to two people – one person delivering an outcome and another receiving and acknowledging the outcome.  This one-to-one commitment-building process begins with either a request by a customer or an offer by a provider.  The leader makes a request of the team member, the CEO makes a request of a VP, the Marketing Director makes a request of the Engineering Director, a salesperson makes an offer to a client, etc.

It is this universal pattern that gets things done, and the next generation of productivity tools will focus on enhancing these one-on-one conversations for action so the vision of the group is made true by the actions of its members.

Eight Game Changing Ideas – Reflections on Games People Play at Work

Assigning and managing work tasks involves some well-worn “games people play”.  If you look closely, you discover these games can interfere with efficiently accomplishing the task-activity.  Here are 8 ways to use simple task management to change the games, increase commitment and boost performance.

The term “game changer” is in vogue and there is a great buzz surrounding this idiom.  What does this term mean and what situation, term, idea or person qualifies as being a real game-changer?  For this article I will use the term literally by describing the Old game and the New game.  Anyone can debate the significance of what constitutes a change, but I will be as definitive as possible about what game is being changed.

The context for these ideas revolves around the “games people play” with each other about getting stuff done in an enterprise:

–  how tasks are assigned and collaborated upon,

–  how customers and vendors work with each other,

–  how project managers relate to their team, and

–  how leaders lead and followers follow.

The eight ideas expressed below are not fluffy industry speak, like “build more trust”, or “increase accountability”, or “pay for performance”, etc.  I often encourage these approaches as well, but the concepts listed below are all executable.  They relate to specific behaviors and tools that can be tangibly implemented and observed.  One can tell at a glance whether the parties are playing the old game or a new one.

Each can be individually implemented, or can be co-jointly applied to good advantage as complementary behaviors in an entirely new game.

1.  Ask, Don’t Tell

  • Old Game: The project manager assigns tasks to a team member(s) along with desired delivery dates.  The performer(s) is expected to hit the assigned dates or face consequences.
  • New Game: The project manager describes a task and ASKS the intended performer(s) if and when the task can be successfully delivered.

To accomplish a task, one party (the customer or manager) makes a request of another instead of assigning a task.  Putting a person’s name next to a task does not equal real commitment to fulfillment. Making a request presumes a more egalitarian relationship between the requester and the performer (i.e. not a command-and-control management style).

2.  Performers negotiate delivery dates

  • Old Game: Delivery date is entered in the project plan or specified by the requester as the date they need it done by.
  • New Game: The performer responds to the request by clearly stating if and when the requested task can be delivered.  Counter-offers are commonplace.

The performer engages in a negotiated agreement (including the ability to decline or counter-offer).  The ability to say NO enables a performer to make a committed YES. Moving from task assignments to a two-way agreement that is explicit and public encourages added discretionary effort by the performer to deliver on time.

3.  Response required

  • Old Game: Manager says “I sent out the request, but have yet to receive any response.”  Staff person replies: “I received the new task email from my boss, but I do not want to do it so I will delay or not respond and see if he brings it up again.”
  • New Game: Performer provides an explicit agreement, negotiates an alternative, or declines the request, and each party knows exactly where the negotiation stands and who has the ball for the next action.

The intended performer provides an explicit response to a work request or task.  No more unanswered emails.

4.  Track dialogs in context

  • Old Game: The twists and turns, shifting priorities, and new information encountered along the way that ultimately affects task delivery is lost in a myriad of emails, chats, text messages, and voice mails.
  • New Game:  Every comment and stage of the dialog is captured and available for immediate reference and future review.  Each party contributes and creates a comprehensive record of events, activities, issues, and deliverables.

The real performance lever is the quality of the dialog between the requester and the performer. This is where relationships are built and maintained. The complete dialog thread, in context of who said what to whom, provides new insights into execution details.  As the task or project progresses there is a defined and viewable documentation which can be analyzed and used to learn and mentor the individual as well as the team.

5.  Close the loop

  • Old Game: Performers “slide in” partial deliveries in a haphazard fashion and managers do not formally accept or evaluate their satisfaction with the outcome.
  • New Game: Performers explicitly assert they have a made a delivery in response to a specific request, and managers explicitly accept, acknowledge and assess the result.

Deliveries should be made explicitly and actually accepted and acknowledged by the requester. How satisfied was the requesting manager/customer with the outcome and the deliverable?

6.  Track commitments

  • Old Game: “I have a general idea of the promises I have made, but I regularly forget something along the way.  I do not maintain or update a comprehensive list of all my commitments”.
  • New Game: “I do not lose track of my commitments to others, and therefore my reputation is backed up by hard data.  I know exactly where I stand with all my commitments”.

Keep track of commitments you have made to others and those that others have made to you.  A promise-keeper builds trust and reputation.

7.  History matters

  • Old Game: After the task is completed it falls off the Gantt chart without any memory of how it turned out or what transpired along the way.
  • New Game: A detailed record of all requests, tasks, and deliverables is preserved for mid and post project analysis and review.  Everyone has something to learn from.

Keep an historical record of past conversations and deliveries.  What approaches, policies and best business practices are deployed to capture past experiences and learn how to do it better next time? Break the cycle of past miscues and wasted efforts.

8.  Report performance metrics

  • Old Game: Managers write the annual performance review based on their general impressions and recent memory (e.g. last six weeks) of the employee’s performance.  Employees have no shared record of specific achievements and contributions they have made throughout the year.
  • New Game: Managers and employees have a detailed shared record of all the specific requests and deliverables including specific on-time delivery metrics.

Real metrics about personal and organization performance drive extraordinary improvements. No more performance reviews based only on limited memory of recent events.

The games people play at work no longer serve anyone well.  Forward thinking organizations looking to establish more effective and more powerful work norms will find that paying closer attention to the actual interactions between people will bring big dividends by improving commitment and productivity.  

Email Is Flawed For Managing Work – Transformation Is Coming

My co-author on this article, Francois Koutchouk, has a long background in designing and implementing groupware technologies.  We were discussing recent trends in the use, and abuse, of email and perhaps seeing the signs that herald the decline of email as it is currently used.  Our particular concern was the widespread and entrenched reliance on email as a flawed work management tool.

Getting things done

The heart of most business processes and team collaboration is a series of work request transactions and the means to keep track of their progress (or lack thereof).

Simplicity and ubiquity make email an acceptable tool to initiate requests.  But email is not adequate for tracking the dialog that follows.  Email does not support many key aspects of successful work requests including:

  • Formalize an agreement by the recipient to perform, complete, and deliver on a request
  • Negotiate the priority or completion date of a request
  • Track which party has the ball for the next action
  • Expose dependencies (dependent tasks)
  • Share work-in-progress beyond the immediate participants
  • Capture a historical record of the dialog in the context of the request and the project to which the request relates
  • Establish credibility and therefore the trust between the requester and performer based on previous performance
  • Distinguish work that is required to move the business forward from all types of messages, comments, and random information.

The technical reason is simple: email does not provide a structured repository nor workflow features.  Email is therefore woefully inadequate as a tool for handling business processes.

Most knowledge workers acknowledge this conundrum while facing daily onslaughts of emails, irrelevant cc-ed messages, lengthy reply-to threads and  late-night Blackberry messages as the deadline is nearing.

How much longer will we persist with this obviously flawed tool for managing critical business relationships and processes?

Getting out of your inbox

Let’s use the example of a successful sales rep.  Throughout the sales cycle, she needs to coordinate with a variety of individuals within her company:

  • Engineering and Product Management to answer technical questions from the client,
  • Procurement and Legal to fine tune contracts,
  • Accounting and Finance for payments and invoicing,
  • Supply Chain, Production, and Manufacturing for delivery status,
  • Senior management for account management, and
  • She may also have to coordinate with third parties, such as resellers, shippers, add-on components purchased from suppliers, etc.

To meet the prospect’s expectations and delivery timetable there will be a flurry of emails, most of which are at risk of becoming the proverbial messages-in-a-bottle unless she follows up rigorously (assuming she remembers to follow up – since there is no automatic reminder that something hasn’t been handled).  A single breakdown in communications may delay or compromise the deal and business relationship.

Clearly, email is an inadequate tool for managing this work by substituting a low quantity of results-based communications with a high quantity of inefficient messages. The solution may be to move all those disjointed communications and touch-points out of the traditional email system.

One alternate approach is to use project management software such as Microsoft Project or other cloud-based equivalent solutions.  These tools track task assignments, due dates and dependencies, but they are fundamentally single-user applications that do not capture the dialog between the parties regarding negotiation of delivery commitments and changes in status during delivery.  And because these tools require a heavy investment in learning new skills and methods they are best left to project management professionals handling complex tasks, such as building a new hospital wing or managing an ERP installation.

Another approach is to use custom-built software, such as a Lotus Notes application, or a Force.com version thereof, that enforces a predetermined workflow process.  Such an approach works well, tends to be simple to use, but is only appropriate for repeatable business processes – when the workflow is well known, does not change often, and involves the same series of steps and actors.  As such these tools are best used for a yearly contract renewal or provisioning of new customers.

From Talk to Action

Despite our collective understanding that email is flawed as a workflow management tool, we are firmly entrenched in its use.  What is needed is a generic solution that mirrors the simplicity and flexibility of email but adds better workflow tracking and management reporting features.  Knowledge workers will need to be incented out of email rather than forced out.  Adoption of alternate tools must be based on getting better performance from co-workers, not being told to use yet another new software system.  Requests may still initiate out of email, but the conversation that follows must be managed in a shared on-line space accessible to all, including third parties.

Performers negotiate and make explicit delivery commitments that reinforce productive behavior and focus on results.  Tracking the request through to delivery moves the initiative along, from talk to action.  Trust builds between actors (requesters and performers), commitments are met, goals are accomplished, moods improve and email inboxes thin out.

The principles of managing work requests called “commitment based management” are 50 years old, fine-tuned by social scientists such as Fernando Flores and Terry Winograd, as well as thoroughly described in academic journals.  Previous attempts to automate these principles, however, have failed to translate into workable software, despite valiant efforts from Action Technologies, Elf Technologies, and others.  The key to widespread use and acceptance will be solutions where ease-of-use trumps complexity, essential to entice hardened email addicts to a new way of working.

The End of Email?

We can glimpse the future of corporate email by looking at the younger generation of home users: Facebook, Tweet/texting and less and less Google email in that order.

Business emails may dissolve similarly into three entities:

  • Commitment-based messaging to handle business processes and task-based collaboration
  • Instant messaging (chat, SMS, private Tweet) for time-sensitive notifications
  • Cloud-based email for one-to-one conversations, casual discussions and whatever materials blur the line between the private and public life of a worker

Ultimately expenses-to-perceived value will drive the decline of email:

  • High licensing and administrative costs of private email systems (Outlook, Lotus Notes, and their respective server infrastructure)
  • High administrative costs to protect against viruses, spam and phishing
  • Trailing support of many organizations for personal communication devices into the workplace (iPhone, iPad, SMS) leads to compliance liability
  • Increased stress of workers unable to handle their inbox – magnified by round-the-clock mobile accessibility
  • Email inefficiency as a tool to get actions from requests; therefore a flawed means of achieving measurable business results

Email is not going away anytime soon, but the forces of change are mounting and a new communication paradigm is budding.  Work management conversations need to be tracked in a new non-email solution.