Author Archives: Dave Arella

“Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done” – My Top Ten Quotes

Posted on September 24, 2010 | Leave a comment

In 2002 Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan authored a highly regarded management book entitled “Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done”.  The book was lauded by such notable business leaders as Michael Dell – CEO of Dell Computer, L.R. Raymond – CEO of Exxon Mobil, and Ralph Larsen – CEO of Johnson & Johnson.  To quote them, “Execution is the great unaddressed issue in the business world today.  Its absence is the single biggest obstacle to success and the cause of most of the disappointments that are mistakenly attributed to other causes.”

I found even the authors’ choice of title instructive.  The dictionary defines “discipline” as a regimen or set of rigorous practices that develops or improves a skill.  It goes without saying that execution does not just happen reliably without some discipline.  And yet most businesses today do not employ much rigor in getting things done.

Requests are vague, commitments by specific individuals to deliver outcomes by a certain date are vague and implicit, follow-up is haphazard, deliveries are not acknowledged and feedback is not aptly and concisely provided.  Execution fails not from lack of intent or bad planning, but from poor discipline.

The disciplines discussed in the book revolve around the notions of making and keeping clear commitments, clarifying accountability, having an honest and open dialog, and following through.  I have discussed each of these topics in other blog articles.  The following are my top ten quotes from their book:

  1. To execute well there must be accountability, clear goals, accurate methods to measure performance, and the right rewards for people who perform…
  2. Follow-through is a constant and sequential part of execution.  It ensures that you have established closure in the dialogue about who will be responsible for what and the specific milestones for measurement.  The failure to establish this closure leaves the people who execute a decision or strategy without a clear picture of their role.  As events unfold rapidly amid much uncertainty, follow-through becomes a much more intense process…
  3. When companies fail to deliver on their promises, the most frequent explanation is that the CEO’s strategy was wrong.  But the strategy by itself is not often the cause.  Strategies most often fail because they aren’t executed well.  Things that are supposed to happen don’t happen…
  4. Typically the CEO and the senior leadership team allot less than half a day each year to review the plans – people, strategy, and operations.  Typically the reviews are not particularly interactive.  People sit passively watching PowerPoint presentations.  They don’t ask questions.  They don’t debate, and as a result they don’t get much useful outcome.  People leave with no commitments to the action plans they’ve helped create.  This is a formula for failure.  You need robust dialogue to surface the realities of the business.  You need accountability for results – discussed openly and agreed to by those responsible – to get things done and reward the best performers.  You need follow-through to ensure the plans are on track…
  5. People engaged in the processes argue these questions, search out reality, and reach specific and practical conclusions.  Everybody agrees about their responsibilities for getting things done, and everybody commits to those responsibilities…
  6. Furthermore, while stretch goals can be useful in forcing people to break old rules and do things better, they’re worse than useless if they’re totally unrealistic, or if the people who have to meet them aren’t given the chance to debate them beforehand and take ownership of them…
  7. Clear, simple goals don’t mean much if nobody takes them seriously.  The failure to follow though is widespread in business, and a major cause of poor execution.  How many meetings have you attended where people left without firm conclusions about who would do what and when?  Everybody may have agreed the idea was good, but since nobody was named accountable for results, it doesn’t get done.  Other things come up that seem more important or people decide it wasn’t such a good idea after all.  (Maybe they even felt that way during the meeting, but didn’t speak up)…
  8. How many meetings have you attended where everyone seemed to agree at the end about what actions would be taken but nothing much actually happened as a result?  These are the meetings where there’s no robust debate and therefore nobody states their misgivings.  Instead, they simply let the project they didn’t like die a quiet death over time…
  9. Follow-through is the cornerstone of execution, and every leader who’s good at executing follows through religiously.  Following through ensures that people are doing the things they committed to do, according to the agreed timetable.  It exposes any lack of discipline and connection between ideas and actions, and forces the specificity that is essential to synchronize the moving parts of an organization.  If people can’t execute the plan because of changed circumstances, follow-through ensures they deal swiftly and creatively with the new conditions…
  10. Finally, robust dialogue ends with closure.  At the end of the meeting, people agree about what each person has to do and when.  They’ve committed to it in an open forum; they are accountable for the outcomes.  The reason most companies don’t face reality very well is that their dialogues are ineffective.  And it shows in their results.  Think about the meetings you’ve attended – those that were a hopeless waste of time and those that produced energy and great results.  What was the difference?  It was not the agenda, not whether the meeting started on time or how disciplined it was, and certainly not the formal presentations.  No, the difference was in the quality of the dialogue.

That last line bears repeating:  The difference that achieves great results is “the quality of the dialogue”.  In other articles I talk about how software applications can instantiate and enforce the discipline that is necessary to execute effectively as well as elevate the quality of the dialogue around getting things done.

Leave a comment

Posted in Accountability, Execution, Workplace norms

Performance Management – A Conversation Not an Event (Part 2 of 2)

Posted on September 17, 2010 | Leave a comment

This is the third in a series of articles dealing with Performance Management (and more precisely, Performance Improvement).  This is the second of 2 parts to Performance Management: A Conversation Not an Event.

In the prior posting I focused on the first three of the following six characteristics of an effective performance-related conversation, the result of which was the forging of a clear agreement to deliver.

  1. Openness and candor between the manager and the performer
  2. Opportunity for the performer to negotiate and agree upon the terms of delivery
  3. Clear commitment by the performer for achieving the desired outcomes
  4. Continuity of the dialog; each party stays engaged and provides regular updates
  5. Ongoing assessment and updates by the performer regarding the status of their commitment
  6. Immediate acknowledgement and assessment by the manager of the delivered outcome

This article discusses the final three characteristics of the conversation that deal with what transpires during delivery, acknowledgement, and closing the loop of the conversation.

The fourth characteristic is continuity.  Continuity is similar to, though not the same as, follow up.  Effective performance management is an ongoing conversation; the conversation is active and two-sided. This includes regular one-on-one face-to-face meetings and conversations as well as the thread of e-mails that pertain to the achievement of the agreed upon outcomes.  There is a shared memory, along with some documentation, of how the conversation was initiated, what goals and concerns were expressed, what agreements were made, what challenges were encountered along the way, and what outcomes have been achieved.  Managers need to become better “customers” by providing clear delivery and output requirements, making better detailed and informative requests and staying engaged throughout the entire process.  The manager does not delegate and then simply ask: “Did you do it?” The delegation of a task is not the end of a performance conversation, but rather the beginning of a genuine collaboration.

A fifth characteristic is the ongoing assessment and updates by the performer as to the status or “health” of their agreement.  Goals are not always met or immediately achievable, tasks encounter problems, and performers need to be forthcoming as they become aware of possible shortfalls in delivery or complexity of the deliverable.  Because the manager is now “counting on” the employee to deliver, there is a heightened responsibility on the part of the performer to report progress, particularly if they sense the target date might be missed.  As soon as there is any doubt that they may not make the delivery as planned, instead of “putting their head in the sand” and permitting the manager to rely on hope alone, the performer updates and re-engages with their manager about renegotiating the commitment. Early warning of possible problems is a hallmark of these conversations, as is renegotiation in light of new information. Commitments that can no longer be met are identified early when remedial action and adjustments are most often less costly and more easily corrected. Similarly, if the manager’s original concerns change or there is a change of direction, the manager is obliged to immediately inform the employee and negotiate new deliveries.

Of course, having to report delays or (potentially) missed deadlines are the most challenging portions of the conversation, and, if performers have agreed to stretch for really superior results, there will be more of these “negative” reports. It is precisely in these moments when the manager’s behavior is critical. If the manager responds to “bad news” with a sense of shared commitment and partnership they will join in the performer’s concern and help solve it.  Recriminations, if any, will be minimal. It is not about extracting a commitment from the employee and then beating them up if it is not done. There is just as much responsibility about being a good customer as there is being a good performer.  Partner-like behavior builds trust and makes it easier for the performer to report problems.  We all know that issues or problems caught early are much easier to resolve.  Prompting early notice of breakdowns is a key factor for improving overall organization performance.

The sixth characteristic is honest and immediate acknowledgement and assessment of the deliverable(s) by the manager.  Managers should not wait until the end of the year having built up a library of good news and developmental areas to finally share.  Managers are engaged throughout the delivery and provide clear and candid assessments about whether and how their concerns were addressed.  These mini-reviews and assessments are at the heart of an organization’s continuous learning cycle.

Conversation outcomes are different too

The outcomes from a dialog with these six characteristics are also very different. The manager leaves the first “meeting of minds” conversation with a confident feeling that the performer is committed to achieving the goal/project according to the negotiated agreement. He can count on the performer’s commitment, though this is not to say that they have blind confidence in the outcome. Having had a candid discussion about the performer’s concerns and risks entailed, the manager may even have a less confident feeling than before. Rather than “simply” assigning a task with little or no discussion and assuming it will get done, i.e., a “false” confidence, the manager in these conversations is much more engaged with all the possibilities and the pitfalls associated with the task. Being confident in the employee’s commitment, however, provides the manager with a solid sense that accountability for delivery has been taken on, and is now “owned” by the employee.  A subtle, but critical shift has thus occurred.

This shift enables the manager to reduce the need to micromanage. This alone frees up organizational “waste” in the form of managers’ time and systems spent on checking up, e.g., picture the wasted time a project manager spends each week polling everyone on the team and updating an MS Project Plan to see if each performer is on target with their deliveries.

The performer, for their part, leaves the conversation with a feeling of real commitment to achieving the outcome: Just “working hard at it” and “doing my best” or “giving my best effort” is no longer adequate.  The performer has made an agreement that they do not want to break.  There is no room for cynicism regarding the delivery.  Under this scenario the performer is being treated like a full partner.  They have not just been assigned a new task that can be put on the top on the pile of other tasks.  The performer has engaged in a frank and careful conversation laying out their capabilities and constraints.  The performer and manager have negotiated a delivery that can be met.

Performance-related conversations that exhibit the six characteristics mentioned above achieve an entirely different quality than typical task assignments.  Both the requester and performer are upfront with each other, striving together for something more than average outcomes, and with increasing trust.  The soft core of improving performance lies exactly here.

Leave a comment

Posted in Commitment Based Management, Managed Conversations, Performance Management

Performance Management – A Conversation not an Event (Part 1 of 2)

Posted on September 10, 2010 | Leave a comment

This is the third in a series of articles dealing with Performance Management (and more precisely, Performance Improvement).

First, some context and my angle.  Performance management means different things to different people.  I am not speaking here about systems that record employee ratings and rankings, that train employees, that capture 360 degree feedback, that build success plans, nor that help managers write the annual performance review document.  I am less interested in measuring and managing current performance, than I am in how management can actually lift measurable performance metrics for the organization as a whole by improving the performance of individual employees through the use of a new generation of practices and behaviors.  My angle is the belief that easy to use and understand software applications can instantiate and perpetuate these new practices.

The title of this article sets the stage: Performance Management is not an event.  Do we really think that a once-per-year “performance review” meeting followed by a two-page performance appraisal document (signed by manager and employee) has a significant effect on improving performance throughout the year? Do we really think that the goal-setting that goes on in these meetings is the motivation for excelling?

Performance improvement is a process – a set of consistent behaviors and practices, carried out by and between managers and employees, that are designed to stimulate, motivate, and evaluate personal performance. The regular one-on-one meeting with your boss, for example, has significantly more impact and effect on individual performance than the yearly review meeting.  What is even more important than the regularity of these encounters is the quality of the conversation that goes on in them.

The Nature and Quality of the Performance Conversation

So how can we begin to talk about the quality of a conversation?  What are its characteristics?  Would we know one if we heard it?  And, if we could begin to describe a quality performance-related conversation in some repeatable terms, is there really any way to inculcate and socialize the organization so all managers follow the same pattern and general approaches?  These are the questions I will address in the remaining portion of this article and the one to follow.

The use of the term “conversation” does not necessarily imply or require a face-to-face meeting.  The conversation referred to is an explicit, two-sided, back and forth interchange of comments and concerns regarding the requested results.  The dialog can happen in-person or remotely, synchronously or asynchronously.

I propose that an effective performance-related conversation will exhibit the following 6 observable characteristics:

  1. Openness and candor between the manager and the performer
  2. Opportunity for the performer to negotiate and agree upon the terms of delivery
  3. Clear commitment by the performer for achieving the desired outcomes
  4. Continuity of the dialog; each party stays engaged and provides regular updates
  5. Ongoing assessment by the performer regarding the status of their commitment
  6. Immediate acknowledgement and assessment by the manager of the delivered outcome

The first three characteristics will be discussed in this posting and the fourth through sixth characteristic will be discussed in a future posting.

The first characteristic of an effective performance-related conversation is openness and candor. The manager and the employee must first identify and agree upon what level of performance the employee is capable of or is being asked to perform.  Even at this stage there can be difficulties.  It is a rare employee who readily admits what their full capabilities really are.  Due to the penalty of failure atmosphere within most companies, employees profer modest goals and then “exceed” them. This common sense approach generally guides employee behavior. We all want to impress and not disappoint so we imply a level of performance that is well within our comfort zone. It would be a rare manager who could coax a straight answer to the question “what do you really think you could accomplish?” Such straight talk only occurs when there is a genuine sense of partnership between the manager and employee; a sense that the manager is not just the order-giver, but is rather the employee’s true supporter and ally.  Underlying this is a shared sense of how possible failure to deliver will be tolerated.  How organizations handle failure is a primary driver of employee behavior.

The second characteristic is a genuine sense of negotiation. Where the employee is being asked to make a firm commitment they are taking on risk.  Where there is risk, there must be negotiation. The manager can make a request that the employee feels is risky. But, then, the employee has to be able to say: “No – I can not fully commit to the requested delivery date and/or expected final output.” For the employee to make a valid commitment, an honest negotiation option must be an acceptable response, e.g., “No, I can not commit to this level of achievement, but I will commit to this delivery date and provide this output.” Each of the parties needs to recognize and agree when risks are being borne and how each will behave if performance or output falls short. The employee can say: “This is what I think I can deliver, but if this happens then I think I can deliver a different level”.  The manager is then able to respond: “If I take care of this concern for you, then what more could you do?” There is a sense of real partnership and trust where both parties make explicit commitments to each other that involve mutual dependencies and obligations.

This is more like a peer-to-peer conversation – it is definitely not a traditional top-down conversation.  Moreover, this type of negotiation is actually quite rare today in corporate America.  Few employees have the courage or ability to negotiate; yet all feel that the “pocket veto” (i.e. allowing the request to go unchallenged at first while knowing it will not actually get done) is just fine.  Perhaps they sense that an up-front confrontation is difficult and the probability is high that the manager will forget the request over time.  For the manager who seeks to gain real and continual commitment they must allow for and present real room for negotiation when a request is made.

The third characteristic is a shared commitment for the outcome. People excel when they are committed to achieving outcomes, not just working down a list of assignments they have been tasked to complete or perform.  Just “showing up” and “doing your best effort” will achieve the acceptable outcomes a portion of the time.  Excelling, however, requires real commitment.  Having publicly committed oneself – having, in effect, made a promise to achieve a resolution to a shared concern by a certain date – has at least three positive effects.

  • First, the conversation gets much more precise as each of the parties share expectations and concerns.
  • Second, the performer is more likely to push themselves to do that “little” extra to keep their public promise.
  • Third, as concerns arise that jeopardize delivery, the employee is motivated to immediately renegotiate terms with the manager / customer thus incenting an early warning of possible breakdowns in terms of due date or deliverables.

The first three characteristics described above are devoted to the initial stage of an effective performance-related conversation – the meeting of the minds and the proper formation of a clear agreement to deliver.  A follow-on posting will discuss the desirable characteristics in the follow on stages of the conversation – delivery and acknowledgement.

Leave a comment

Posted in Commitment Based Management, Managed Conversations, Performance Management

Performance Management – Something is Missing

Posted on September 3, 2010 | Leave a comment

This is the second in a series of articles dealing with Performance Management (and more precisely, Performance Improvement).

There is still something missing in modern approaches to performance management.

Performance management is the very last Human Resources (HR) domain yet to be conquered by progressive organizations. Payroll systems have been around for decades. Benefit plan design and selection technology were perfected in the early 1990s.  Staffing systems and training administration systems came of age in the late 1990s. Powerful employee shared service centers were implemented over the turn of the century.  Sophisticated compensation schemes and salary planning software have been around for many years. Employee and manager self-service applications have grown substantially in the last five years.

Performance management on the other hand, which arguably contributes most to an organization’s success, is still mostly viewed as a once-a-year review and goal planning session between employees and their boss. Does anyone really think that this meeting, which is then captured in several vendor-driven software applications, drives performance improvement?  Most organizations today are still approaching performance management systems using a paradigm that is over two decades old.

Enterprises have attacked performance management using a host of approaches and tools. Leadership development programs, courses, and consulting interventions have been staples for a long time. In the 1980s and early 1990s, companies set about crafting yearly goal-setting and review sessions, and an employee’s “focal review” was often tied to their pay increase or bonus for the year. “Visioning” to get the organization “fired up” and “aligned” was popular in the 1990s. Then there was the notion that performance was all about hiring and retaining the best people – if you got the right people, high performance would follow. There has been emphasis on metrics and reporting – better analytics would, perhaps, boost performance.  The use of 360 reviews was popularized several years ago. Most recently, the focus has been on tying ever-more complex pay and bonus schemes to improve performance.

These tools add value and have their place in a comprehensive approach to improving organization performance. But, all of these tools have just about reached their limits, and most of us would agree that we still do not have performance management quite figured out.

Despite the application and honing of all these tools over the last two decades, we sense there is still something missing.  There is something in the middle of all this, something big and squishy at the core of performance management, something nameless and difficult to talk about much less attempt to influence, some additional piece of the puzzle, something still missing in how we attempt to guide and improve individual and organizational performance.

This is the second of a series of articles on performance management in which I offer some insights and suggestions for teasing out a specific set of practices, behaviors, and tools aimed at what’s really missing in managing and improving individual performance.  For me, the key lies in elevating the quality of the dialog between managers and their staff.  Real improvements in performance can be achieved by focusing on making clear requests, forging explicit agreements, negotiating commitments that shift accountability to the performer, providing deeper visibility into execution, and building trust.  I will also address the surprising role that systems (specifically, software applications) can play in dealing with this soft stuff.

Leave a comment

Posted in Performance Management

Performance Management – Debate and Opinions

Posted on August 31, 2010 | Leave a comment

This is the first in a series of articles dealing with Performance Management (and more precisely my real interest in Performance Improvement).

This article is structured in the form of a debate that is intended to engage and challenge existing positions and thought patterns. Listed below are four propositions and the Agree and Disagree positions for each proposition.  Included is my position on each Proposition, and I welcome and look forward to hearing which side of the Propositions you support.

Proposition 1:  The once or twice per year performance review does nothing to improve personal performance.

  • Agree: The primary benefit of the annual performance review is to provide a document for the files.  The annual performance review does virtually nothing to engage the employee nor spur an employee’s performance.  The main practice that really drives personal performance is the daily or weekly one-on-one meeting with your manager, management team, and/or internal or external customer.
  • Disagree: The annual performance review meeting and appraisal document are important opportunities to provide feedback that results in significantly improved future performance.  It is also the main opportunity to make sure the employee’s activities are aligned with corporate goals.  Setting goals is a key part of achieving excellent performance.

My view: Even though the proposition is stated in the extreme (i.e. “does nothing to improve…”), I do come down closer to the Agree position.  Setting goals is valuable, but by far the main driver of personal performance is the quality of the relationship and dialog with your manager / customer.  The value of the annual written appraisal is just that it forces the manager to have a conversation and a document in the files.  While it is true that suggestions made during the annual review are treated more seriously than at other times, there are many more opportunities for positive or corrective feedback during the year.  An iterative process of reminders and repetition can drive improvements in personal performance that stick.

Proposition 2:  The dominant driver of organization performance is hiring the right people.

  • Agree: People perform because of who they are, their competencies, and their personal motivations.  Systematic approaches to improving performance lead to only marginal improvements in actual performance.  If you really look at it, people’s day-to-day performance levels do not really change that much.
  • Disagree: Employees can be developed.  Good management practices and training can turn marginal employees into stars.

My view: I go with the Agree position.  Training is useful for providing knowledge and can contribute to some improvement in skills, but will not turn marginal performers into stars.  Bad management practices can certainly drive down personal performance, but I do not believe the opposite is true.  Managers have a disproportionate influence on overall organization performance which is why managerial hires are particularly critical and why systems that reinforce good management practices are so important to the enterprise.

Proposition 3:  Pay-for-performance schemes do not really affect an organization’s performance.

  • Agree: Employees are going to perform at whatever level they can, with or without rating and ranking schemes tied to compensation and bonuses.  Pay-for-performance schemes are simply a means to rationalize pay discrepancies and minimize complaints.  Employees mostly just learn to “game” the system to maximize their pay.
  • Disagree: Money is a real motivator of improved performance.  If employees see an opportunity to make more money, they will excel to get it.

My view: I will take the Agree position again.  Except for sales people and other employees whose pay is largely based on commissions, pay differentials do not motivate better personal performance, i.e. people do not work harder-better-longer to make a 6% raise instead of a 4% raise in base pay.  Bonuses can drive some improvement in personal performance, but only if the potential amount of the bonus is significant and known in advance (i.e. more like a commission scheme).  To press the point, I do not think I have ever seen or experienced a real “pay-for-performance” system (i.e. one that awards significant increases [>=10%] to top performers and no increase for those contributing significantly less).  Human beings are notoriously “relative” – a 5% increase can be good or bad depending on what others are getting.

Proposition 4:  Performance management software systems have little effect on the organization’s performance.

  • Agree: Like virtually all other software tools, performance management software is mostly about recording and reporting what has happened in the past.  They have virtually no effect on actually driving performance improvements going forward.
  • Disagree: Systems can be powerful organization development interventions that can stimulate improved practices and behaviors on the part of managers and employees that have substantial effect on overall performance.

My view: As a software vendor myself, it will be no surprise that I take the Disagree position.  Well-designed systems can do a lot more than just record events and report history.  Over and above the productivity gains and analysis systems provide, interactive systems used by managers and employees enable, nay, require, certain actions by the user to advance the process.  The system designer who is attentive to the power of systems to influence behavior deliberately supports certain entries and avoids others.  Policies and desired practices are embedded in the software.  Using the software “trains” users, and thereby instantiates individual behaviors which can have a substantial impact on organization performance.  Systems that require repetitive interaction can even contribute to the “softer” sides of management that cover trust, accountability, transparency, and the quality of the dialog between managers and their staff. 

What’s your viewpoint on these 4 propositions?  Future articles will propose some ideas for next generation systems that actually improve performance.

Leave a comment

Posted in HR Systems/Technology, Performance Management

Best Efforts and the “Pocket Veto”

Posted on August 27, 2010 | Leave a comment

Have you ever sent a request to a colleague or a staff person and then lost track of it wondering “Where does that stand?  Did he ever get back to me on that?”   Have you ever delegated a task and wondered if the performer was really committed to fully doing it?  Ever made a task request of someone who never responded?  Ever come out of a meeting with some good ideas tossed around and heads nodding that we should do “X” only to realize afterwards that no one actually took ownership and nothing is going to get done?

We all have had these too common experiences in our modern work world.  These are just the extreme examples.  Some of the more usual ways we all respond to work requests are captured in the following phrases:  “I’ll see what I can do about that”, “I’ll get back to you later”, “OK, I’ll add it to my list of tasks”, “I’m really busy right now, but I’ll do my best”, etc.  As I discussed in my last article, we work in a “best efforts” paradigm.  Throughout all business sectors and across all company sizes these are the work norms that have been created and perpetuated.

It is easy to understand why.  Employees and companies really do want to satisfy their internal and external customers.  We are culturally programmed to say “Yes” to requests; saying “No” is uncomfortable and may squelch future requests or business opportunities.  As requesters, we resist coming across as domineering or too serious while as performers, we never want to deliver late, so deadlines are often kept soft or vague.  Making firm promises to do something is reserved for private matters rather than business.

These norms have worked for a long time.  So what’s the problem?

The problem is that they also do not work most of the time.  Or viewed another way, these norms have hidden inefficiencies and costs that keep people and organizations from performing at peak levels.  Because we all know and understand the realities of these norms, requests require a large amount of follow-up (even nagging some times).  We do not really trust people to get things done.  Systems, corporate practices, and individual behaviors are established to check up and report back.  The rate of failed projects is very high, not because the planning was poor, but because the communication was poor.  There are real costs associated with these work norms and behaviors.

Many requests, in fact, are made which are never completed due to what can be called “the Pocket Veto”.

Bill is asked to do seven tasks by three different people.  He has told all three requesters that he will “do his best”.  He then goes about choosing how many and which of the tasks he will actually do and by when.  Two of Mary’s requests will never get done; Bill may have even known this at the time the requests were made, but he allowed Mary to expect he would complete her requests.

The performer is actually declining some of the requests, but the requesters never really find out which ones.  Think for a minute about the inefficiencies Bill creates in Mary’s world by this behavior.  The Pocket Veto leads to surprises, usually very late in the game.

Virtually all organizations today are afflicted to some degree with the costs and inefficiencies of these work norms.  A growing number of case studies show that changing these norms has a direct and nearly immediate impact on improving an organization’s performance.  This paradigm shift is called “Commitment or Promise-based Management”.  The practices associated with this relatively new management theory lead to clearer accountability, better visibility into execution, increased employee engagement, and more trust.  These ideas are starting to gain a foothold in today’s management circles, and we here at 4 Spires are doing our part to advance the conversation.

Leave a comment

Posted in Commitment Based Management, Workplace norms

“I’ll Do My Best” is Twaddle

Posted on August 20, 2010 | Leave a comment

We have all made a request of someone and received the response: “I’ll do my best”.

Probably the first time you received this reply you were encouraged, believing you would get what you needed and when you needed it.  But in a large number of cases I am guessing you were disappointed with the timeliness and the end results.  In fact, this answer rarely gives you what you want by the time you need it.

There are three main reasons why “I’ll do my best” is one of the worst responses you can get to a request.  First and most importantly – it tends to end the discussion.  As the requester, you literally are unable to ask for more than someone’s best.  Secondly, you may think that you have a commitment that you can rely upon, but in reality, you have nothing.  Lastly, the performer has no strong incentive to make sure that the work is done by a particular date – after all, there is no “date” and s/he can always say “well, I tried”.  Let’s take a look at each of these in a little more detail.

The response of “I’ll do my best” functions as a negotiation stopper.  Consider the situation where you ask your coworker or employee to “complete the report by the 1st” of next month.  If the response is “how about the 6th” and the two of you negotiate an agreement of “the 4th”, you can be reasonably assured that you are likely to have something on the 4th.  On the other hand, if the response is “I’ll do my best”, or its friend “I’ll try my best”, not only do you not have an agreement; you most often do not even have a counter response.

You may be thinking that you have the performer’s commitment to “do their best” in terms of quality of work effort, output, as well as the delivery schedule.  But isn’t that implicit – after all, how many people will respond to a request with “Well, I’ll give it a half-hearted attempt” or “Perhaps I will try to get that done for you – perhaps not”.  The “I’ll do my best” does not give you any specific date by which you can reasonably count on the work being done.  This approach leaves you as the requester with “managing by hope” – where you are in the unsatisfying position of “hoping” that the work will get done as expected.

Shifting to the performer’s viewpoint, the “I’ll do my best” response does not imbue much incentive to track the work effort or even get the work completed.  This response does not create the focus, concentration, and energy to get the job done in today’s overly busy world. It is far too easy to let the assignment slip or not fully complete the assignment – after all, the performer never really agreed to do it; they only agreed to “do their best”.  By contrast, when a performer has negotiated an explicit delivery agreement, they have a much higher stake in the situation – their promise is on the line in a public way.  The performer will feel the stress of that commitment with its specified date and will stretch to make sure it gets accomplished – often by being creative and/or accomplishing something they were not sure they could do.  Conquering challenges is one of the primary engines of job satisfaction.

Below are three starter recommendations that can change the work norm of “I’ll do my best”:

  • Convert Requests into Commitments. While obvious, this is more difficult than it might initially appear.  Here are two starter points to consider:
    • First of all, the requester has to establish an agreed upon specific delivery date and not accept the mushy “I’ll do my best” response.  “I’ll do my best” establishes a non-beneficial relationship between the requester and the performer.  Performers who are reluctant to make a firm commitment or who often make too many commitments undoubtedly believe they have very good reasons to reply with “I’ll do my best”.  Managers need to understand and draw out these reasons, understand and validate them, while at the same time emphasize the requirement and benefits of making a firm commitment.  This “pushing” for a commitment reflects a different management style and, it should be said, requires a measure of personal courage.
    • Secondly, requesters need to shift the dialog to a negotiation.  Saying, for example, “I know you will do your best, but it would be helpful to each of us if we could establish a firm completion date” provides the performer with some control and gets them used to the idea of negotiating specific commitments.  Over time, as trust is built between the parties, negotiations can evolve to true counter-offers as in “I hear that you can get it done by the 8th, but what would be necessary for you to get this done by the 6th”.  It bears noting that adopting a relationship with the performer that allows for, and encourages requester-performer negotiations may require a substantial cultural change in organizations bound in strict hierarchical norms (i.e. where the boss gives orders).
  • Accepting Failure. It is likely that commitment phobia is caused by excessive punishments for failure.  Organizations that treat failure as an excuse for punishment and not as an opportunity for learning and improving their processes are doomed to create people who are unwilling to take risks.  At its heart, making a commitment is taking a risk.  If you find widespread commitment phobia – take a look at your company’s behavior with respect to “failure”.
  • Tracking Commitments. Finally, having some type of system that tracks commitments is vital to making a commitment based organization work.  When performers know that commitments are tracked they will put in the necessary energy to keep their commitments.

Virtually all organizations today are afflicted to some degree with the costs and inefficiencies of the “I’ll do my best” culture.  A growing number of case studies, however, show that changing these norms has a direct and nearly immediate impact on improving the organization’s performance.  It is called “Commitment or Promise-based Management”.  The practices associated with this relatively new management theory lead to clearer accountability, better visibility into execution, increased employee engagement, and more trust.  These ideas are starting to gain a foothold in today’s management circles, and we here at 4 Spires are doing our part to advance the conversation.

Leave a comment

Posted in Commitment Based Management, Organization Development, Workplace norms

Trust – What’s It Worth? (Reflections on “The Speed of Trust” by Covey and Merrill)

Posted on August 16, 2010 | 1 comment

In 2006, Stephen M.R. Covey and Rebecca Merrill authored the book “The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything”.  The authors make a compelling business case for the real and quantifiable effects of building trust in organizations.  They state “When trust goes up, speed will also go up and cost will go down.”  The inverse is also true.  “When trust goes down, speed will go down and cost will go up.”  High trust organizations demonstrate less bureaucracy, lower turnover, enhanced innovation, and better execution.   Our modern global, knowledge worker economy revolves around partnering and relationships.  Covey goes on to assert that the ability to establish, grow, extend and restore trust with all stakeholders is the key leadership competency of the new, global economy.

The book discusses how trust can be built, or rebuilt, by improving thirteen relationship trust building behaviors.  The following are my comments on four of them: keeping commitments, practicing accountability, confronting reality, and delivering results.

1.)  Keeping commitments is what Covey and Merrill call the “Big Kahuna” of all trust-building behaviors.  While that may be self-evident, what is less obvious, and more interesting, is how rarely real commitments are actually formed in most business relationships.  In place of real commitments most people substitute loose, mostly implicit statements of  “Well, I’ll do my best” or “I’ll try”.  The reasons for this behavior are also obvious – the person being asked to do something wants as much “wiggle room” as possible within which to make the delivery so they will not disappoint the customer; and the customer, knowing this, does not want to press for a firm commitment.  Each of the parties is complicit in the vagueness: the performer fears non-completion and the customer fears confrontation.  The truth is in our modern business culture we stink at making commitments.  Most of the time commitments are vague or never actually made in the first place.  This is not to say that performing “best efforts” does not build trust, but forming and delivering on real commitments builds trust a lot faster and a lot better.

2.)  Practicing accountability is much more than honoring due dates.  Yes, practicing accountability entails saying what you’re going to do and doing what you said, but underlying the obvious is the nature of the dialog that is going on between two people.  A complete conversation between a requester and a performer with the power to really build trust depends on factors such as:

  • how well the request was formed,
  • whether the intended performer was given the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the delivery,
  • whether an explicit agreement was made,
  • the degree to which the dialog continued throughout the delivery, and
  • whether the delivery was formally acknowledged.

The quality of the dialog between the two parties is even more important than recording the assigned due date.  (See other posts that expand the discussion on Accountability)

3.)  Confronting reality often means sharing “bad news”.  The performer has the burden for demonstrating this behavior right from the start of the conversation with the requester.  While the request is being formulated and an agreement to deliver is being crafted, the performer is bound to forthrightly relay their concerns, problems, and contingencies so the requester has a clear sense of the expectations of the performer.

The performer should not accept a task they do not believe can be achieved.  Standing up for reality at the outset builds trust.  Must of us have run across counter examples of this – a work colleague who always agrees, although he knows he cannot do everything to complete the request.  Some components of the request will not be completed, not fully completed or completed on time and to the expectation of the requestor.  Sadly the requestor or customer will often not know this until very late in the game.  Through fear of being viewed as not a team player, or of losing his job, he believes he cannot say no up front.

Once an explicit agreement is forged, the subsequent delivery of “bad news” is even more important.  The project is properly planned, tasks have been assigned, and then, as we all know, s- – t happens.  It is common knowledge and more or less taken for granted that we learn more about the nature of the task after it has been taken it on.  That new information comes to light is not the issue.  The key to building trust is how quickly and clearly the new information is shared with the requester/customer.  Waiting to report problems until the Friday staff meeting builds far less trust than a private communication on Tuesday.

Effective software design can facilitate sharing “bad news” during the delivery stage.  Simple tools like red/yellow/green “traffic lights” enable the performer to quickly and easily signal concerns to the requester.  The goal is to prompt earlier and earlier notice of problems when working around “bad news” or changing plans is easier.

The manager/requester is as important to the entire process and shares the burden of confronting reality when it comes time to acknowledge and assess the delivery.   Performers learn very fast how much they can trust their manager by the consistency and honesty with which deliveries are assessed.  If it is good work, the message should be clearly and succinctly delivered – at the right time; conversely if it is not good work, the requestor/manager should provide in a proper dialog what was not satisfactory and how to improve on delivery and possibly help in the delivery for the next set of deliverables.. Trust is not built, and the organization does not learn, unless clear feedback is provided on whether the requester was satisfied with each delivery.

4.)  Delivering results is the natural outcome following from the above three behaviors.  The performer and requester have made a clear agreement, accountability is palpable and shared in the conversation, and each of the parties openly discuss in a straightforward manner any problems or concerns as they come up.

Note, however, that this behavior is about more than just completing the task by the agreed due date.  Sure, the baseline for measuring results is tracking that the task was completed on time, but one should consider a broader definition of what constitutes results.  In the context of this discussion, an additional result is the degree to which your “trust account” was added to or debited during the entire conversation.  There is also a virtuous cycle of trust – those you trust are monitored less closely (i.e. management productivity gain), their confidence builds, they feel more empowered, they perform better (i.e. staff productivity gain), and they earn more trust.

Delivering results on a consistent basis builds a reputation for trust.  The requester as well as the performer benefit from having a robust historical record of past deliveries.  Reputations should be built as much as possible on objective data, not subjective and imperfect memory.  It is surprising to note how few task and project management applications actually save records of completed deliveries that can provide this objective, historical view of deliveries.

In summary, work management applications that are sensitive to the issue of trust can effectively facilitate and encourage the practice of these trust-building behaviors.  Software can help individuals and organizations build trust – the one thing that changes everything.

1 Comment

Posted in Accountability, Commitment Based Management, Trust

Do People Really Want To Be Held To Their Promises?

Posted on August 16, 2010 | Leave a comment

If you are a reader of this blog, you know that we here at 4 Spires (www.4spires.com) are promoting a new way of managing workflow through the enhanced dialog between a requester and a performer that improves accountability by making and tracking explicit commitments.  After a short period of reflection, most people inevitably come to the following question: Do I, or other people, really want to be held to our promises and/or commitments?  So let’s address this concern head-on.

There are several levels of response.  First of all, let’s grant that some people do and some do not want to be held to their promises (they also do not like or embrace stretch goals).  If queried, however, many people would report that working hard to deliver on a commitment was one of their proudest accomplishments.  There is no getting around the fact that making a promise to deliver creates a more compelling bond by the performer than most are used to.  From early childhood, we are taught that promises are special.  Nobody wants to make and then have to break a promise.  The truth is that this level of commitment is quite rare in today’s work world.  What is being advocated is uncomfortable because it is new and inserts an added “energy” into the conversation.  It is this “energy” that makes the difference and improves the likelihood of an on-time delivery.

But this discussion is not only about keeping agreements.  Sometimes there are very good reasons for not being able to keep agreements and these have nothing to do with the project or request itself.  The key is that having made a clear up front agreement, the performer will be more forthcoming about having to change it should the need arise.  This is so much different than the more common behavior we have all experienced where the performer provides a sort of “universal compliance” to all requests that are thrown at him, and then uses a form of “selective pocket veto” to drop some and deliver others.

Making explicit commitments and being “held” to them is new behavior for most of us.  Any new behavior creates resistance, even if we agree with its value to stretch people and get more done.  Moreover, whether anyone wants to be “held to my promise” actually has more to do with HOW the request is made versus WHAT the performer is being asked to complete and under what timetable.

Let’s extend the point and explore not just the mechanics of making and keeping promises, but also the sociological and interpersonal aspects.

There are always two people involved in a task related conversation – a requester and a performer. Requesters (think internal or external customers or managers) are interested in “extracting” promises from performers (think staff) they have requested a delivery from.   So even if the performer does not want to be held to their promises or commitments, in a sense, the requester can force the issue.  You could say the requester is enforcing a commitment to deliver, and one could reasonably expect some resistance, either overt or covert, from the performer.

While there are some managers who operate in a demand request mode, this is not the type of heavy-handed, top-down behavior that is being advocated here.  On the contrary, this misses the point entirely.  The point is to prompt a sincere, two-way dialog between the two parties during which an agreement is mutually forged.  The requester grants the performer “room” to make counter-offers or even to decline a request.  The dialog results in the performer willingly making an explicit promise they are fully committed to deliver.

Lastly, there is the issue of tracking, following-up and managing the outcome of the promise.  Here again, the key is NOT about “holding people to their promises” or about following up with the question “did you do it?” but about changing the quality of the dialog between the two parties.  Just because a performer has made a promise does not mean that the delivery will happen exactly as planned. Issues and problems still arise.  BUT, having made an explicit promise in the first place, the performer will be more motivated to notify the requester and renegotiate the delivery.

The real goal is not to “HOLD performers to their promises”, but rather to raise the conversation to an explicit level.

The 4 Spires team believes that one of the most important systemic benefits of the Managed Commitment approach will be that performers will find and report concerns and breakdowns earlier when adjustments to plans and resolutions are easier to accommodate.  Imagine for a moment how your projects would progress if the whole process of identifying and resolving breakdowns were accelerated.

Being “held to a promise” is not the point.  The point is to be having the right conversation in the first place.

Leave a comment

Posted in Accountability, Commitment Based Management, Managed Conversations

Accountability (3 of 3): Sharing the Load

Posted on August 13, 2010 | 1 comment

This is the third in a series of 3 articles dealing with Accountability.  In the first article Accountability: What Does it Really Mean? I noted how the real meaning of accountability has been hijacked and replaced with a simplistic emphasis on recording delivery dates, and I proposed that real accountability has more to do with the quality of the dialog between people.

The second article Accountability: How is it Achieved? keys in on this dialog and lays out four specific tactics for how accountability is actually built so that performers are really “carrying the ball”.

This final article in the series suggests that, in best practices, the accountability ball should actually be carried down the field by each of the parties – i.e. how the requester and the performer are each accountable to the other.

Accountability can be discussed in terms of a four stage dialog or structured conversation between a requester and a performer – formulating the request, negotiating a commitment, delivering the request on time and as expected, and acknowledging the delivery.  In varying degrees, each of the parties bears some accountability to the other in each of these stages.

  • In the first stage the requester is accountable, first and foremost, for formulating a clear request.  In my experience, it has been amazing to see how often managers botch this.  There is no clear formulation of the request; the responsibilities, the end results, and the timelines needed to complete the results are vague or missing altogether.  Assignments are doled out with little background context and imprecise expectations regarding what would constitute a satisfactory outcome. It is hard to hold the performer accountable for an incomplete delivery when expectations were not clearly understood and agreed at the start.  The performer, for their part, is accountable in this stage for learning the needs and the context of the requester and for getting a clear understanding of the request.  The performer should push to stay in this stage until a clear request has been formulated.
  • In the second stage, the performer has the lead role for accountability….This stage concludes when the performer explicitly agrees to deliver a certain outcome or result by a certain date.  The requester, on the other hand, should not let the conversation advance to the next stage until an explicit agreement has been forged.
  • In the third stage the performer is obviously accountable for delivering by the agreed due date, but that is not all.  The performer is also accountable for maintaining an ongoing dialog with the requester about how the request is proceeding.  Using best practices, the performer is regularly updating the requester about the “health” of the agreement.  Are we on track or has something come up that threatens an on-time delivery?  The performer is accountable to report problems or concerns as quickly as they come up and not wait until critical juncture points or until the due date has passed.  Any “bad news” is reported early by the performer.  The requester, on the other hand, is accountable to advise the performer if and when they become aware of any changes that affect the original context for the agreement.  If priorities change or new information alters or eliminates the need, the requester is bound to advise the performer immediately.  A good way to damage the relationship is to let the performer persist with a task that is no longer really needed.
  • The last stage of the conversation begins when the performer delivers on the agreement.  First of all, the performer should make the delivery explicit.  The performer is accountable for asserting their belief that they have successfully delivered the result that was agreed.  The requester, then, is accountable for acknowledging that delivery and advising the performer if they are satisfied.  It is surprising how rarely this last stage actually occurs in business.  More often, work just carries on from one task to the next with no explicit delivery by the performer and no direct acknowledgement and assessment by the requester.  Feedback is saved up and bundled into the end-of-year performance review.

When accountability is shared like this all kinds of good things happen.

To summarize, as pointed out in the first of these articles, accountability is really about the quality of the dialog between the two parties, NOT about tracking due dates.  Now, to be candid, conversations like this are not easy.  As I will discuss in an upcoming article, conversations like this require a measure of courage and trust on the part of both parties.  Each of the parties is accountable for establishing and maintaining this direct and more “intimate” dialog.  When you are in a conversation where real accountability is palpable you will know it, and conversely when you are in a conversation without it, you will also know it.

1 Comment

Posted in Accountability, Managed Conversations