You Can't Get Different Results Doing the Same Thing
The first paragraph sounds so familiar!
This makes so much sense, one wonders why we don't get it.
You Can't Get Different Results Doing the Same Thing
The first paragraph sounds so familiar!
This makes so much sense, one wonders why we don't get it.
Good ones:
http://karyng.typepad.com/soaking_in_samsara/2008/11/what-i-have-learned-about-leadership.html
I specially like #2,3,4.
http://karyng.typepad.com/soaking_in_samsara/2008/11/what-i-have-learned-about-leadership.html
I specially like #2,3,4.
I have this mental model of people at work. I divide them into two categories:
White Box: People who's style of work and thinking is clear and transparent. People who can tell you how they think, how they do what they do, how did they fix that problem, and why did they take a particular decision.
Black Box: People who's style of working is thinking is not clear. When they deliver, you don't know how and why they did. When they fail, you don't know why they failed.
You'll find both kinds of people around you. And there will be 'good' people in both categories: people who deliver consistently.
Software development is full of both kinds of people. I've seen a few that will be able to quickly resolve a crisis or a weird bug. But if you ask them how they did it, or why, or sometimes even what(!), they don't have an answer. Their motto often is " Just tell me what to do, then go away, don't bother me. Come back to me in 2 days, and this thing will be done". These are the black boxes. Very scary, because you're always wondering: will it be solved this time?
I also think that the white box box people have a better sense of self. They are less likely to be surprised at such workplace events as the performance appraisal.
I strongly believe that in roles that have ambiguity, you must have the white box variety. The trouble with the black box variety is that you don't know why they succeed. When the situation involves a large number of variables, the environment is changing all around you, I feel safer if I can feel confidence in the inherent ability of the people, rather than their history of success. Because in a changing environment, history is not a good predictor of future. But inherent ability is!
Perhaps my white box people are the people with strong analytical skills, and the black box people are the ones with weaker analysis? Maybe. But there might be more. For instance, the ability to communicate the analysis is important. As is the ability to understand your own mind!
White Box: People who's style of work and thinking is clear and transparent. People who can tell you how they think, how they do what they do, how did they fix that problem, and why did they take a particular decision.
Black Box: People who's style of working is thinking is not clear. When they deliver, you don't know how and why they did. When they fail, you don't know why they failed.
You'll find both kinds of people around you. And there will be 'good' people in both categories: people who deliver consistently.
Software development is full of both kinds of people. I've seen a few that will be able to quickly resolve a crisis or a weird bug. But if you ask them how they did it, or why, or sometimes even what(!), they don't have an answer. Their motto often is " Just tell me what to do, then go away, don't bother me. Come back to me in 2 days, and this thing will be done". These are the black boxes. Very scary, because you're always wondering: will it be solved this time?
I also think that the white box box people have a better sense of self. They are less likely to be surprised at such workplace events as the performance appraisal.
I strongly believe that in roles that have ambiguity, you must have the white box variety. The trouble with the black box variety is that you don't know why they succeed. When the situation involves a large number of variables, the environment is changing all around you, I feel safer if I can feel confidence in the inherent ability of the people, rather than their history of success. Because in a changing environment, history is not a good predictor of future. But inherent ability is!
Perhaps my white box people are the people with strong analytical skills, and the black box people are the ones with weaker analysis? Maybe. But there might be more. For instance, the ability to communicate the analysis is important. As is the ability to understand your own mind!
I've now been part of three startups. One of them as a founder, and the other two as a part of the management team.
I often compare the other two founders in my mind. One of the big differences between the two has been that one is more than happy to let go... of control. He's believed enough in his team to delegate and forget. Of course, there are some checks in terms of discussions, reporting etc., but by and large the team has the ability to take decisions.
The other one has not found it easy to do that. Most decisions flow from the top, the team feels constrained. He is involved at a very minute level of detail, when perhaps he needs to leave those to the team and concentrate on other things. This inability to believe in his people, I think, is costing the company dear.
In our own case, perhaps we did even worse. We believed in the team too much. Not that the individuals were not capable enough; but you need to balance delegation with reporting and monitoring. Otherwise, you're dependent on the capability of only one person. In a startup, that can be fatal, as processes don't exist to catch mistakes, and the environment is too fluid.
One of these companies can be considered a clear success. The other one, a little early to decide.
Here's another take on this issue, from an entrepreneurs.
Building an open culture
My own thought, as an entrepreneur, is that the way to do this right is to hire people that you can rely on in a white box (more on that in another post, but basically someone you can rely on because of the way they work) mode.
Once you've got those people, delegate like crazy, and allow them to take decisions. Let them be entrepreneurs in the garb of an employee.
I like to think I did that well in my own company. Will I call my company a success? Not in the financial sense, but I think the reasons were elsewhere. Did we hire the right people? Absolutely yes. If and when I start another company, quite a few of them would be the first set of people I'd look to hire.
I often compare the other two founders in my mind. One of the big differences between the two has been that one is more than happy to let go... of control. He's believed enough in his team to delegate and forget. Of course, there are some checks in terms of discussions, reporting etc., but by and large the team has the ability to take decisions.
The other one has not found it easy to do that. Most decisions flow from the top, the team feels constrained. He is involved at a very minute level of detail, when perhaps he needs to leave those to the team and concentrate on other things. This inability to believe in his people, I think, is costing the company dear.
In our own case, perhaps we did even worse. We believed in the team too much. Not that the individuals were not capable enough; but you need to balance delegation with reporting and monitoring. Otherwise, you're dependent on the capability of only one person. In a startup, that can be fatal, as processes don't exist to catch mistakes, and the environment is too fluid.
One of these companies can be considered a clear success. The other one, a little early to decide.
Here's another take on this issue, from an entrepreneurs.
Building an open culture
My own thought, as an entrepreneur, is that the way to do this right is to hire people that you can rely on in a white box (more on that in another post, but basically someone you can rely on because of the way they work) mode.
Once you've got those people, delegate like crazy, and allow them to take decisions. Let them be entrepreneurs in the garb of an employee.
I like to think I did that well in my own company. Will I call my company a success? Not in the financial sense, but I think the reasons were elsewhere. Did we hire the right people? Absolutely yes. If and when I start another company, quite a few of them would be the first set of people I'd look to hire.
Don’t Stop for Gas… We’re Already Late! » 6th Sense Analytics
Great post. Love the thought about confusing activity and progress.
Great post. Love the thought about confusing activity and progress.
Support functions in all organisations: I think they have got it absolutely wrong.
Most of them are so utterly fixated on rules and processes, one wonders if they leave their brains at home!
Their existence itself is to 'support'. That's the nature of their work. But all of them, without fail, across almost all organisations, take upon themselves a 'higher' meaning: as if their existence itself is the reason for their existence.
IT support, finance, payroll, admin... Does any of them not do this? HR, sometimes, is one exception.
On top of that, they will not hesitate from using regulatory or technical reasons to avoid answering the question Why can't it be done? Hoping that most of the people will get deterred by it. When actually almost all the time, there is no underlying technical or regulatory reason at all!
Some recent examples:
If only they could change from Why it can't be done to Let's find out how we can make it happen!
Most of them are so utterly fixated on rules and processes, one wonders if they leave their brains at home!
Their existence itself is to 'support'. That's the nature of their work. But all of them, without fail, across almost all organisations, take upon themselves a 'higher' meaning: as if their existence itself is the reason for their existence.
IT support, finance, payroll, admin... Does any of them not do this? HR, sometimes, is one exception.
On top of that, they will not hesitate from using regulatory or technical reasons to avoid answering the question Why can't it be done? Hoping that most of the people will get deterred by it. When actually almost all the time, there is no underlying technical or regulatory reason at all!
Some recent examples:
- We have to deduct both income tax and FBT on your allowance. Because that's how the government wants it. Real reason:I can't be bothered to take the effort to track your allowances.
- We can't deduct extra tax from your income, even if you give us a written request. We are not allowed to do it. Real reason: I don't have any idea how this works, no one's asked before, I can't be bothered to go read up the rules.
- I need an urgent salary advance. It is approved by the head of HR AND my manager. Oh, well, oops. Needs approval of the CFO too. By the way, we will send you a check for the advance, not deposit it directly to your salary account. And did we mention, the check will be on a different bank, so that it will take 3 days after you deposit the check for money to come in? Of course, it's the 29th already, so your normal salary would probably have come in sooner!
If only they could change from Why it can't be done to Let's find out how we can make it happen!