Mike Lehr's Blog

Many scientists use nature as a source of inspiration for new technologies. If we can understand the forces of nature that govern us, we can learn to get it on our side. One physic’s equation governing nature that I find very practical in business is:

E=½mv²

While I know the sight of equations affects some like horror movies, it essentially says this:

The energy (E=energy) that something can produce is based on its weight (m=mass) and its speed (v=velocity). Of the two, speed is far more important.

In fact, if given a choice between doubling the size or the speed, doubling the speed would double the impact you would get by doubling the mass. Consider the greater damage a round, small bullet does versus a thrown stone three times its weight. In WWII, the Germans implemented blitzkrieg to help their smaller, faster forces overcome their numerical inferiority.

The business lesson is that if we have a choice between doubling our preparation or doubling the speed with which we can deliver (all other factors being equal), then we are better off with the latter. In decisions, if we have the option to double our research or double the speed with which we decide, the latter is preferred. In marketing, we often hear, “It’s better to be first than it is to be better,” translating this means our idea would need to be at least four times better than our current one to justify doubling the time to introduce it.

Often, in our effort to make the best decision, we delay. Speed, if used wisely, can help us recover quickly from mistakes and adjust to changes, thus alleviating pressure to be right at the outset. It’s why average professionals, when they deliver substantially faster, can beat experts in the marketplace.

How we position things greatly influences the outcome. In the April 7, 2012 edition of The Economist the article, “Dressing Up,” uncovers that women’s sizes have inflated by four sizes since the 1970’s. Unlike men’s sizing which is based on inches, women’s sizing is purely arbitrary and often varies by brand. Thus, depending on the size, a pair of women’s pants might have increased as much as four inches at the waist and three inches at the hips since then.

The generally accepted assumption for allowing this size inflation is that if consumers feel good about themselves they are likely to buy, thus why the fashion industry calls it “vanity sizing.” However, even though it seems like a topic to take lightly or with which to have fun, vanity sizing plays in all aspects of statistics. That is why it’s important to challenge definitions and assumptions in order to understand and solve problems.

For instance, the article “Botox and Beancounting” of the The Economist’s April 27, 2011 edition, discusses how official U.S. economic statistics might be overinflating its performance relative to Western European economies. Ironically, the article’s title makes an appropriate analogy to vanity sizing.

U.S. unemployment figures present another excellent example. They not only conflict with one another on occasions but they are difficult to figure. Additionally, their accounting changed in the 1980′s, making them appear lower than before.

Thus, while it’s commonly said that “numbers don’t lie,” that’s true; however, an ignoramus isn’t lying either if he believes his own ignorance. If we’re ignorant to numbers’ origination, we are more likely to accept them if they tell us our glass is half full rather than half empty, thus reinforcing our own perceptions . . . also known as “vanity believing.”

In 12Most I wrote about business lessons from various battles. Pydna in 168 B.C. – the titanic clash between two undefeated armies, the Macedonians and the Romans – illustrates flexibility’s inherent power by working with smaller units. We can become better problem solvers if we can train our minds to see the smaller aspects of everything.

At Pydna, the Macedonians fought as a single, massive phalanx in which soldiers fought using 20-foot long pikes. This created a massive wall of sharp daggers. The Romans fought in smaller cohorts; their soldiers used short, 20-inch swords called a gladius. Cohorts became buzz saws as they slashed and cut.

When confronting an enemy directly (Figure #1), the phalanx crushed him. However, the cohorts were flexible and surrounded the Macedonians (Figure #2). While those in front suffered heavily, the pikes did not allow the Macedonians to turn quickly enough to defend against the other Romans. Consequently, the Romans all but obliterated the Macedonians.

One of the best ways to train our minds to see the finer aspects of problems is to think about the differences in similar words. Don’t accept they are the same; if they were we wouldn’t need both. Also, don’t worry about being right; just try to come up with differences. It’s similar to physical exercise: doing is beneficial and winning unessential. As examples, I’ve written about the differences between clarity and truth, intelligence and wisdom, and optimism and Pollyannaism.

We can then apply this by writing the problem down, attacking definitions and breaking our description into smaller parts. Just as breaking change down into small, simple steps makes it easier to effect change, breaking problems down into smaller parts makes it easier to solve them.

The challenge is training our brain to see a solid unit as many parts.

Imagine soil so toxic that nothing will grow. No matter how good our seeds, our farming techniques and the weather are; nothing will grow. The same thing happens when we try to promote great ideas in a bad relational environment: they fail.

That’s why relationships are more important than vision, culture more important than strategy. Vision and strategy can’t grow in toxic relational and cultural soil. This analogy also frames leadership as an affect influencing the hearts and minds of members, requiring the ability to tap both aspects of an interpersonal relationship: emotional and rational.

While this analogy’s point seems obvious, we are biased toward reason; thus, when problems arise, we tend to believe presenting new ideas, educating on the facts or reasoning better will solve them. It’s not unusual for me to have to restate this analogy several times in order to get people to focus on plans containing tactics to improve relationships or to manage conflict. In other words, our tendency is to just find better seeds, use better farming techniques or hope for better weather rather than address the soil.

This happens because no matter how good our ideas are, people will tend to decide that they’re bad if they don’t like or trust us. Our facts won’t change things either because people tend to believe perceptions over facts. People will naturally find reasons to discount our logic and facts.

When we combine all of this with the fact that a diverse workforce improves business, there is great stress on traditional management styles typically unsuited to nurturing the right positive feelings that can dramatically improve performance. By framing problems with this analogy, I increase my success in introducing relational solutions, which are often seen as too “fuzzy” or “soft.” Perhaps it will help you too.

In this post I want to show how informal organizational power and its role in leadership can produce different kinds of leadership. My inspiration is from a Chinese concept of rulers that is over two thousand years old, and I first read in connection to the I Ching. From it, I produced two forms of leadership: Organizational Leadership (OGL) and De Facto Leadership (DFL). When any group identifies its leader, the critical question is:

Are the members’ hearts into following the leader?

The answer is the same difference between a loveless marriage and a loving one. That’s why I express OGL as a hollowed circle to be filled and DFL as a solid circle to be embraced (figure). A loving marriage is love (blue) embraced by the formal structure of marriage (red). Leadership is best when the formal organizational structure is given to leaders that people want to follow, thus producing Aligned Leadership (ALL).

OGL is the hierarchy using titles such as manager and executive to convey positions of authority and rules of responsibility. OGL is more akin to management. DFL is dependent upon the person’s qualities; people follow them regardless of what the rules say. This is how some can be leaders without being managers.

A scene from Braveheart expresses very well the difference between DFL and OGL. In it, the lead Scottish noble, Robert the Bruce, is trying to convince the commoner warrior, William Wallace, that he needs the noble’s support. The latter responds with, “Men follow courage not titles.”

OGL, DFL and ALL reinforce the idea that leadership is an affect that requires tapping into emotions and integrating both aspects of an interpersonal relationship. This helps people to see what they want to see in their leaders, thus encouraging them to follow.

Other posts in this series:

• Leadership vs. Management: The Difference
• Leadership vs. Management: The Difference (Part II)
• Leadership vs. Management: The Difference (Part III)
• Leadership vs. Management: The Difference (Part IV)
• Leadership vs. Management: The Difference (Part V)

Wow! I’m excited about my 200^th post. More and more people have entered my life – real and virtual – for whom I am thankful. This post is longer than my norm, need to tap into the power of thank you’s.

I continue to be thankful for those I mentioned in my 100^th post, including my wife, Kathy, who even as I write this is adjusting her schedule so I can keep my deadlines.

The second hundred had a more public feel for me than the first hundred did. Yes, some is due to substantially more visitors, but that is the smallest part of this story.

I’m thankful to the #usguys (Twitter) and 12Most families. Jeannette Marshall (Blog: optioneerJM) introduced me to the first and Daniel Newman the latter. Daniel “discovered” me on Twitter and Skyped me. Consequently, I ended up with three posts on 12Most, one drawing fairly heavy traffic (and controversy on Goggle+ ).

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the international aspect of the second hundred. I’m extremely thankful for Sandra Semjonova from Latvia. Anybody who follows me on Twitter knows she is a huge supporter. This world would be better by a factor of ten if it had just a few more Sandra’s. There’s also Vanina Santana-Sweeney from Australia who tracks me on several social media sites. Finally, there are cities like Marrakech, Belgrade, Pelotas, Melbourne, Manila, Bangalore containing regular readers. It’s reassuring to know we have commonalities; maybe those world problems aren’t so daunting after all!

Still, my biggest surprise has been locally. I’m thankful to those who meet me like Eric Mann and Tammy Wilson who then follow up by visiting here and wanting to know more. Or those, like Tom Wyatt who want to just meet to see if I’m for real. Then there are some high school classmates who wonder if I’m the same person they knew.

Moreover, locally, I’m extremely thankful for ProSource Solutions, LLC. A great client who requests much of my time but encourages the flexibility I need to grow this effort. Its Managing Directors, Lowell Messner and Jeff Welch, are extremely supportive of my ideas and work.  Additionally, their many employees make it all very enjoyable and rewarding. If you have IT-related skills, you should definitely look into them.

Finally, there are many unknown and unmentionable readers for whom I am thankful. I might only know some from their obscure towns. Others, for various reasons, including censorship in their communities, need to remain unmentioned. However, even if unknown and unmentionable, they certainly aren’t unappreciated.

With that, thank you – again – and I look forward to your continued inspiration. Now, I must close the door on the second hundred and open the one in front of me for the third hundred. Fortunately, you have given me the key. I promise to use it wisely . . . and, of course, intuitively.

Have a good one!

Referenced posts from 12Most.com:

• 12 Most Important Unspoken Truths about Experts
• 12 Most Effective Morale Builders That Don’t Cost a Cent
• 12 Most Crucial Business Lessons Learned from Battle

We often don’t learn the value of listening techniques in building relationships. Consequently, people might not realize we are listening; this needs to occur in relationship building.

Encouragement directs the other person to elaborate on a point. It’s similar to an acknowledgement except it’s a clearly worded, short statement expressing a more direct interest. It’s also more effective in directing conversation to a previous point. Encouragement usually occurs as a conversational transition from open-ended questions to closed questions.

Some examples of encouragements include:

• Short statements such as:
  • “Tell me more . . .”
  • “Explain that further …”
  • “Please elaborate …”
  • “Please explain, I’m not sure I understand . . .”
• Redirections of conversation such as:
  • “A few minutes ago you mentioned the analysis that was done by the group, tell me more about that and its findings.”
  • “Please go back to your comments regarding when you started the project and tell me more about that.”
  • “You mentioned that earlier as well. Elaborate on it since it’s obviously important to you and the team.”

From a relational perspective, encouragements convey the feeling that you are:

• Interested in the conversation
• Closely listening when you are able to redirect conversation to a previous point
• Remembering what was said earlier

The effect of encouragements is to:

• Encourage further comments especially from quiet people
• Substantially increase receptivity when redirection occurs
• Move the conversation to a more personal or confidential level

Encouragements effectively build relationships when integrated with other techniques.  They promote a more casual, interactive, directed and friendly conversation as opposed to an interrogative one. More importantly, through redirection of the conversation to a previous point, they can dramatically convey to others that you’re listening to them.

Other posts in this series:

• Relationship Building Technique #1: Open-ended Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #2: Closed Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #3: Pause
• Relationship Building Technique #4: Acknowledgement

People often have unrealistic expectations for intuition, sometimes thinking it’s a crystal ball, magic lamp or answer giver. This usually stems from trying to see it as we do cognition. However, if cognition is a map, intuition is our compass. If cognition is our street address, then intuition is our city, state or nation.

Of course, visualizations help to differentiate between cognition and intuition. I use the schematic below that way. Cognition represents logic and reason, easily connecting each point because one naturally follows the other. One thought connects the next.

Intuition on the other hand is like trying to find the best line to represent a group of observations. It doesn’t connect them as easily and new points don’t always fall on or near the line; however, taken as a group, our observations form a pattern giving a sense of direction to them. Thus, intuition narrows our possibilities. More significantly, we don’t need many observations to get this directional sense.

For example, we can predict tendencies of people simply by looking at what they buy. In some cases, if we know their favorite car, beverage, hobby, store and book, we can make predictions about their favorite restaurant. Political campaigns take such consumer information and make accurate predictions about what candidates and issues potential voters might prefer. We can form psychological profiles of people from consumer – and other – activities, similar to what we see on crime shows when tracking criminals.

While these examples are very conscious, we unconsciously pick up patterns too. These are translated into feelings, emotions and finally intuitions. That is why it’s important to listen to how we feel. It might be our intuition giving us some direction, giving us a north. In this sense, intuition can be our guiding star.

Related link: My Intuition White Paper (3 pages)

Businesses spend much money on developing their visions, strategies and processes; however, they spend relatively little on culture, which trumps all of the others. Megan McArdle discusses her observations of General Motors and others in “Why Companies Fail,” appearing in the March 2012 issue of The Atlantic.

When we talk about vision, strategy and process, they are very much head concepts as opposed to heart ones. For example, they don’t concern themselves much with the relationships that employees have between one another or even the relationships that the management team has with employees. The simplest relational techniques are rarely connected to these heady concepts when, in fact, it’s relationships that drive the cohesion and morale of any organization.

Unless we touch our employees on their emotional foundation, vision, strategy and process will fall far short of their intended success. This perspective transforms leadership into more of an emotional function from a rational one.  This perspective also helps us understand why common business tools such as incentives and processes can retard our efforts to build relationships and effect change.

Using a farming analogy, it doesn’t matter what vision, strategy and processes we use; if the soil isn’t good, we will struggle. In business, the soil is the relationship between the management team and employees. It forms the foundation of a company’s culture. If that team can’t develop effect relationships or isn’t motivated to even use simple relationship building techniques, then how can we expect it to implement great visions, strategies and processes?

Related post: Great Strategy? Don’t Neglect Culture

YinYang, as expressed by the Taijitu symbol, has helped me solve many problems. The two major components represent the two major opposing forces in any event. The smaller part of each in the other represents the interplay between the two.

I have extracted five principles from YinYang that have helped me. In short, optimal solutions will:

1. Have opposing forces (i.e. ideas, emotions, things) at work
2. Not choose one force over the other
3. Balance and integrate the two forces
4. Have one force as dominant and the other supportive
5. Vary by situation

For example, let’s consider the problem of how much to water a plant. Two forces exist, dryness and wetness (#1). If we choose dryness over wetness by never watering the plant, it will die. If we choose wetness over dryness by constantly watering the plant, the plant will die (#2). Thus, we need to integrate the two and find the right balance between watering and drying (#3). In this balance, the plant’s soil will be mainly dry or wet (#4). This balance varies by plant (#5, i.e. cacti versus willows).

In business, we often view these as tradeoffs such as processes versus flexibility, positive versus negative reinforcements, best practices versus differentiation, focus versus situational awareness, change versus resistance, profits versus investments, and glass half-full versus half-empty. However, tradeoffs encourage the temptation to choose one over the other; it’s really about integrating the two (#4).

Many times, it’s difficult to identify the opposing force. So, I ask myself this question:

If I take an obvious solution to the extreme, what would happen?

For example, too much process makes everything bureaucratic. Too much importance on profits retards investments. Once accomplished, we can begin balancing the two to arrive at an optimal solution for the situation at hand.