Mike Lehr's Blog

We often overlook the downside of processes in our businesses because we enjoy how they allow us to scale and reduce labor costs. However, they often become the infrastructure that retards flexibility and adaptability as people’s self-interest and comfort zones become wedded to the processes.

The November 2010 issue of the Harvard Business Review, which focused on leadership lessons from the military, Boris Groysberg, Andrew Hill and Toby Johnson wrote about the tradeoffs between process and flexibility. Their article, “The Different Ways Military Experience Prepares Managers for Leadership,” discussed the tradeoffs that each of the four branches of the U.S. Military made and how they influenced leadership styles.

Their research showed that CEO’s who had military experience in the Navy and Air Force tended to “take a process-driven approach to management; personnel are expected to follow standard procedures without any deviation.” This allowed them to excel “in highly regulated industries and, perhaps surprisingly, in innovative sectors.”

Conversely, those with an Army and Marine Corps experience tended to “embrace flexibility and empower people to act on their vision.” They were able to excel “in small firms, where they are better able to communicate a clear direction and identify capable subordinates to execute accordingly.”

Throughout the article, the authors contrasted the process orientation of the Navy and Air Force with the adaptive one of the Army and Marine Corps, the important point being that there is a tradeoff between the two. Even though they justified why each branch had the orientation it did, they still contrasted the two orientations as a trade-off. In simple terms, it’s hard to have both.

Therefore, when we rush toward processes to create standardized, consistent and repeatable outcomes, we need to leave room for adaptation. After all, life never duplicates itself in exactly the same way.

Intrinsic rewards are important aspects of creating a cooperative work culture. However, such rewards are difficult to understand and teach. Moreover, many, many people just don’t believe they are that powerful. Yochai Benkler in his article “The Unselfish Gene” of the July-August 2011 issue of the Harvard Business Review endorses the importance of intrinsic rewards in cooperative cultures.

Essentially, as we saw in the second post of this series, most people enjoy being cooperative, enjoy helping others; but, this enjoyment will dissipate if we ignore, discount or unreinforce it. Using effective, intrinsic, morale building techniques and compliments while working to minimize selfish extrinsic motivations such as money will ensure this won’t happen.

Since intrinsic rewards by nature are less tangible, it’s often difficult for managers and leaders to understand and appreciate the internal motivations of others, especially if they by nature don’t receive tremendous enjoyment from helping others. Nevertheless, here are a few tips for encouraging a cooperative workforce:

• Thank employees when they help others (letting them know it’s important to you)
• Demonstrate how they have helped you or others (it’s not always apparent to them)
• Recognize that they naturally enjoy helping others (reinforcing their internal motivation for helping others)
• Show how their job helps others to do theirs when performed well (creating a personal connection between their job and others)
• Hire and promote people who enjoy helping others (the desire to help others is a function of personality)
• Believe that people enjoy helping people (we cannot promote cooperation if we don’t believe it’s a motivation)

These tips will be uncomfortable at first but regularly applied they will produce positive effects over the long run. Thus, they require relentlessness, discipline and almost a fanatical belief in the power of cooperation.

Other links in this series:

• Cooperation vs. Competition on the Business-to-Business Level
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest: Which Reigns Supreme?
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 2): Context – The Great Influencer
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 3): Empathy

If you examine the two opposing sides in the Star Wars Epic, The Empire (Bad Guys) and The Rebels (Good Guys), there are two major contrasts:

1. There are no women on the bad side.
2. The good side has diverse characters, the bad side doesn’t

Upon contemplation, Point #1 is easy to see. Point #2 is a little harder, but essentially the Empire’s army consists of robotic droids who all look alike in white, shock-troop armor. Conversely, the Rebels are a collection of species, some humanoid, most alien and some even animalistic. Moreover, whereas the Empire’s forces are all dressed alike, the Rebels are not. Similar themes exist in Lord of the Rings.

What does this mean? Very simply, we tend to see evil as being a life of conformity without feminine qualities. In business, this movie helps us to see the emotional forces aligned against standardization and processing. It might also help us to understand why women are making such advancements: perhaps as an offset to these negative forces. Finally, it shows our inherent emotional propensity for diversity including in personality.

Women are closely associated with diversity; as they’ve been the first ingredient of diversity in many business settings. Heck, their wardrobe alone adds immense diversity to them. What would happen if two women actors arrived in the same dress for the Academy Awards: chaos, confusion, anxiety? What if two men came in the same black tuxedo, would anyone even notice?

Movies tend to tap into our deep, unseen, collective emotional currents. Consumer research shows there is often a different between “what people buy” and “what people say they will buy.” Thus, while we wring every cost saving from standardization and processing, perhaps on a deeper emotional level we feel “The Bad Guys” are winning.

Many people agonize over decisions. A primary reason is belief in a “best” decision. Consequently, people run endlessly through their options when often there isn’t much qualitative difference among them.

I first became aware of this when discussing start-up businesses with an accountant. He made this observation: eighty percent of his clients ended up in businesses quite different from their initial plans. For example, one client began a retail operation in a specialty food product. One day, a grocer asked to carry the product. Soon, others did the same. Thus, the client was “forced” to shift from retailing a food product to manufacturing it.

However, the consistent quality in these start-ups was the ability to adapt quickly. So many times, organizations strive to research and plan their decisions then build consensuses around them. As a result, they turn decision making into a torturous process thus fulfilling the myth of the best decision: if it takes that long to make a decision then an outstanding is necessary. Thus, it’s hard to imagine an adaptive organization with an elongated decision-making process.

Yet, in our early school years, teachers grade us on right and wrong answers. Thus, our educational systems condition us to look for the best decision. Ironically, this conditioning is so strong that even a good decision is not satisfactory if it’s perceived as not being the best one.

Accelerating our decision-making allows us the luxury of correcting bad decisions more quickly. Thus, the fear of making bad decisions wanes if we have confidence in our groups’ abilities to learn, to correct its mistakes and to adapt a new direction. This is true for individuals too.

Even in hindsight, the best decision is not clear. We assume so because we make the false assumption that nothing else would have changed.

Classical business literature emphasizes focus: set goals, plan, and then focus on execution. However, it’s relatively void of focus’ downside: obliviousness to peripheral threats and opportunities.

In the mid-1900’s, when conditions didn’t change as dynamically as today’s, extensive research, planning and focus worked. Today, most research is outdated upon completion. Consequently, situational awareness (SA) becomes more important as part of an adaptive business strategy.

SA is the degree to which a person or company can be aware of surrounding conditions while focused on a task or plan. Ironically, SA came of age with aerial combat; you need to know where you are in the sky while focused on engaging enemy aircraft. If not, you could crash your plane from flying too low or from enemy fire simply because you were oblivious to those factors.

Context strongly influences our planning; however, if conditions forming that context are dynamically changing, that means our plan – the object of our focus – might become invalid by new threats and opportunities, and our focus and poor SA might cause us to overlook them. Psychological influences such as anchoring and optimistic planning will create additional pressures to keep us focused and ignorant.

These will also influence our assessment of talent by tending to make it too static and historical. Rather than basing it on people’s potential within new conditions, we will tend to base it on performances under old conditions. We will tend to believe that successes and failures transfer rather than assess actual skills and actual aptitudes within a new set of actual conditions. More simply, this is pigeonholing.

Technology and the internet strongly influence today’s dynamic conditions. Our focus shouldn’t blind us. SA will help us see the many threats, opportunities and talents that will influence our success.

I’ve seen positive thinking do much harm to some folks; if they can’t keep their smiley face on, they feel they’re failing. Moreover, if they fail and don’t know why, they begin to question their attitude thus compounding their problems. Too many times looking at why they can’t do something is declared negativity by their friends, colleagues and family. However, these “negative” thoughts can spurn motivation, preparation and problem solving.

I came upon an excellent article by Scott O. Lilienfeld and Hal Arkowitz in the May/June 2011 issue of Scientific American Mind titled, “Can Positive Thinking Be Negative?” They summarize research on positive thinking from many angles by concluding that many of the benefits pushed by the self-help movement are tenuous. In one, they declare:

Optimists, especially when bolstered by success, can suffer from overconfidence and Pollyannaism, creating financial and business difficulties. They are also less likely to take corrective action because their optimism is a breeding ground for complacency. We see this in something as non-business as losing weight.

Recently, improved technology and research methodologies have taught us that biology and our subconscious influence us far more than we ever thought. “Who we are” is different than “who we think we are” so positive thinking’s influence is temporary at best. That is why it requires constant maintenance very much like a sandcastle does on a beach; we need to address the underlying biological and emotional elements of our being in order to find a more permanent and natural solution.

Optimism and pessimism work best together. One without the other produces a rosy picture on one hand and a bleak one on the other.

Recently, Harvard Business Review focused its July-August 2011 issue on collaboration. It connected so well and deeply with my own experiences that I decided to write a series of posts dedicated to Cooperation versus Self-interest. I wrote previously about this on the business-to-business level, but the focus here will be on individuals.

I was further intrigued when I ran across in The New Yorker an article* discussing the research of Michael Tomasello and others at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. It found that a critical difference between the intelligence of apes and children was the collective problem solving and cooperation of the latter. This indicates there is something natural about cooperating. So, I ask: Which is supreme, cooperation or self-interest?

Yochai Benkler’s cites in his article “The Unselfish Gene” from the above issue of the Harvard Business Review that only “a large minority of people – about 30% – behave as though they are selfish” while another “50% systematically and predictably behave cooperatively.” The remainders accounting for 20% “are unpredictable, sometimes choosing to cooperate” and others times to behave selfishly.

Of course, this has huge implications. How many times have we been told that in order to change people’s behavior we have to answer “What’s in it for me?” Consequently, we’ve become so programmed to believe that people’s self-interest is the only thing that motivates them. As a result, people fill our expectations: we can only motivate them by appealing to their self-interests.

What this research suggests is that perhaps we’ve been letting the self-interested ones make the rules for the rest of us. In reality, many of us truly enjoy working with others even if it might cost us something. That enjoyment is worth something and reigns supreme for us.

*Elizabeth Kolbert, “Sleeping with the Enemy,” The New Yorker, p. 71, August 15 & 22, 2011 [Note: I could not provide a link to this article because of access restrictions to non-subscribers.]

High-end retailers are expecting us to spend more money on our kitchens even though we are spending less time in them. Why? Cooking is slowly transforming from a necessary activity to a leisure one (see the article “The Joy of Not Cooking” by Megan McArdle in the May 2011 edition of The Atlantic). People are not cooking out of necessity but out of desire. There are many alternatives to cooking such as dining out and prepared foods.

So, here is the lesson in problem solving:

We can alter a problem simply by altering how people feel about it; thus, we create additional potential solutions.

Marketers, advertisers and merchandisers know that if they can alter our preferences through education or branding, new markets for existing products and existing markets for new products open.

If this holds true in these disciplines, why can’t this be true:

If we can change how employees feel about their employers and work, we can create additional potential solutions to our business problems.

So, posed as two questions we arrive at these:

1. If we could change how people feel in a way we would like, what potential solutions come into play?
2. What must we do to change their feelings?

In one post, we saw how we could change the interpretation of a message simply by changing feelings. In another, we saw how simple gestures by company executives change feelings and performance. Finally, we saw the problems that arise when employees have bad feelings for employers.

Thus, if people’s feelings for their kitchens can open up new opportunities even when traditional perspectives of the statistics indicate gloom, imagine the opportunities that would avail us if people’s feelings changed at our businesses.

A person who direct messaged me on Twitter suggested I address cooperation and competition on the business-to-business level (B2B). Which is more profitable?

Generally, cooperation will tend to be a better business relationship than competition on just about any level, business or individual. We are social creatures, so we join groups to cooperate with others for mutual benefit. People will tend toward cooperation.

However, in reality, sometimes people cannot cooperate as they would like. Rules, policies and regulations sometimes make it wrong, illegal or expensive. For instance, governments do not allow businesses to cooperate in fixing prices and setting markets.

Where’s the proof that B2B cooperation is profitable? Look at the free market. The mere fact that governments have to pass laws preventing cooperation among businesses indicates that businesses can find it extremely profitable. If cooperation weren’t profitable, would we have to pass laws to prevent it? Furthermore, just look at the legal forms of cooperation in the forms of trade associations and lobbies. Would such cooperation occur if it weren’t profitable?

When businesses engage in competition, it’s like war: uncertain and expensive. Cooperation provides certainty and cost-containment. However, governments don’t allow this because it’s bad for consumers. This is similar to the Roman Emperor who forced two gladiators into mortal combat so he can entertain the crowd. What would happen if the two cooperated and did not fight? That’s why the Emperor had to say both would die if they didn’t.

The whole point of this analogy is to demonstrate that sometimes it’s very difficult to see the profitability of cooperation because many times we establish rules, rewards and penalties to ensure competition rather than cooperation. It becomes even more difficult when we benefit from the competition of others. The difference is often our perspective.

A question posted by Expat 21 asked for examples of patience in the workplace, especially those demonstrating a contrast between American and other cultures.

While I find non-American cultures more patient, the examples I have aren’t that distinguishable by cultures except in their acceptance of patience-oriented approaches and the rules under which they might apply them. However, these rules don’t alter the basic strategies and tactics behind the employment of patience; they will only make application of patience more or less accepted.

With that said, Rahm Emanuel’s well documented quote,  “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before,” summarizes the business implications of patience. However, this means partnering patience with our knowledge, experience or insight about the future that others lack; we are waiting for the “crisis” that we know is over the horizon.

For example, I worked on an IT project involving the rollout of client management software (CMS). From my experience, I pushed for certain functionality that I knew sales executives would want. However, the CMS team discounted the functionality, had other priorities and didn’t incorporate it. I could have pushed harder, irritated the team and achieved only a partial list of what was needed. Instead, I waited for the rollout because I knew sales managers would request the functionality. When they did, I had their entire support to get the team to do what I originally proposed and much more.

Another example for me was the reorganization of an 80 person call center. They had already gone through three reorganizations in four years. I had advised patience to the new executive because her people were “shell shocked” and hadn’t been able to establish sound interpersonal working relationships; they needed a period of stability. She went along with her reorganization anyway; she felt pressure to do something. However, the reorganization reinforced anxieties, undermined executive credibility and made achieving goals difficult. She left after only eighteen months.

“Management by walking around” and “teachable moments” are key general examples of techniques employing patience. People are more receptive to instruction when they approach us than when we approach them. We can encourage it by making ourselves accessible but we need patience to make this work.

Some macro-business applications of patience deal with such things as branding, investment, public relations, training and marketing. In each of these cases, patience is required to see a return. Often the urgency of the moment disrupts these initiatives before the return on our patience is realized. It’s personal discipline combined with the corporate and social culture that will determine how much patience is accepted; however, the basic strategies and tactics remain fundamentally the same across cultures. It’s similar to warfare; weapons, training and supplies might be different, but the basic principles remain the same no matter who is fighting.

Related Post: Blue Heron Instructs on Patience