IBM Forum on the Future of Leadership

These short videos on top leaders are just a handful of terrific interviews in the IBM Think playlist on YouTube:

IBM has brought together innovative leaders from across the globe to deepen our collective understanding of the future of leadership on a smarter planet. 

President leads without an army

Laura Chinchilla, President of Costa Rica, said her country made a constitutional decision not to have an army. Result? The relatively poor country doesn't look for wars to fight, and finds peace, instead.  It focuses its funds and resources on social and human development, instead of a defense budget.

The fact that Costa Rica can do this may or may not mean that another country can do it as well.  Each country has to decide what will in fact work best.  But its president must think carefully about this, and perhaps think unconventionally, in order to do what is best.

To Pres. Chinchilla:  Leadership = Hard work + Strong convictions + Service to people.

CEO adapts to environment

How well do you do this, and what have you found to be challenging in adapting to your environment?  Chanda Kochhar, CEO of ICICI Bank, offers her views and values on this.  Great leadership, to her, is about grasping what's going on in our environment, then working with your team, bringing them along, and ensuring they're on the same page as you.

Is it better for a company to have a gender-neutral culture, where women, for example, progress (or not progress) based on their merit, or rather a culture that places particular attention to women leadership issues and needs?  

Kochhar is fortune to have worked in organizational cultures based on meritocracy, where there was no special treatment of women and women were judged on performance and potential.  But perhaps in organizations with a long, entrenched history of gender bias, there must be a particular focus on women and concerted help to bring them along.   

CEO rethinks talent

If you cannot get the talent to work for you, bring your work to the talent.  Chris Meledandri, CEO of Illumination Entertainment, explains that the capable people you need may be in Spain and France and across the US.  So media and technology help him mobilize his team remotely, and he manages them to get things done.

Vice Chairman sees what customers see

Rajan Bharti Mittal, Vice Chairman of Bharti Enterprises, distinguishes the linear innovations of the past with the increasingly more disruptive innovations of today.  Failure to do this and to reinvent may mean a company doesn't have a tomorrow.  Practically speaking, people have a wider range of communication tools and platforms at their disposal:  It isn't just about exchanging business cards or phone numbers, but also leveraging social media like Facebook.

Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think!  Also, if you'd like a PDF of this article, please e-mail me at Ron.Villejo@ronvillejoconsulting.com.

Ron Villejo, PhD

Three Challenges of Return on Investment

Three years ago, I was invited to speak at an HR conference in Dubai, and had a number of exchanges with the organizers.  The conference was set for January 2011, but a few months before, I sent them the working title and points for my talk.  In turn, they sent me a draft of the conference brochure.  The title to my talk was off, so I corrected it.  A second draft and a third draft came, and it was as if they never received any of my corrections.  So I called them, as clearly something was wrong with this picture.

At issue, apparently, was their difficulty understanding the import of my title and accepting the fact that it was exactly what I intended it to be.

In time, I will have advanced my thinking far enough, and in particular developed my algorithms sufficiently enough, to assure a Return on Investment.  But back then I wasn't ready to state that as a declaration, so I framed my title as a question.  Even then, the question must've been too bold of a proposition for the organizers, and the notion of a guarantee must've been out of their day-to-day realm.

Thankfully, our phone conversation clarified and settled the matter easily, and we pressed forward.

Soup du Jour

Like a few corporate terms, ROI seemed to be top-of-the-menu for a lot of people.  So much so that the term gets bandied around by just about anyone, it seems, when it comes to social media, for example.  This very phenomenon ought to be a flag for those of us, who are tasked with formal responsibilities around ROI, to take note, investigate further, and proceed cautiously.

Before we delve into challenges, let's clarify that (a) ROI is actually an equation and (b) there are two sides to that equation.  Some may speak to the benefits of their efforts, for instance, 1000 new Likes for their Facebook page.  This is only one side of the ROI equation.  What did they have to put into their website - that is, money and resources - to get more Likes?  In ROI, we must account for benefits (return) against (on) costs (investment).

In any optimal scenario, benefits are greater than costs.  In other words, we gain more good things than we put into the effort.  With zero representing the break-even point, the ROI must be greater than zero (i.e., positive).  If, at the end of the day, the figure were negative, then the project cost more than it was worth.

Challenge of Realization

Top leaders make decisions on which projects to invest in, and therefore engage in, by comparing their ROI.  If the importance, urgency and feasibility of the projects are all accounted for, that is, controlled statistically to ensure a level playing field for such a comparison, then the greater the ROI, the more reason top leaders have to choose the project expected to give the biggest payback.

In previous articles, such as Social Media, Marketers and ROI, I have emphasized beginning with the end in mind.  There may be an issue, opportunity or challenge facing the organization, and the CEO, along with his or her team, must first grasp the nature of this and determine what they need to do.  The team can then identify the project that will resolve, capture or overcome what they're facing.

If ROI is truly a priority for the organization, then it must be part of beginning with the end in mind.  Moreover, unlike how many issues are addressed, note that the CEO must not begin with the project.  Consultants, whether in-house or contracted, are keen on their proven methodology, and may work aggressively to sell you on their project, before they've fully grasped what it is you want the project to take care of.  Instead, the project always follows the end in mind.  In one scenario, the consultant may already have the requisite capabilities and experience in their repertoire.  But in another scenario, the organization may have to go with someone different altogether.

What ROI does the CEO and leadership team expect, that is, from investing in the right project that will address what they're facing:  10%, 25% or 100%, what is it?  Investors may ask something similar, What are the earnings for this fund or that fund?  Then, like top leaders, they decide on where to put their money, based on the answer to their question.

My advice is a departure from conventional wisdom and common practice:  that is, to respond by asking, What ROI do you want?

The CEO may be tempted to return my volley with some ungodly figure, perhaps in a half-mocking tone.  But my question is a serious one, and it does take analysis and thought to answer.  Given the specific nature and difficulty of the issue, and the innate challenge of realizing an ROI in general, What ROI does he or she expect at the end of the day (i.e., at the finish of a project)?

From my standpoint, it's not anything that would faze me, if the CEO wants to shoot for the moon, or something close to the moon, when setting that ROI.  A colleague informally sought my advice with a client, which aimed to increase their revenues tenfold in three years.  He asked, Is it possible?  I replied, I'd have to know much more about what his client is trying to accomplish, then added, Sure, it's possible.  But then the questions are, What will it take for the organization to hit that target?  How badly do they want to get such significant increase?  Are they willing to commit time, resources and energy to this effort?  What is their time horizon for hitting that target?

By necessity, the right answers will be the ones that give the CEO and organization the most realistic chances for making their expected ROI happen.  Of course, this may mean adjusting the ROI they expect.  For example, 10% may be doable, in a highly competitive, commoditized market, while 25% may mean setting aside other priorities or shelving other projects.  Upon further consideration, then, the CEO and leadership team may re-set the target ROI to figure between 10% and 25%.

Challenge of Efficiency

During an economic downturn, companies make quick decisions of what and whom to cut out.  Perhaps training and development programs, certain advertising campaigns, or research and development initiatives.  The workforce is often downsized as well, with mainly just the quantity or percent of layoffs being reported in the media.  Quick, tough decisions are necessary, but I often wonder how sound they really are.

I argue that these decisions are essentially a question of ROI, and must be thought-through as such by top leaders across unit and functions in the organization.  More specifically, those programs, campaigns and initiatives - and staff - that offer the biggest payback must be kept onboard.  Further, there don't need to be wholesale decisions.  Instead, certain training that moves the needle best, not just in skills development but also in performance results, for example, can be kept going.    

The foregoing lays the groundwork for grasping and overcoming the challenge of efficiency.  Now that the end in mind is clear, the expected ROI is set, and the required project is outlined, then the question becomes:  How does the leadership team maximize results, while managing costs and ensuring the outcomes they expect?  In modern parlance, how do they get the biggest bang for the fewest bucks, and still get what they want?

Again, it is important to keep in mind that there are two sides to the question of ROI.  Some amount of investment is crucial to getting a return, so the CEO must determine that optimal level, below which he or she ends up with diminishing returns.  If organizational finances and resources are limited, then the CEO must determine how best to optimize results with what they have.  This may mean adjusting the expected ROI based on the current reality of the organization.

Another factor to account for is project timeline.  All things considered, the organization may need to lengthen the project duration to a more realistic timeline.  So my colleague's client, who aimed to hit a tough target in three years may need to re-set it to four years.  It depends on the balance among factors, which the CEO and leadership team must account for, analyze completely, and render sound decisions on.  There is no way for any consultant, such as myself, to script this.  The specific advice I may give depends on their particular considerations.

Nevertheless, the above slide maps one possible scenario.  The negative peak may occur early on in the project, as investments have to pour in, long before there are any results to speak of.  The break-even point is when results match the costs of the project, beyond which returns increase to a positive peak.  Perhaps at the end of the project, or sometime after it's been closed.

I suggest taking the project timeline in increments, say, two to four weeks, and running the numbers on the ROI equation:  that is, costs and results, to date.  This regular, critical review must also weigh overall progress toward addressing the issue, opportunity or challenge, which we began with.  Depending on the results of the calculation and review, the CEO may decide to keep the ship on course or make necessary adjustments.

Challenge of Attribution

Suppose you ran competency training programs that your sales force was very happy about.  A few months later you find an uptick in their sales figures, and if you were the trainer or Project Lead, you may be quick to attribute that uptick to the programs you ran.  Just as you're looking forward to top level congratulations, and perhaps some bonus, however, the compensation and benefits manager takes credit for it.  She may have revamped the incentive package for the sales force, and she is certain that this had had direct benefit on their performance.  In the meantime, the CEO recognizes a notable improvement in market economics, say, on the demand side, and implicitly attributes the uptick figures to these favorable conditions.  

Who is right?

A few years ago, I set about determining "learning effectiveness" for the learning and development (L&D) programs we ran in a company I worked for.  On this slide, I represented L&D as a tree with books sprouting from its branches (left).  I defined effectiveness as an improvement not just in competency but also in performance.

As you see, the picture gets complicated very quickly, because so many factors can, and do, impact performance.  No one in the organization is going to scoff at positive results, as that's something to celebrate above all.  But the challenge for L&D was how to forge that line-of-sight from programs to performance.  The L&D manager may take the high road, and acknowledge that multiple constituents in the organization have a play in those positive results.  But then the question is, What part or what portion of the results can be attributed to each constituent?  Which is a challenge in itself to answer.

I drew up different options for answering the question, but if you're not at all a statistician, or data scientist, then you're likely to abandon the whole ROI effort for its maze-like process and calculations, right?

This complexity or this confusion is no hypothetical case:  An organization and its processes are complex phenomena, and the CEO in particular is tasked with speaking to that complexity as if it were the clearest, simplest thing in the world.  The irony is that there are clear and simple things to circumvent the morass I've just walked you through.

How?

We must begin with the end in mind, that is:  issue resolved issue, opportunity captured, challenge overcome or ROI realized.  That line-of-sight is more effectively and easily forged at the outset of a project, than in mid-stream when the project is well underway.  That line-of-sight is forged as part of a process I've been describing in this article.  To reiterate, once the end in mind is clarified, and once the right project is set, then we can anticipate, and therefore account for, its impact on that end in mind.  We also account for individual, organizational and external factors that can, and may, impact that end in mind, too.

Years ago, it became clear to my colleagues and me that ROI attribution isn't just a quantitative or analytic endeavor.  It is a qualitative, subjective process as well.  In other words, it was also a matter of managing people's expectations and perceptions.  There is no way to forge a line-of-sight with 100% clarity, and even the best solution doesn't have 100% effectiveness.  But these two things - analytic and human - make up the challenge of attribution for ROI.  Building relationships, keeping communications open, addressing questions timely, and resolving concerns are among the crucial ways for ensuring that the right ROI process leads to proper attributions.

In Conclusion

No doubt, the most important thing for the CEO and his or her leadership team is keeping the organization on a good growth trajectory and making sure everyone feels a sense of engagement and meaningfulness.  In truth, returns help the CEO re-invest back into making a better organization and a more satisfied staff group.  Grasping, then overcoming, the challenges of realization, efficiency and attribution help ensure actual returns.

Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think!  Also, if you'd like a PDF of this article, please e-mail me at Ron.Villejo@ronvillejoconsulting.com.

Ron Villejo, PhD

Bad Bosses Cost: Man in the Mirror

I've worked for the best of them, I've worked for the worst of them.  Whether it was in Chicago or in Dubai, they were there.  Whether it was someone I consulted for or someone who was portrayed in case studies, they were there in numbers.  I'm talking about bosses, and while the opening of The Real Cost of Bad Bosses may seem like a salvo for the worst of the lot, the infographic is all apropos and it gets right to the point:

Want to give your team's productivity a real boost?  Take a look at your managers - and a long look in the mirror while you're at it.

In this article, I take the perspective of you as an executive, that is, someone highly-ranked in the company.  We'll look at the managers whom you, and your fellow executives, have installed.  We'll also look at issues from the standpoint of these managers' staff members.  But we'll begin with the man or woman in the mirror:  yourself.

The Executive

In Why Good Bosses Tune in to their People, Robert Sutton emphasized that leaders matter a great deal.  For better or for worse, what they say and what they do, not only reverberate across the organization, but are also mimicked by their direct reports.

One boss I knew was a knowledgeable, experienced and courageous man.  He confronted tough issues, whether in group or one-to-one meetings, and he was particularly deft in developing business with clients; his credits were in the multimillion-dollar range.  He gained the respect of those higher up the ladder, was promoted to senior manager, and eventually became my boss.

The problem?  He was hostile at best and abusive at worst, and while he paid lip service to teamwork, he did most of the talking and was mostly absorbed in himself.  One incident typified his leadership in relation to us.  He, two colleagues, and I were headed for an overseas project.  Our client was gracious to book us on business class for the flight.  As it turned, my boss was inadvertently bumped to economy class.  He chatted with the three of us, before takeoff, and made tacit requests to switch with one of us.  None of us budged.  In fact, one colleague half-jokingly said, "Enjoy your seat."

To make matters worse for this boss, I believe, was his frank narcissism.  Such a personality isn't inclined to step back and self reflect.  I can only imagine what he saw in the mirror every time he looked, but I am sure he saw little or none of his flaws.  There wasn't much indication that he was aware of how he behaved or how he treated us, and little apparent effort to change things.  

So, then, even if you have to wrestle with yourself, psychologically, stepping back and self reflecting are crucial.  It may be helpful to ask yourself, as an executive, such general questions as 'How am I doing with my staff?  What can I do better?'  It may also be helpful to ask yourself about specific people or situations.  For instance, my former boss could've asked himself, once retired to his seat, 'What just happened with my staff?  How come no one bothered to offer a switch?  Is it something I've done or something about me?'    

It was even more unfortunate that his own boss was not wont to confront tough issues.  He, too, was a smart man and a deft consultant.  But I imagine that he reveled in having promoted his staff member, who became my boss, because it deflected attention to, maybe even masked, a weakness in his leadership.  There were many reasons why I eventually left the firm, but the two of them were primary ones.

The Manager

Still with the perspective of you as the executive:  How are your direct reports doing, in relation to their staff?  They are the managers, one level down from you, whom you have hired or whom you inherited from your predecessor.  Their Key Performance Indicators, if set up properly, ought to give you quite a good grasp about how they're doing.  

But beyond these KPIs, do you have a pulse on their impact on staff?  That is, on leadership intangibles, those often unspoken factors that galvanize or demoralize a team.  Have a look at the following:    

(image credit)

Besides performance reviews, you may want to arrange formal assessments of their leadership competencies, personality and values, if you haven't done so, yet.  Just as you have to take an honest look at yourself in the mirror, you need to take a similarly unvarnished, deeper look at your managers.  Having regular conversations with them helps, not just about business matters, but also about managerial issues.  If you and your managers don't have such conversations, as of yet, then it'll feel awkward at first and your managers may not be very forthcoming about issues.  But keep at it.  Promote trust and comfort in conversations with you.  

I believe it is often best to take reality as it is and to view things as they are.  But a positive reframe of a negative attribute or situation is often helpful.  So let's do so for the above five flaws.  You can reflect on these reframed questions when you are privately reviewing your managers' impact, and you can weave them into your conversations with them:

1. How well do they inspire their staff?  What kind of mood do they engender in the team?  Do their facial expressions and body language indicate inspiration (or something else)?  
2. How much do they emphasize excellence in performance?  Are their staff going above and beyond the call of duty, or simply fulfilling the basics of expectations?  
3. Do they understand the vision and direction you have set?  How clearly do they convey these to their staff?
4. What collaborative spirit do they show, and how much do they involved their staff in major projects or critical presentations?  
5. How well do their actions match their words?  How well do they follow through on commitments they voice to their staff?  

If you're not inclined to weigh these intangibles or have such conversations with your managers, consider the hard figures about bad bosses that directly impact your business.

(image credit)

In his article for McKinsey Quarterly, Sutton offered pointed, practical advice on how managers can bolster their staff performance (with my comments).  The following are areas that you can coach your managers to do for their staff.  

Provide psychological safety  

In the aftermath of some failure by your managers and their teams, for example, you must genuinely accept responsibility, especially when acknowledging this outcome in the organization.  You may have to confront, criticize and reprimand particular managers, of course, but do so privately, constructively and collaboratively.  They must get the message loudly and clearly from you, that they, too, must accept responsibility for failure vis-a-vis their staff and handle the matter forthrightly and respectfully.

Shield people

There is enough stress or pressure on people in the course of running a business.  A good amount of this is part of doing their jobs, so Sutton is not recommending coddling them.  But it does mean defending them, 'protecting their back, and buffering them from undue lines of fire in the organization.

Make small gestures  

A thank you or good job may be the least utilized, most underrated tool in the managerial toolkit.  If you aren't using such tools in a more frequent, timely enough manner, then do so.  Coach your managers do take make these small gestures, too.  They may have other, even better ideas, in relation to their staff, so be sure to solicit these as well.

(image credit)

It goes without saying, of course, that for you to have credibility and impact with your managers, when you coach them on the above areas, you must do the same for them.  

The Staff

The impact of bad bosses on staff isn't just psychological or occupational.  It is also physical in a very real way.

(image credit)

Sutton reported the same thing:

Lousy bosses can kill you—literally. A 2009 Swedish study tracking 3,122 men for ten years found that those with bad bosses suffered 20 to 40 percent more heart attacks than those with good bosses.

As the executive, you have privileged access to staff information that HR houses.  What does the absenteeism picture look like?  What are the figures for payouts from staff medical coverage?  What trends do you see, from period to period, and do these trends synchronize, positively or negatively, with the hiring or assigning of particular managers?  

Again, beyond the quantitative data, what is your pulse on how the staff are actually doing?  The best of staff may weather the psychological storm of a bad boss, but they are only human.  What kind of medical visits, treatment or stays are they having?  If you're not sure, find out.  Ask your managers.  Ask their staff directly.

The impact of bad bosses, and the ensuing disengagement from their staff, is nothing short of colossal:  Over $300 billion in lost productivity, within the US workforce, according to Gallup estimates.   

Staff engagement offers one of the most compelling efforts an organization can initiate and sustain.  Engaged staff are those who are visibly and genuinely keen to do their job.  They understand what is most important to the organization, and they do their utmost to support it.  They 'go the extra mile,' when it comes to tough assignments or deadlines.

Moreover, they serve as a positive contagion in the team.  As the recession collapsed the world economy, in late 2008 and going into 2009, I encouraged my colleagues regularly via e-mail and conversation that we ought to count our blessings.  We may not always be happy with what the CEO is doing or not doing and we  may harbor frank displeasure about the direction of the company.  But we had the responsibility, to a person,  to our jobs well and to keep at it.  

The model for great managing (below) comes from Gallup's ongoing research over several years.  The I, me and my refer to the staff member.  It is no accident, I believe, that great managers are defined, not by academicians, consultants or researchers, but by their own staff.  The very lives for which they have stewardship in the workplace and for which they have the responsibility to engage meaningfully.

I have absolutely no promotion arrangement with Gallup, so I can tell you this in all honesty:  In a previous company, key managers, colleagues and I brought this firm on board to help us raise our staff engagement.  Their model, research and professionalism were superb.  So you may want to consider them as well for your organization.

Short of that, you can use the above model in these ways:  (a) as a rough-and-ready barometer for the experiences and perceptions of the staff, and even those of their managers (i.e., your direct reports); and (b) as general guidelines for what their managers, and perhaps you yourself, may need to do to shore up shortfalls or concerns in staff engagement.

This model is in effect (c) a roadmap for becoming not just a good boss, but rather a great boss.

Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think!  Also, if you'd like a PDF of this article, please e-mail me at Ron.Villejo@ronvillejoconsulting.com.

Ron Villejo, PhD

The Leadership Imperative of Social Media

I presented at a conference, and joked that while a friend had over 500 friends on Facebook, I had just eight to speak of.  One friend invited me to join, several months before, and I might have sketched a profile at the time, but otherwise paid little attention to it.  That was in September 2008, and it was a year later before I took serious note, found it intriguing, and worked at building my friends list.       

So four years running now, on social media, and it's been a slowly evolving effort, not just to befriend and connect, but also to grasp it and get into a rhythm with it.  I resolved early on that I would be an active participant as well as a thoughtful learner.  I wanted to socialize inside the house, so to speak, and also step outside, peer inside the windows, and gaze at the entirety of the house.

My personal story is the backdrop from which I discuss a must-read article from McKinsey:  Six social-media skills every leader needs.  The title may sound like a lightweight how-to guidepost for the casual individual, but this is a duly-weighed piece that speaks directly to executives and managers.  Authors Roland Deiser and Sylvian Newton offer this graphic to summarize their social media framework, and I comment on each of those six skills, plus offer suggestions for acquiring them.

To thrive in the world of social media, leaders need to acquire a mind-set of openness and imperfection, and they must have the courage to appear “raw” and unpolished—traits that may be as challenging for them as developing the creative and technical-production skills.

Deiser and Newton make it sound more daunting than it actually is, especially when they allude to auteur filmmaking skills, but creating a video is relatively easy.  Available smartphones and tablets have user-friendly capabilities, and there are editing tools that are quite manageable.

Instead, the more challenging effort for CEOs may be reconciling the polish of a corporate video with the imperfection of a self-made video.  Somewhere in between lies the comfort zone for each of them.  On the one hand, a professionally-created video is apropos for formal presentations and ad campaigns, but it may impress some audiences as disingenuous.  On the other hand, an obviously crude creation leaves the CEO dissatisfied, if not disgusted.  Yet, a naturally-delivered, honestly-presented video, for example, with the occasional stumbles in speech, may just be what your audience gravitates to.

So, besides finding your comfort zone, clarifying your purpose and determining the likes of your target audience are crucial.  Practice makes perfect, indeed.  Giving it a try, if you haven't yet, by first experimenting on videos that you keep private, to start with, is a way to build up skill and comfort.  If you have children who are savvy with media and technology, requesting "reverse mentoring" from them is another way to go.  A channel on YouTube like Filmmaker IQ is chock-full of video ideas, tutorials and examples, so be sure to have a look and to study up.  Finally, keep in mind that videos is just one type of content:  articles, slides and conversations are other examples as well.

Distribution competence—the ability to influence the way messages move through complex organizations—becomes as important as the ability to create compelling content.

There is a dialectic between the content you create and the means with which you distribute that content.  Deiser and Newton are right to point out that the distribution methods at our disposal can help us decide what content to create.  For example, I know that YouTube has thousands of soundtracks to choose from, when I upload any video.  The fact that I can make my content more compelling via this social media, for example, has given me a wider stretch of ideas on videos I can create.

But the truth is, we have such a wide variety of distribution methods to choose from, that I concern myself less with how I will present my content and more with what I will create.  So while it is an imperative to gain distribution competence, I suggest that you think first about what you want to accomplish and consider the content you ought to create vis-a-vis that aim.  More than likely, the optimal methods to disseminate this content is available to you.

Deiser and Newton emphasize that people populate social media and altogether make for a storehouse  of knowledge, support and influence.  How you engage them, and enlist their involvement in your content creation and distribution, matters a great deal.  Many among us may speak to a before-internet era when command-and-control was in vogue in organizations.  But I question how much command-and-control leaders actually had, back then.  Effective leadership is fundamentally about respect, care and persuasion.  So whether it's a bygone faux control era, or a social media landscape, it is these people provisions that define our leadership.      

“You have to see the entire communication universe, the interplay of traditional and social media,” says Bill Ruh, head of GE’s Software and Analytics Center. Just as leaders suffer from overflow, so do their people. “As a leader,” says Ruh, “you have to develop empathy for the various channels and the way people consume information.”

If you're a CEO, or one of the top-most executives, then your horizons are already wide.  You have a big-picture view of information and communications in your company, but at any given moment you can drink just a glass of water at a time but are given the volume of an ocean, it seems.  For me, there is a zen to this.  What do I mean?

Consider that Facebook has one billion members, and LinkedIn 200 million colleagues.  There is a Timeline and Newsfeed of updates, articles and events within each of these universes.  As phenomenal of a technology as these platforms are, they are grossly limited in how much information it can present to us at any given time.  This limitation is of course mirrored by our own, that is, our very finite capacity to consume such information.  We can spend every single waking moment in front of the computer or on the smartphone and tablet, and we will come across, never mind process, only a small fraction of that ocean volume.

Zen means realizing and accepting our elemental limitation.  It means not stressing over it, and relaxing and centering ourselves, instead, on this very reality.  The information flow is not uniformly rapid or overwhelming.  In fact that flow varies from one site to the other.  In my experience, for example, my LinkedIn Newsfeed "moves" slower than my Twitter Timeline (which is more like a stock ticker-tape).  So I can reflect more on LinkedIn content, and I can spend more time deciding what to respond to and what to post on.  On Twitter, I've learned to be quicker in this decision-making.

It's difficult, indeed, to get a grip on this information overflow, if we aren't fundamentally at zen.  So I propose the first steps have much less to do with information or communication, ironically, but much more with our state of mind, our purpose and preferences.  Once at zen, then, you have plenty of advice, support and tools are your disposal to help you.  In time, the ocean becomes a refreshing swim, as opposed to an overwhelming drink that drowns you.

(image credit)

“The type of leadership we need finds its full expression in the DNA of collaborative technology, and I am determined to leverage this DNA as much as I can.”

To achieve this goal, leaders must become tutors and strategic orchestrators of all social-media activities within their control, including the establishment of new roles that support the logic of networked communication.

Needless to say, for CEOs to become an adviser and tutor in social media, they must be duly schooled and verse in it.  They don't have to experts in this field, of course, but they have to be so knowledgeable as to be credible in a role that Deiser and Newton emphasize.  Having personal, active experience on any one or more of the primary sites - Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, for example - is crucial, I'd say.  Even if the CEO is new to the game, he or she must commit to a steady learning and experience process for the long haul.

On the issue of collaborative technology, let me share an experience.  I was the project manager for our major clients in the Middle East, when I worked for an international consulting firm.  As an extravert, I found pleasure in meeting new colleagues across the world, from Minneapolis and Washington, DC, to London and Stockholm, to Shanghai and Melbourne.  In between client projects, we needed to prepare ourselves in unison; review our priorities, process and plans; resolve any pending issues; and keep our eyes on kaizen (continuous improvement).  Our technology?  Teleconference via phone.  By the time I left, the firm had begun to roll out videoconferencing equipment across offices, and I used it a handful of times.

Nowadays, the tools are more sophisticated and accessible.  Think free video-conferencing on Skype, on a one-to-one basis.  Think group video-conferencing on Google+ Hangouts, also at no cost.  Strong bandwidth for all parties is required, otherwise these tools can be a major aggravation.

But below the surface of org charts and process manuals we find an implicit, less manageable “informal organization,” which has always been important and now gets amplified through social media. The leader’s task is to marry vertical accountability with networked horizontal collaboration in a way that is not mutually destructive.

It's easier said than done, but getting it done vis-a-vis social media is a necessity.  Rules and responsibilities are integral to a properly-operating, meaningful and secure organization.  In a general sense, this has been an unchanging precept over time.  So setting expectations and drawing the line about the 'what,' the 'where,' and the 'who' help to minimize uncertainty or confusion on what staff can do online.

But because social media, in and of itself, is evolving phenomena, those rules and responsibilities warrant timely reviews, especially when unexpected issues or dilemmas arise.  They may warrant revisions, after careful review.  "It's an evolving thing" referred to the video that Andrew Way and his team created every quarter and shared with customers.  It could've referred perfectly to social media as a whole.

Years ago, I came up with the concept of meta-skills.  It is the skills of acquiring skills, and this is apropos now.  CEOs must truly have the meta-ability to step back, even just in their mind; examine what they're doing and how others and situations impact them; and determine what it is they need to learn, develop or figure out.  This is akin to emotional intelligence, which in part is an open-ended mindfulness and in another part a more thoughtful, analytic consideration about what's going on.

Sure, it makes sense to consult with colleagues and advisers, but CEOs must recognize that none of them can predict with full certainty how things are going to turn out:  how, for example, a new ad campaign may (or may not) get taken-up on YouTube.  We are simply limited and imperfect in our thinking, and accordingly prone to mistakes.  Hovering mindfulness and due thoughtfulness help to avoid those mistakes and to minimize and correct them when mistakes occur.  At the end of the day, each CEO must judge for himself or herself what needs to be done vis-a-vis social media.

Part of the program there involves “reverse mentoring,” which connects media-savvy millennials with senior GE leaders to discuss the latest tech buzz and practice. Many participants continue to exchange insights long after the formal session is over. Exposing seasoned leaders to the millennial mind-set encourages them to experiment with new technologies—which, in turn, helps them better engage with up and comers.

The zen of learning, understanding and staying ahead of the curve means, once again, appreciating the innate complexity of things and the limitations we face.  It means staying in the moment, fully mindful and thoughtful.  Reading articles, watching videos, and overall committing time and effort are crucial.

But here are two example of how being zen can work out practically.  All of us need our meals and breaks in the course of a business day.  So the CEO may invite a handful of their IT and millennial staff for an informal, brown-bag lunch, and talk about trends and developments in social media, device technology, and useful apps.  Also, at friends or family gathering, the CEO may amble to a small gathering of young people, and ask them something along the lines of:  What's the coolest site, device or app that they use, which hardly anyone has heard of?  This sixth social media skill is about getting a pulse on what's going on and where things are headed.

What I call an algorithm is this:  Clarify what you're trying to accomplish, even if it's something informal or small, in a social gathering.  Gather ideas about what will help accomplish that, and reformulate these accordingly, so these ideas become your own.  Determine what will work best, in light of your interests, preferences, and capabilities.

At the end of the day
    

No question, social media is a pivotal, even tectonic phenomenon in our lifetime.  Nonetheless, Chief Executive speaks to the paltry, unfortunate uptake among Fortune 500 CEOs:

But at the same time, that meant only 4 percent of these CEOs were on Twitter, versus 34 percent of the U.S. population that has registered on the service. And only 8 percent were on Facebook, compared with more than half of Americans. 

Those on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and Google+ are probably the colleagues, employees, partners and clientele of said CEOs.  So to dismiss or avoid social media is to be out-of-the-loop with large sectors of those circles that matter most to them.

Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think!  Also, if you'd like a PDF of this article, please e-mail me at Ron.Villejo@ronvillejoconsulting.com.

Ron Villejo, PhD

The ThinkBox of Innovation

If leaders are truly to think outside the box, then they must be open as well to rethinking this very notion itself: that is, to think outside the box about thinking outside the box. This is one essence of the algorithm for innovation that I'm working on, and the book I'm writing: Meta-Innovation and the ThinkBox.

(image credit)

Its Central Precepts

• Innovation is not a product, service or process per se. It is a mindset. The practical approach and the actual focus follow from this mindset. An able, willing and ready mind can then be trained on anything that requires innovating. 
• Innovation is not an end in itself, rather just one means to an end. Our leadership efforts are purpose-driven and goal-directed, and to the extent that we surmise innovation as necessary vis-à-vis such purpose and goal, then innovation has a crucial role to play. 
• Conventionality may be a fine complement to innovation, and depending on the situation and the purpose, it may have just as crucial of a role to play as well.  In other words, let's not dismiss the box categorically, and let's not disminish the potential value of thinking inside the box.  
• Even innovative products, services or processes get stale. So, just as Capital One aspired to do, it is important to innovate on innovation. Rethink innovation. Be creative about the very mindset and process of creativity. It is what I call meta­-innovation.
• The ThinkBox is a meta-innovation. Again, it aims to think outside the box about thinking outside the box. In so doing, it revisits the totality of what thinking vis-à-vis the box is all about. It also leverages social media, and takes advantage of creativity in the arts and technology. 

The ThinkBox

As a key concept in my algorithm for innovation, The ThinkBox draws gratefully on the visual arts talent of others. Their illustrations and photos prompt me to think meta-creatively.  Thinking outside the box is all the buzz, so much so that it's become positively trite and unimaginative. These four videos are my effort to challenge and rethink such notion.

There is the Box

The box doesn't seem to get much respect, does it.  When we say "Think outside the box," we imply a pejorative meaning to box.  It can represent those undue limits that we self-impose and-or others impose.  These are limits that prevent us from solving problems more effectively and advancing our efforts more successfully.  So we wish to break out of the them.  

But are all limits necessarily bad?  If we were think openly and broadly about the box, we might see it as the  crucial rules and regulations, codes of conduct, and ethical precepts we must abide by.  Also, if we were to re-imagine the box, that is, as a physical container, then it can serve a host of uses for organizing, safe-keeping, and hiding things.    

There is the Space Inside

If we suppose that using the open mode of our Right Brain is thinking outside the box, then using the closed mode of the our Left Brain is thinking inside the box.  While one is about brain-storming, when ideas are freely offered and put on the table, the other is about working with focus, purpose and logic.  For innovation to occur, both are crucial modes (rf. Iain McGilchrist - The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World).  

Moreover, authors Drew Boyd and Jacob Goldenberg go so far as to suggest:

Forget brainstorming: People are at their most innovative when they work within the constraints of what they already know.

I believe that they overstate their points, and swing the pendulum way too far inside the box.  Nevertheless, their point is well taken.  Steve Jobs may represent the quintessential outside-the-box thinker in our generation, but making those sleek products that originated from his imagination must have taken a lot of very tedious and conventional, but no doubt crucial, efforts.  So one way to consider innovation is a series of iterations between outside and inside the box thinking.  

There is the Space Outside

When we promote thinking outside the box, I wonder how much we truly grasp and appreciate what we're saying.  Whether a figurative or a literal thing, that box contains a finite space.  But outside of it is a vast universe.  I daresay that that humble box lies at the foothills of infinity.  It's fascinated physicists and mathematicians, along with philosophers and theologians, and me as well.

There is a quite a lot to discuss.  But for now, suffice it to say that without the rigors of mathematical principles, insight and formulas (i.e., the box), and the opportunity to apply them to solve problems (i.e., thinking inside the box), then we have little or nothing with which to grasp the infinite universe.  Said differently, we can master outside-the-box thinking, mainly, and perhaps only, when we've mastered thinking inside the box.       

There are the People

We mustn't forget the people, of course, although we seem to have an unassailable knack of overlooking people.  Innovation is a mindset, as I posited earlier, but given a task, aim or purpose - as we are, in any organization - we must have the requisite ability, motivation and energy (AME) to actually innovate.  If we don't have these assets, then we must acquire them, such as through learning and development, or engage others to fill our gaps, such as through team selection and specific consulting.  

Keeping in mind the intricate threads between Right Brain and Left Brain, I propose in this last video that we must (a) think imaginatively, creatively, widely, boldly, openly and flexibly as well as (b) focus, analyze, solve, strategize, plan and leap.  

Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think!  Also, if you'd like a PDF of this article, please e-mail me at Ron.Villejo@ronvillejoconsulting.com.

Ron Villejo, PhD

Leadership Lessons from Bulls Coach Tom Thibodeau

The roster that a sports head coach must lead is that of a small business, but the stakes are that of a middle-market company - literally in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  As with any business, he has to make sure his team performs at a high level, game-in and game-out, and weathers, if not thrives in, the pressures to win.   But he must do so under ubiquitous media coverage and fierce fan expectations, and feedback, positive or negative, comes in real-time in the advent of Twitter.

That's the context in which Chicago Bulls Coach Tom Thibodeau operates.  He is an NBA lifer, as one sportscaster called him, meaning he has spent most of his career coaching in the big league.  I hadn't heard of him, until he became the Head Coach of the Bulls prior to the 2010-2011 season.  This was the first time he assumed such a high post, and he demonstrated his leadership prowess by winning Coach of the Year honors.  In that first season.  

This article is about drawing leadership lessons from Coach Thibs, as his players have affectionately addressed him.  It has two parts:  First is a walk-through of what I surmise to be his critical success factors, and second is a step-back approach that I call extracting the algorithms of leadership.  Together these parts ought to give you, as leaders, a good bearing on lessons you might take away.

(image credit)

Part One

His unflinching demeanor

Thibodeau would hardly ever win any media award for looks or personality.  It's rare to see him smile, as if the air around him had 'serious' etched on it, and he's positively droll-sounding when addressing reporters.  Moderately heavy-set, he wouldn't impress anyone as GQ or Esquire cover material.

But the thing is, he probably doesn't care for any of this.

Instead, he is focused, steady and unflinching under pressure and in the face of adversity.  His refrain must be boring, if not frustrating, to those reporters:  identifying where the team has to improve, emphasizing defense mostly, and preparing for the next game.

Nothing flashy, little that's controversial.      

His studious preparations

From what we have heard, Thibodeau puts in long hours in the office studying teams.  There is no questioning his work ethics, and this is drilled into his players, both by observable example and through instruction and practice.  In fact, Joakim Noah joked after a game one time that his coach was great but didn't understand the "rest thing."

But to be successful in a complicated, fast-paced, ever dynamic sport, the head coach has no option other than to exercise great dedication to strategizing and planning during all those hours that neither media figures nor diehard fans see.  We know very little, if anything, about his personal life, but conventional workplace wisdom would say that he lacks work-life balance.

Ah, he is no conventional coach, though.  

Certain coaches believe in the sports adage:  You're only as good as the next game.  Thibodeau values previous games as case studies, but he never dwells on them or rests on his laurels.  At the same time, he eschews predictions, and avoids getting himself or the team ahead of themselves.  It's a fact that a team cannot win multiple games simultaneously, so indeed their preparations and their play are about that next game.

(image credit)

His player management

We don't know what goes in meetings and practices behind closed doors.  But judging from players' remarks and performance, we can tell that Thibodeau has struck up very good relationships with them.  In his book Good to Great, Jim Collins found that putting people first, that is, before mission, vision and strategy, was a hallmark of great leadership and the underpinning of great results.  So he may be dispassionate and unwavering vis-a-vis his players, but he clearly garners a lot of buy-in, respect and admiration, even affection and humor, ironically enough.

I imagine the nature and specifics of his players' talent are things he has studied diligently as well.  He works at deploying what certain players are good at, in game situations that call for these strengths, such as defending, scoring, rebounding and play-making.  He then knows how to lift their talent to a higher level by challenging them hard and expecting nothing less than their best.      

For instance, Derrick Rose is an unquestioned superstar. But with Thibodeau at the helm, good players like Luol Deng and Joakim Noah became first-time All Stars as well.  Also, Carlos Boozer and Nate Robinson won Players of the Week honors this year.  Moreover, in his first year as Head Coach, he had his team securing the best record in the NBA, and took the Bulls to the Eastern Conference Finals.  What's even more telling of his ability to reap the best from his players was in his second year (2011-2012):  It was the NBA best record, once again, but this time with a slew of injuries that took Rose and others off the court for several games at a time.

Further, I sense that some head coaches cower, in relation to certain players, mainly the superstar with a headstrong personality.  Not Thibodeau.  His players know that on-court performance matters quite a lot, and so does good sportsmanship that transcends play.  He is not afraid to confront his players and to bench them, when necessary.  Jim Collins draws on this analogy:  Great leaders make sure they have the right people on the bus, the right people in the right seats, and the wrong people off the bus.  They are engaging and supportive of their staff, but are brass-tacks tough on them about producing results.

This is Thibodeau.     

His team emphasis

There is the occasional post on Facebook, meant to inspire, that there is no "I" in team.  I look askance at that and say, Team has most definitely a lot of "I"s.  Of course, Thibodeau believes in team, but he does so without falsifying the reality of individuals that make up that team and without invoking team-team-team platitudes, either.

How does he do it?

By focusing on strategy, speaking to play, and giving straight feedback.  His specialty is defense, and even the best opponents have difficulty scoring against the Bulls.  Unlike many coaches, though, he doesn't rely on double-teaming or full-court presses to lock down the opponent.  Instead, it's a help-defense strategy.  The man-to-man defender must steer the opposing player in a certain direction, as best as possible, and if that opposing player gets past, other defenders rotate to provide a second- and a third-line of defense to halt the dribble penetration or impede an outlet pass.

The Bulls offense sets are often predictable, and this is a main reason why they often have difficulty scoring.  But even in this case, Thibodeau emphasizes moving the ball among the players, quickly and effectively, so that they find the player with the best, high-percentage shot.  Opponents know this, of course, and will impede ball movement, and get the Bulls to play one-on-one.  This is simply not their strength, but periodically, as I've mentioned, individual players rise up to the challenge and play 'beastly' great games.

(image credit)

His unspoken quandaries

Thibodeau understands the business and politics of professional basketball, as a whole, and of the Chicago Bulls, in particular.  Those successful first two years as Head Coach sidled into a really tough third year for him and the team.  For one, the front office rid the team of several of pivotal support players.  With  defensive stalwarts like Omer Asik and Ronnie Brewer moving on to other teams, plus with Taj Gibson lost for several games due to injury, for example, the Bulls have looked positively hapless and listless on defense.

But at no time has Thibodeau begrudged these roster moves.

Besides Gibson, he has lost several other players for assorted maladies, and Derrick Rose himself hasn't played a single game this season after he tore his ACL a year ago.  Yet, Thibodeau's refrain is, We have more than enough to win.  No question, he has his team firmly in the playoff picture.  But his team has played inconsistently, and suffered ugly blowout losses.  I imagine he must know that hard work, team play, and energy can bring a team only so far, if talent is flat-out insufficient.

So the truth is, He simply doesn't have enough to win, not at the level of the last two years.  Case in point:  The Bulls' winning percentages in Thibodeau's first two years as Head Coach were .756 and .758, again both tops in the NBA.  To date, it's a mediocre .537.  Yet, we understand his need to keep thinking and speaking positively, because there is no option otherwise for him and his players but to believe in this:  that with whoever they have, they can win the game.

Part Two

Just as it's nonsense to be like Steve Jobs, it's fruitless to mimic all the foregoing to be like Tom Thibodeau.  Extracting the algorithm of leadership means that it matters what lessons you learn as much as how you learn and apply them.  Leaders, and their organizations, sometimes fall into the trap of adopting wholesale the findings of bench marking studies and engaging eagerly but blindly in so-called best practices.      

Your leadership algorithm

The algorithm here is to think critically, first, about your purpose, priorities or aims.  Second, it's about knowing what it will take to serve that purpose.  This means, in large measure, assessing your knowledge, capabilities, and personality, as thoroughly and accurately as possible.  Third, it's adopting the leadership lessons that best bridge you to your purpose, and adapting the practices that best suit the situations you face.

There is no colleague, consultant or guru that can script this for you, much as you may admire any of them.  To this end, let's map out these general scenarios:

1. By and large, after thinking things through critically, you determine that what Thibodeau does fits your purpose, personality, and situation.
2. There may be a mix-and-match process, where you adopt what are in fact helpful for you and dispense with the rest.
3. Alternatively, much of the foregoing does not make sense for your purpose at all, and it's more of a wholesale dismissal of these points.

In a way, a leadership algorithm is the practical underpinning of success, that is, it's the engine that truly makes your "car" run; and the transcendence of practicality, that is, the mind that abstracts and conceives that car.

Again, I emphasize thinking critically about things.  Thibodeau is just a leadership case study, and as such it's a platform for learning and not a blueprint for success.

You extract what is helpful for your purpose, dispense with the rest, then move on.  You extract what is helpful from other key people, organizations or situations.  So, at the end of the day, you have fashioned a constellation of lessons into an algorithm that works uniquely for you.

My references

I am a sports fanatic, and love to read reports, view videos, and watch games.  So, for this article, I drew on a range of references.  The following are main ones:

Thibodeau clearly sets the tone for Bulls

Thibs should be proud of his players' All-Star selections

Players of the Week recipients, 2012-2013 season

Tom Thibodeau again makes a case for Coach of the Year

Banged-up Bulls are grinding it out

Effort alone doesn't cut it for the Bulls

Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think!  Also, if you'd like a PDF of this article, please e-mail me at Ron.Villejo@ronvillejoconsulting.com.

Ron Villejo, PhD

Importance of Thinking Inside the Box

"You know, Ron," one senior manager said to me, "I don't think we've perfected the hamburger." I was coaching this gentleman as part of a top-level development initiative by a top player in Quick Service Restaurants, better known colloquially and collectively in the US as a fast-food joint.

Back to basics

There was such buzz and such hullabaloo in the company about innovation, that it was easy, perhaps even tacitly expected, to get caught up in it.  Innovation is a long playlist that by itself is music to the ears of managers and consultants alike.  His CEO, back then, pushed an array of new menu items, from healthy fare to gourmet coffee.  I was bemused when I even stumbled on an article about a hotel concept they were considering.

Problem was, these company efforts weren't improving performance. 

That CEO left, and it wasn't until three CEOs later that results turned northbound again.  The latest top guy incarnation emphasized 'back-to-basics.'  Which meant improving existing menu items and the all-important customer service.

How well do you think inside the box?

There is no questioning that innovation is critical to the success of any company and the growth of any country.  There is reason to believe, for example, that those enterprises that kept investing in Research and Development fared well during the recession.  Some were even innovative about the very process of innovation itself, that is, by opening their doors and fostering cross-company collaboration.  Crowd-sourcing creativity, as it were.

But I've had years of privilege and pleasure of consulting in many parts of the world, that when I hear anyone say "Let's think outside the box," I shudder inside.  Why?  Because I wonder if they can even think well inside the box.  Some, unfortunately, cannot.

Often the fundamentals of thinking seem to get the short shrift, I think, that young professionals and would-be leaders may not get the best schooling in this.  The ethos and the buzz of their university experience may be mainly about thinking outside the box.
  

What does it mean to think inside the box?

1. Look simply

It means looking at situations in a straightforward manner, first of all.  Complexity abounds in our world, but a good portion of what we face on a daily basis can be understood with simple, available paradigms in our arsenal.

2. Drill down

It also means drilling-down, and looking beneath the problem to see its root causes and identify any process issues.

For example, in one company I used to work for, I learned that some service providers did not get paid more than a year after project delivery and that late payments were a long recurring problem.  Finance and accounting (F&A) was a wholly different function from ours, but our department often suffered the brunt of complaints from these service providers.

My colleagues were trying to solve these late payments on a case-by-case basis, when clearly it wasn't at all a one-off incident.  Besides aggravating us, it drew valuable time and effort away from serving our partners and clients.

All I did was simply to ask questions and to listen openly, and to show an earnestness to solve the problem and reduce such aggravation.  As it turned out, our invoice tracking efforts were weak.  So we solved this with clearer timings and regular checks.

3. Consult, collaborate 

Also, our communications with F&A were often procedural and therefore impersonal.  So we met with a key manager, explored the problem openly, and learned that one staff was primarily responsible.  She shored up whatever she had to deal with on the F&A side, and we agreed that once-a-month, face-to-face conversations not only kept accounts payable running well but also steered our relationship onto a more pleasant track.

So it's important to know when and how to consult with others, and with whom, and weighing decisions that require joint implementation in a frankly collaborative manner.

4. Follow through

Can you spell accountability?  

Finally, it's about following through and following up.  How well a problem is solved means, again simply, that it remains solved over time.  In our case, my colleagues took better care of the logistics and timings of accounts payable.  For me, all that was required was an occasional "How's it going?" and visit with our friendly F&A colleague.

Thinking inside the box does require looking at problems holistically, but the right solutions sometimes can be positively conventional, even low-tech.  

In the end, there is very workable wisdom in getting back to basics.  There may be mundane yet philosophical value in perfecting the hamburger.      

Thank you for reading, and let me know what you think!  Also, if you'd like a PDF of this article, please e-mail me at Ron.Villejo@ronvillejoconsulting.com. 

Ron Villejo, PhD