Tag:

Team

You can’t fix culture

by Ron Potter August 17, 2017

I named my company Team Leadership Culture because those were the three elements that made a company great. You can think of those three elements as a triangle: Team and leadership at the base of the triangle, culture at the top. If you have not taken the time to build great teams and great leaders, a great culture is not going to develop.

Team is the most important. With a great team, lots of wonderful things can happen, sometimes even with mediocre leadership. However, great leadership without a good team almost always fails.

Teams can be easier to build than great leaders. Many times, out of peer pressure or for other reasons, members of the team will at least fake good teamwork for a period, knowing its expected. Often, even if it is fake, other team members take advantage to accomplish some great team performance. The old adage “fake it until you make it” works well also.

Teams we can built. Leadership is a little more difficult. The book A Thomas Jefferson Education by Oliver DeMille explains our education system by describing how it was originally formed. During the foundation of this country, great leaders were formed through a series of mentors, tutors, and subject matter experts spending personal time with individuals to help them develop their leadership skills. We had trade schools to help people become good craftsmen. Becoming a good butcher, baker or candlestick maker (carpenters, millwrights, blacksmith’s, etc.) happened through trade schools. Good livings could be made by learning a trade.

DeMille, by tracing the history demonstrates that our colleges, universities, and MBA programs of today are the natural extensions of those original craft/trade schools and apprenticeship programs. As people earn their MBA, they’re becoming great craftsman. In the language of business today, they’re learning the skills of management.

However, leadership is an art, not a skill. It still takes mentors, tutors, and subject matter experts spending personal time with individuals to help them develop their leadership skills.

But, the title of this blog post is about culture, not leadership. Why can’t you fix culture? Because culture develops out of great team work and leadership. Without the base of teams and leadership, culture can never sit at the top of the triangle.

If the culture of the company is not where it needs to be, taking a survey to “fix” the culture will never work. If a human being has lost their balance, running them through a test to see how their balance has improved or deteriorated every few months does nothing to fix the problem. The doctor will check to see if it’s a skeletal/muscular issue (team) or an inner ear sensing issue (leadership) first. After working on one or both of those, only then will the balance be rechecked.

Culture, like balance, can’t be fixed. Only the underlying, foundational issues can be fixed.

0 comments

Are you being Sub-Optimal today?

by Ron Potter July 13, 2017

Maybe you should be to acquire success

Bio science is one of the most complex areas of science. The systems are so complex and inter-related that few scientist attempt to go there. To many, it just seems too daunting.

But, as scientist begin to probe this tiny, complex world one of the key features become evident. In order for an entire system to function properly and efficiently, many of the subsystems need to function at a sub-optimal rate.

Could that sub-system operate faster? Yes, but that would screw up the timing crucial to the overall system.
Could that sub-system generate more heat? It could easily double its heat output but that would overheat the entire system.
Could that sub-system be reduced in size? Yes, but without a certain momentum, it couldn’t support the benefit it provides to the overall system.

Years ago, the book Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge introduced us to the idea that we must think systemically. The system as a whole needs to operate well and that should be our goal.

I’ve often run simulations during team building sessions. The title is self-explanatory. The exercise will “simulate” a system in a smaller size and shorter timeframe so that we can grasp what’s going on as a whole. Real systems are often too large and complex or take too much cycle time for us to fully understand what’s going on. Simulations attempt to simulate what’s going on in the time of a meeting (a couple of hours) and the space of a conference room so that the dozen or fewer participants can observe the system as it operates.

One of the simulations I’ve used is “Paper Planes” created by Discovery Learning Intl. Just as the title suggests the team will build Paper Planes to meet certain specifications and performance standards. Each person is assigned to a station, equipped with the proper tools and trained well before the simulation starts.

GO! The team has 30 minutes to produce as many planes as possible. The average number of planes produced in the first 30-minute run? 0.5! That’s right, half the teams never get a single plane across the finish line. After three runs with debriefing and re-engineering time between runs, teams will often produce 20, 30, 40 planes and more. Why the difference?

During the debrief and re-engineering times, teams begin to look as the system as a whole. It often makes sense to spend less effort and manpower at certain stations (sub-optimize them) so that the whole can be productive.

So, bioscience says that some systems should be sub-optimized to keep the entire system healthy and functioning optimally. A simple manufacturing simulation says that some systems should be sub-optimized in order to produce the maximum output.

And yet when we look at corporations as a whole, we still see leaders incentivizing functions, departments and divisions to operate at optimal levels with little regard to what that does to the whole system. One thing it clearly does is establish points of friction and incentives that are odds with each other. Teams at the top never seem to gel as teams because they’re never encouraged to remove their functional “hat” and put on the team hat to make those tough decisions. The decisions that require one group to take a back seat to another group in order to optimize the whole.

Do you have a team of leaders or a group of functional heads all trying to optimize their piece? Answering this question could go a long way in discovering your maximum potential.

0 comments

Absurd!Blog In-Depth Book Reviews

Absurd!: Everything We Try Works, and Nothing Works

by Ron Potter February 13, 2017

I can’t tell you how many times in my life someone has asked me “Have you lost some weight?” I used to proudly respond “Yes, I’ve lost 15 pounds recently.” However, after a lifetime of losing that same 15 pounds many times, I’m not so proud of the accomplishment anymore. The difficulty is losing the remaining 25 and keeping it all off. That takes a lifestyle change, not a diet. Ugh!!

Farson, our author says, “People can make lasting changes in themselves only through a commitment to a continuing discipline. For example, crash diets don’t work, but a permanent modification in one’s eating habits do. Visits to spas don’t work but the daily practice of exercising stretching, or weight lifting does.” He goes on to say, “The same is true in management. Lasting change comes only from the adoption of sound management principles that are practiced on a continuing basis. There are no quick fixes.”

How long have you stuck with the commitment to make the necessary changes? Three months? Six months? One year? Many years?

I will usually lose that 15 pounds in three or four months. But where is my weight a year later? That’s the true test.

In my consulting practice, I find that Leadership and Team Building changes follow a similar pattern. Even if the individual or team begin a new healthier approach to leading and teaming, it takes about six months of consistent new behavior before others will give them the benefit of the doubt. If there is a failure or setback any time during that first six months, the reaction by others tends to be “See, same old behavior. They didn’t truly change.” Unfortunately, the six-month clock starts over again and people only seem to grant so many “resets” before they solidify their perception that the changes will never be real.

After six months of consistent new behavior, I find that people will at least grant benefit of doubt. If there is a setback in the second six months’ people seem to say, “They’ve been pretty good at the change so far, let’s see if this is a momentary setback or a failure.” If the new behavior remains through the second six-month period, I find that most people don’t remember the old behavior or that it was ever a problem. The individual or team has accomplished the daily practice of exercising stretching, or weight lifting required to make permanent change.

People and teams can change. I have the data and experience to prove it. But it takes long-term commitment and dedication. Try it, you’ll like it.

This post is a continuation of my series on an in-depth look at a wonderful little book that’s twenty years old this year. The title is Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson. You may want to consider dropping back and reading the previous blog posts about ABSURD! I think it will put each new one in great context.

0 comments

Absurd!Blog In-Depth Book Reviews

Absurd!: The Better Things Are, the Worse They Feel

by Ron Potter January 9, 2017

I’m continuing my series on an in-depth look at a wonderful little book that’s twenty years old this year. The title is Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson. You may want to consider dropping back and reading the previous posts about ABSURD! I think it will put each new one in great context.

Most of us know Abraham Maslow from his Hierarchy of Needs. However, I’ve enjoyed his work called Eupsychian Management: The attitude of self-actualizing people to duty, work, mission, etc. This was written when he was working as a management consultant.

Farson has also picked up on this work as he devotes much of this chapter to Maslow’s concepts around the meaning of complaining. Here’s what Farson learned from Maslow:

Abraham Maslow advised managers to listen not for the presence or absence of complaints, but rather to what people were complaining about. Here he unpacks a hierarchy of needs, of sorts, in an organization:

Least healthy organizations

You can expect to hear low-order grumbles – complaints about working conditions, about what he called “deficiency needs.” (“It’s too hot in here.”, “I don’t get paid enough.”, etc.)

Healthier organizations

Healthier organizations would have high-order grumbles – complaints that extend beyond the self to more altruistic concerns: “Did you hear what happened to the people over in Plant Two? They really got cheated.” Or “We need better safety standard around here.”

Very healthy organization

A healthy organization would have “metagrumples” – complaints having to do with needs for self-actualization: “I don’t feel that my talents are being utilized.” Or, “I don’t feel that I’m in on things enough around here.”

There is the absurdity. Only in an organization where people are in on things and where their talents are being utilized would it occur to someone to complain about those issues.

Absurd as it seems, the way to judge your effectiveness is to assess the quality of the discontent you engender, the ability to produce movement from low-order to high-order discontent.

The paradox is that improvement in human affairs leads not to satisfaction but to discontent, albeit a higher-order discontent than might have existed before. Why is this phenomenon important to understand? Because the motivation for continuing change and growth comes from the development of higher-quality discontent, then moving on to the solution of more important issues.

This observation by Maslow and Farson has served me well many times in my consulting career. Many times, the leaders I work with just don’t seem to understand why people are still complaining after periods of great success for both the individuals and the company. When I ask them the question “What are they complaining about?” We begin to see tremendous growth taking place because people are now complaining about much higher-level needs.

People will always find something to complain about. They’re on a journey and they haven’t arrived yet. It starts at a very young age when you kids start asking “Are we there yet?” twenty minutes after your journey began.

I like Farson’s closing remark, “Pity the poor manager who can’t imagine how a well-intended action led to such grousing.” What are they grousing about? That’s the question that will clue you in on your leadership journey’s progress.

0 comments

Blog Trust Me

A Legacy of Trust

by Ron Potter December 5, 2016

Pressure and mounting fear can drive you away from the two pillars of great leadership—humility and endurance—in order to succeed in the short run, but it will not last or create trust. It will only drive a wedge between you and the true success you can have as a leader who focuses on the two pillars and the other attributes.

Once again we want to remind you of the power contained in these qualities—and how the opposite qualities can destroy the great person you want to become and the great organization you want to lead.

We all have the ability to adapt these attributes to our particular leadership styles. You have the ability to start today. Why wait any longer?

Grasping leadership greatness starts by letting go.

Letting go is not a one-time deal. You must do it again and again and again.

Many of the most enduring ideas and values in our lives today have been shaped and molded by modern-day “blacksmiths.” Ancient or modern, the principles are the same: The blacksmith heats the iron at the forge, shapes it on his anvil, and cools it in the water.

The blacksmith heats the metal to prepare it for change. The trusted leader warms people to change through humility and compassion. The blacksmith hammers the metal to form a new shape. The trusted leader shapes an organization through commitment and focus. The blacksmith cools the metal to “settle” its strength. The trusted leader uses peacemaking to give the changed organization meaning and understanding. The forged metal, once cooled, becomes the powerful sword, the productive plow, or the beautiful wrought-iron gate.

By understanding the elements that build and destroy trust, effective leaders shape strong and productive organizations:

At the end of the same session when Jesus shared his Beatitudes with his followers—the ideas on which the eight attributes are based—he told an interesting story. He said that if his team members would put what he had taught them into practice, their lives would be like a man who built his house on a solid rock foundation. No matter what kind of storm hit, he promised that the house would stand. But if these men did not pay attention to the truth he shared, their lives would be like the man who built his house on a foundation of shifting sand. When the storm hit that house, it would crumble and wash away.

We believe the eight attributes will have that kind of effect on you. Allow them to permeate you from the inside out, and you will have a career—and a life—built on solid rock. You will be known as a person who can say with clear-eyed conviction, “Trust me.”

And others will follow.

0 comments

Absurd!Blog In-Depth Book Reviews

Absurd!: Individuals are Almost Indestructible, but Organizations are Very Fragile

by Ron Potter November 3, 2016

I’m continuing my series on an in-depth look at a wonderful little book that’s twenty years old this year. The title is Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson. You may want to consider dropping back and reading the previous blogs about ABSURD! I think it will put each new one in great context.

The paragraph in this chapter that rang true for me says, “Individuals are very strong, but organizations are not. Part of the reason why we don’t recognize the vulnerability of organization is that we have a hard time believing that the relationships which make them work are real. Even psychologists sometimes think of organizations as simply collections of individuals. But relationships – the bonds between people – are very real, and they have a life of their own. To a great extent they determine the behavior of an organization and the people within it.”

In my leadership book, Trust Me I talk about a couple of leaders:

These two leaders developed a very tight and trusting relationship with each member of their teams. Everyone talked of them as “great” leaders and the kind of bosses for whom employees would do anything. However, these two leaders would send one or more of their direct-reports off on a mission that was bound to conflict with a similar mission of another direct-report. The leaders, however, would never make any effort to help the direct-reports reconcile the conflicts. They would just let them bang against one another until one was victorious—Newton’s Cradle.

These leaders assumed the people who worked for them were strong and resilient, which indeed they were, but they had no sense that the relationship between the people was what actually created the company and culture. Their effort often destroyed relationships.

This issue also speaks to the concept of developing and growing teams. There is a model of team development that says teams move from Centralized to Transitional to Partnering and finally Highly Empowered: Self-Directed teams. The very first step from Centralized to Transitional speaks of this issue. Centralized teams can be viewed in the traditional hub and spoke model. The leader is the hub in the middle with a spoke extending out to each of the direct reports. However, there is no connection between the direct reports. As teams get better and better the connection between the team members becomes stronger, more reliable and more trusted until finally the team is functioning well as a single unit.

Trusting relationships are the key. If you’re not building TEAM, you’re not being a great leader.

0 comments

Blog Culture

One size does not fit all (except maybe in socks)

by Ron Potter October 20, 2016

Is your fingerprint unique or is it just like everyone else’s? Without even know you I know what your answer will be. Why would the FBI keep a database of fingerprints if they were not unique enough to identify every person on the planet?

One of the books I’ve read recently is Idiot Brain by Dean Burnett and one statement in there struck this chord with me. If we assume and accept the concept that we each have a unique fingerprint that’s simply made up of a few swirls, curves and lines, why would we think that two brains that are infinitely more complex than a fingerprint reach the same conclusion or see things in exactly the same way or start with a common set of beliefs and assumptions. That’s ridiculous.

We are complex, messy human beings. Our backgrounds and experiences are all different. And if we are complex, messy human beings, how much more so is a team of people.

I remember working with one team when the first day of a three-day team building session was a disaster. I couldn’t sleep at all that night. All night I kept running through the issues and looking for the cause of their inability to come together as a team. I would think to myself, they’re smart, they’re experienced, they’re well intentioned, what’s the problem. Smart, experienced, well intentioned… Smart, experienced, well intentioned… Finally, about 4am it hit me. They’re smart! That was the issue. For every problem that hit the table, they could almost instantly come up with a list of variables that was overwhelming. And then, because they were smart, they would be totally convinced that they’re personal view of the issue was the only correct view. After all, they were smart.

We are complex, messy people who make up even more complex and messy teams. So how do we cope?

Aristotle in his four levels of happiness describes level 4 (the highest level of happiness) happens when there is Truth, Love, Beauty and Unity.

Truth

In a team we must have great respect for each person’s perspective. We’re complex, messy people. Each of us has a perspective that is true as far as we can see. Honoring the fact that each person has a perspective that should be understood and valued is the first step.

Love

The concept being used today that would most closely parallels what Aristotle was implying is Psychological Safety. When the team environment is psychologically safe, there is great respect for each other, confrontation of ideas is often and easy, everyone takes responsibility for group decisions, the team talks openly about mistakes and problems, not just successes and above all, there is a lot of humor and laughter.

Beauty

The word used here refers to elegance and simplicity. Smart people tend to make things more complex. Wise people tend to simplify.

Unity

After hearing everyone’s perspective on an issue, demonstrating the patience and kindness it takes to fully understand and integrate those perspectives and then simplifying the issue down to the basic core, unity has a much better chance of being accomplished. Teams that build great unity are the happiest (and most productive).

We’re complex, messy people. It takes a great process to get at the “truth”, great love to appreciate and understand each person’s perspective, a great effort to simplify things to their most elegant form (a lot more energy and brain power than it does to make things complex) and a great desire to move forward in unity. But it also provides great happiness.

0 comments

Absurd!Blog In-Depth Book Reviews

Absurd!: The Person or Group that Presents the Problem

by Ron Potter October 10, 2016

I’m continuing my series on an in-depth look at a wonderful little book that’s twenty years old this year. The title is Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson. You may want to consider dropping back and reading the previous posts about ABSURD! I think it will put each new one in great context.

I’ve had the opportunity to work with one of the better known “Turn Around” companies. A Turn Around company is not even invited to the table until things are in dire straits. The hiring company, in spite of their best efforts is facing bankruptcy or takeover in a relative short period of time. The Turn Around company is paid very well to turn things around is a relative short period of time to avoid the tragedy.

I asked the consultant to explain their process to me to see what they do differently than what the management has already tried. Here is the outline presented:

Start with the bottom of the organization, the people who are closest to the problem.

They ask the people who are closest to the problem to come up with the proposal to fix the problem and them give them the authority and accountability to fix it.

Teach the Leaders of the Organization how to say “yes”

While the people closest to the problem are preparing the proposal the consultant is teaching the leaders of the organization to nod their heads in affirmation and say yes to the proposal. They’re teaching them to grant authority and accountability to those who will accomplish the work

All of that made sense to me but then I asked what they did with middle management. His response was “We ignore them.” They felt that middle managers just got in the way of a quick turn around and they didn’t have the time or energy to deal with them, overcome their loss of control or educate them in good management practices. They simply ignored them.

Our author makes another profound observation in this section of the book when he says “Participative management depends on trusting the group. Most managers simply don’t have that confidence and can’t take the time to develop the trust.” To me, this was the key. If the leaders and managers of the company had taken the time and made the effort to develop trust in their groups, they would have avoided the need for a Turn Around company to save them.

Leaders that build trust and have trust in their organizations are very different from the top-down, management and control types of leaders. Which are you? Will you need that Turn Around company someday? I trust not.

0 comments

Absurd!Blog In-Depth Book Reviews

Absurd!: Every Act is a Political Act

by Ron Potter September 26, 2016

Reading this one again was like receiving a body blow. Not so much for the leadership and management perspective but because of the headlines of our newspapers almost every day. Remember, this was written twenty years ago. These statements are not prompted by today’s headlines but look closely at what our author is saying.

“Fighting for the rights of special groups has contributed to an erosion of civility that none of us anticipated. When people are treated as representatives of special groups, society is fragmented.”

“It may even be that progress on rights has been made at the expense of the common welfare. Enmity grows between groups at they compete for rights. “

“Rather than looking after community, each group looks after itself. The common welfare suffers.”

From a business perspective I think we deal with this issue (sometimes well and sometimes not) by emphasizing the team. Many leaders try to optimize each aspect of the business but in so doing set up (and sometimes even encourage) competition between divisions. In the end this never works well. The concept of systems thinking and optimizing the whole rather than the individual parts always works better. To quote Bo Shembechler, the football coach at Michigan when I was in school, “The Team, The Team, The Team.” The name of my business is Team Leadership Culture which puts building team at the forefront of any good organization.

I always keep my comments directed at the business world but this one has so many implications related to the community issues of our day. Farson simply says “It may even be that progress on rights has been made at the expense of the common welfare.” I do worry that all of our labels that start with (fill in the blank) “________ American” lead us down this path.

The issue in the business world seems so simple and trivial by comparison, just take off your functional hat and put on your company hat. The Team, The Team, The Team. Team first.

0 comments

Blog Leadership

Defeating Doubt, Arresting Avoidance

by Ron Potter September 19, 2016

“Holding the hill” when under fire can be a terrifying and lonely experience. A leader will face a long list of challenges, which, if not faced and disarmed, can turn the most competent person into a faltering coward. We have grouped these pitfalls to courage into two categories: doubt and avoidance.

Defeating Doubt

This foe of courageous leadership comes in a variety of flavors.

First, there are the personal doubts. We may doubt our abilities, our judgment, our talents, and even our faith. We look at a problem and cannot find a solution. We attempt to fix it but cannot. Doubt oozes into our minds, and we are frozen into inactivity.

Then there are the doubts about our teams or others we depend upon. Have you ever worked with people who are overwhelmed, stressed out, resistant to change, burned out, not working together, complainers, rumor spreaders, backstabbers, noncommunicators, whiners, stubborn hardheads, blamers, or unmotivated negative thinkers? When encountering such bad attitudes and behaviors that stall the progress of our teams, we are tempted to slide into despair, and our backbones turn to mush.

Next is doubt in the organization. We may see the company sliding down a hill to mediocre performance, abandoning the right values and a vibrant vision. It’s one thing to maintain your own personal courage in the place where you have influence. But it’s overwhelming to stand strong when the larger organization is waffling on its mission and embracing plans that seem doomed in the face of aggressive market competition. Your knees start to knock.

Also doubts may surface when organizational outsiders, like stockholders, start questioning our forecasts and plans.

To endure as a leader, you will have to disarm doubt with gritty courage.

Arresting Avoidance

Another courage-crippler is refusing to confront reality and act. If we employ avoidance tactics when we are tested and struggle, we will end up with even more frustration and trouble. We have seen organizations take giant steps to avoid any kind of pain and suffering. But the result is a dysfunctional organization, not a great company.

To quote Winston Churchill, “One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger.… If you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.” Avoidance confuses the entire organization. It causes “mental illness” in the company and on your team.

Avoidance-oriented people tend to move away from things that threaten them in order to protect themselves. Why? There are a number of reasons. Often it is due to excessive concern about embarrassment. We just don’t want to be embarrassed or, more often, to embarrass someone else. We hold back—we don’t tell the truth—and poor organizational or personal behaviors are perpetuated.

Fear is another culprit. Sometimes it just seems easier to run and hide. Maybe the issue will somehow just go away? That’s classic avoidance—a sign of cowardly leadership.

Another reason for avoiding problems can be oversensitivity to the feelings or opinions of others. We just don’t want to hurt anybody. The other person is so nice; why should she have her parade rained upon? Issues are circumvented, and facts are ignored. We avoid the short-term pain and inflict a longer-term problem within the team and the organization.

And then there is the old standby character quality that causes so many problems: unhealthy pride. Some of the people who are most adept at avoidance are very proud, especially if exploring the gory details of an organizational issue might make them look bad.

Leaders who develop a humble heart and a willingness to confront concerns do not allow pride to interfere. They are open to opportunities for self-growth because they are secure in who they are and are not preoccupied with themselves.

Avoidance holds back an organization whereas a commitment to improvement will positively influence your own development as well as the development of interpersonal relationships, teams, and overall company effectiveness.

It takes great courage to change a pattern of avoidance and seek instead to make improvements and overcome the pain or difficulty in making decisions, confronting people, or being overwhelmed by circumstances or self-doubt. It is not easy, but the benefits you will experience from making this change are far greater than the “benefits” of avoidance.

Freedom from avoidance enables leaders to focus attention on determining when a situation needs action and improvement.

0 comments

Blog Trust Me

Create a Learning Organization

by Ron Potter August 15, 2016

A learning organization differs from the MBO (Management by Objective) type of organizational structure in fundamental ways. In a learning organization individuals are continually reinterpreting their world and their relationship to it.

A learning organization incorporates the practice of continually challenging its paradigms and accepted ways of doing things. Built into the organization is a system that allows for the institutional structures and routine models of action to be regularly questioned and transformed.

As Peter Senge defines it, a learning organization is an organizational structure in which “people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.”10 In this sense, a learning organization is an organization that is continually expanding its ability to create and re-create the very patterns and structures by which it operates.

At least that is the goal.

Unfortunately, what we have found in our work is that quick decision making has won. In many cases, leaders have abandoned the learning organization in favor of the quick-deciding organization.

In times of chaos, confusion, and change, peacemaking leaders need to focus attention on making sure their organizations are quick learning rather than quick deciding.

The fast-paced environment of product development, competition, and shareholder expectations has forced many organizations to adopt a quick-deciding mentality. In this model, a team (much like a football team needing to score before time expires in the fourth quarter) is in a hurry-up offense. The goal is to make decisions. But as Tom Peters correctly observes, “As competition around the world boils over as never before, firms caught with bloated staffs and dissipating strengths—from Silicon Valley to the Ruhr Valley in Germany—are looking for quick fixes. There are none.”

So how would a two-pillar, peacemaking leader respond?

The goal of the quick-learning team is to seek out and develop opinion rather than steamrolling over it or quickly mustering forces against it. Feedback is highly desired rather than feared.

In contrast, feedback is offensive when you are a quick-deciding team. You develop “sides” on all issues. The competition heats up. Winning at all costs is what counts.

Members of a quick-learning team are all on the same side of the fence, looking at an issue with differing opinions, experiences, and ideas.

Meeting agendas are often a surprising enemy. Leaders, staring at an agenda, feel compelled to make decisions within the time allotted. In most cases, true discussion of the issues and everyone’s opinions (the rooting-out process) is bypassed in favor of table talk that centers on implementation.

We suggest a meeting agenda that maps out what the team wants to learn about an issue. Learning should be the goal with good decisions the result. Remember that the goal is learning quickly and then making good decisions, not just deciding quickly.

“Patience,” said Saint Augustine, “is the companion of wisdom.” Problems and day-to-day crises test our wisdom and our ability to make decisions under pressure. Great leaders are people of patience and constant learning.

It is the leader’s job to pull everything together into a quick-learning rather than a quick-deciding environment. The leader holds the dialogue together and asks questions that are designed to help team members clearly communicate their information and thoughts about the agenda item. In this way, the meeting’s goal is met: quick learning—rather than quick deciding—for the purpose of making good decisions.

The leader needs to develop not only an inclusive mind-set but also one that honors people for who they are and what they bring to the process. Each person brings unique strengths and outlooks to the table.

0 comments

Short Book Reviews

Bo’s Lasting Lessons

by Ron Potter August 1, 2016

Ron’s Short Review: Yes, you will enjoy this more if you’re a Michigan fan but Bo Schembechler was a great coach and leader and his leadership lessons are timeless. Even if you’re green or scarlet I still think you’ll enjoy this one.

0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts