Wishing You All A Happy New Year!

It has only been a month ago that I decided to start this blog. On the question why, I simply replied that 140 characters on Twitter did not proof sufficient to get my message across. Now I am writing my last blog. Last one in 2012 that is. Writing blogs has not only solved the character limit problem, but it has given me a way to connect more deeply with a wider public. So you can bet on more posts in 2013 and beyond!

The Extra Mile

Anyone who has ever worked for a boss is likely familiar with it. You have either read it before you applied for that job, seen it when you signed your contract or dealt with it during your employment.

Have you guessed it already?

I am of course referring to the job description, job profile, job requirements or whatever definition your employer gave to that piece of text explaining your role in the organisation. A narrative summary of the main job characteristics, formalizing the exchange relationship on the part of what you are supposed to deliver in return for rewards.

A job description is one of the main instruments in HRM. It supports hiring managers in the recruitment, payroll managers in designing equitable pay systems, development managers in defining possible career paths, supervisors in managing the performance and process engineers in improving efficiency. Adding the job's reporting lines will establish an organisational hierarchy as well.

You would imagine such a key tool to be maintained in detail. However, the reality is quite often far from this. It is not uncommon that organisations have to do a review of their job descriptions after 4, 5 years of neglect. Or worse, once started as concise descriptions of the main responsibilities, job descriptions have become interminable lists of tasks and activities. And yet organisations tend to militantly hold on to these paper truths. As if their absence would result in destruction and chaos.

At the same time, job descriptions become extremely important for employees during role evaluation or restructuring. When change can potentially result in adverse consequences for pay, employers have find themselves more than once in a dispute with the employee over it.

So why do people give so much value to job descriptions?

I have come to learn that job descriptions are needed in the absence of purpose, mastery and autonomy (see also Drive by Daniel Pink). People who understand what needs to be done, are capable and empowered to do it, would not need them. High-performers in your organisation who take responsibility over and beyond what they should contribute on paper, probably do not know even know what their job description says. Their drive is by no means influenced by anything remotely close to paper-based responsibilities.

But when purpose, mastery and autonomy are absent in an organisation, you will very likely not find leadership either. People follow people, not paper. But in the absence of a strong leader, they will hold on to that one certainty they have on paper which justifies their presence in the organisation and substitutes for a lack of purpose.

You will recognize organisations with paper-based responsibilities when the majority of employees are not going the extra mile for their employer; there are always individual exceptions. Minor inconveniences grow to be perceived as aggravating factors, often resulting in excessive claims for extra reward - to the extent of 'billing behaviour'. Worst-case scenario, clinging to paper-based responsibilities can create an organisational culture of island-thinking and dumping problems.

Should we then abolish job descriptions?

Job descriptions will go extinct one day. Forcing its extinction as a strategy would not be my advice. Focusing on leadership, on the contrary, is for many reasons advisable. Simultaneously you could work on a culture in which people learn to focus on what the organisation wants to achieve. The purpose and mastery which is fostered this way will shape an organisation with change capacity, forward-focused, instead of hanging on to the past by static documents with activities that were needed 4, 5 years ago. It will create a culture in which people will more likely go the extra mile, as their job is not defined by words but by a shared purpose they believe in.

Do you think job descriptions are still relevant? Do they make you go the extra mile?

Wreck-It Steve

"Sometimes in order to create, you need to destroy."

Whether this aphorism holds any truth is difficult to say. There is no empirical evidence for causality in this order; wrecking before building. Change is an inevitable part of life, but can it involve taking steps back in order to find a different direction or does it always involve moving ahead from where you are?

While playing around with these thoughts, I came across several leadership posts favouring the act of destruction, some of which written by people I highly admire. In one of them, the author claims that too many leaders are concerned with fixing things, when what they should be doing is breaking things (see Leadership Is About Breaking Things by Mike Myatt, one of the top leadership bloggers in the U.S. and regular guest author for Forbes online magazine). Now just to be clear on this, I am in no position to question any of the authors’ insights as I cannot match their wisdom. As a matter of fact, Mike is one of few bloggers whose new posts he shares via Twitter I tend to retweet even before having read them (I eventually read them all!). But still, even if it is needed to break down a wall to build a better one, you would probably end up using the same bricks. Or will you smash them up to dust to produce new bricks as well?

Before I start breaking things around me, I need to make sure that I got it right. Or at least overcome my fear of not knowing whether what will be broken is eventually replaced by something better. And maybe that is what differentiates one who leads from one who leads well. A fearless leader has solid faith and does not worry about the trials of this present time, but looks beyond to the coming time.

I clearly have a lot to learn still before becoming Wreck-It Steve. How about you?

Three Tips for Connecting With Your Staff

In one of my previous blogs (The Four Questions) I question the extent to which managers should be interfering with how staff do their job. One of my followers commented that the message of “staying out of their way” seems somewhat in paradox with “knowing what hampers them in doing their job”. I would like to come back to this in today’s blog.

Empowering staff has EVERYTHING to do with connecting with them. The main difference lies in how you engage. Here are three pointers that I have learnt in my professional career from people who have coached me or who I have coached:

Ask or Tell?
When performance is not as expected, do you tell your employees how they need to change things or do you involve them in formulating the answer by asking the right question? The best and most lasting solutions and resolutions are still those created by the people directly involved.

Focus of Attention
How much time do you spend on those succeeding their tasks as opposed to those who do not? Asking the right questions is as relevant for success as for failures, but for different reasons. Whereas failures are the cornerstone for personal development, individual or team successes can, when celebrated in choir, motivate and inspire those that did not succeed the first time.

Coach = Coachee
Connecting is a ‘two-way activity’. If you are not open to learn from the other person, you are not really engaging. By showing empathy or understanding you may think you are, but you are not. It requires a deeper conversation about how we can make things better together. The day leaders stop improving themselves, is the day of their businesses' doom.

Needless to say that consistency is the key in applying these.


Please be invited to complete this list of pointers as I am clearly still learning.

Why Leaders Lead

Everyone who has ever taken a more than average interest in the concept of leadership has come across the following question: "Can anyone become a leader?"

Having read numerous articles on leadership abilities, I have learnt that the subject-matter experts are less divided on this topic as those involved in the controversy around existential theories. Here one applies the evolution theory. Even more so, leaders are make-able. The majority of guru's tends to describe leadership in terms of developable personal attributes. Though some might find these 'skills of character' stronger developed at a young age than others, anyone could potentially step into the role. But what makes some people then decide to do so?

I am going to take you back a couple of years ago to an evening in Paris with a fellow HR professional. I vividly remember us sitting in a lovely small bistro, enjoying good food and wine, while discussing all kinds of HR topics. At some point we had somewhat of a debate about whether leadership is situational and brings attributes that can be switched on and off. One theory was supporting this. Examples were being given of people who are followers in a professional environment but leaders in private settings (e.g. captain of their sports team, community spokesperson etc.), or vice versa. The other theory invalidated this, saying these roles have nothing to do with leadership but with a pecking order. Authentic leadership comes with such a strong attitude that it will radiate in any situation a leader finds itself in, regardless of the individual's rank position in a group.

There was no winner to this discussion as we were not in it for the win in the first place. My field colleague and I like to meet up at least once a year to share our lessons learnt and to provoke each other's thoughts. Mine got provoked on that point where leadership becomes a calling, and what makes a person answer that 'call'. That's when I ran into the following article written in January 2005 by Michael H. Shenkman, President of Keystone International Inc., a strategic development group:

http://www.archofleadership.com/archinthenews/leaders-calling.htm

Although Shenkman wrote this article to point out the process of recognizing a leader, at the same time he revealed the true reason for answering the call: "envisioning something so large that it requires the collaboration of many people to accomplish it." This puts in question many of the choices that organisations have made in putting or accepting people in leadership positions. It also puts in question business studies that are focused on educating young people for efficiency and effectiveness of the 'collaboration' without them necessarily having the character skills (yet) to envision something larger than themselves. Imagine that many organisations will place these business school graduates in leadership positions straight after finishing study. Without further questioning whether this is the right order for a person to learn how to lead, I believe that purpose goes before everything. If not, one might accept a leadership role for the wrong reasons.

Do you know why you or your leader(s) chose to lead? If not for helping others to envision their role in the 'greater good', then why?

The Black Holes In a Leader's Universe

Let me just get straight to the point:

The universe does not exist of leaders and followers only!

There, I said it.

In every group, formal or informal, you will find people who do not have the best intention with your interests, with the group's or their own for that matter. In fact, some of them might even be self-destructive. Though the most common among them is the selfish kind. Some might act as follower for a while but always in their own interest. Or they may convince others to follow their path of selfishness, but that does not deserve to be called leadership. They are a minority, but a dangerous one. Sowing bad seed whenever and wherever possible, workplaces included.

People who are determined to put their own interest before anything or anyone, will not easily associate. Dissociation seems to be their standard modus operandi. Any effort to engage with them is therefore likely to fail, unless it serves their interest. Are they worth writing a blog about? No. However, it may be worthwhile to investigate how to recognize these black holes in your universe before they suck all the attention away from what really matters. Especially for those of you who have the courage to dedicate your lives to leading others.

Authentic leaders, more than any, will show their vulnerability to those they lead. Getting hurt is a part of the deal. It is, however, a whole different ballgame altogether if the hurt becomes intentional.

Here are some signs that may help you identify them within your group:

• malicious gossip; if they talk about others with you, they will talk about you with others
• no support, only opposition; bringing (your) leadership in question is their automatic response to a glitch, whereas you will not hear them if the course remains otherwise steady
• 'them against us' mentality; they have a natural tendency to put the blame for everything with the other party, preferably with those in a position they hold responsible for their own position
• inconsistencies; it involves people without scruples, not short of telling a lie or two
• lack of commitment; they are the 'friends' who are absent in times of need

It is not my intention with this blog to instigate a witch hunt in your community or organisation. If at all I would suggest an approach, it would be engagement. You may find these signs with people who are in fact willing to lead or follow, but have been disappointed along the way. Engage. And when it fails, try again. But as I said, you will run into individuals for whom this will never work.

Now you know.


Have you ever identified a black hole in your universe? How did you deal with it?

The Thing With Common Sense

Whatever definition you use for common sense, it usually refers to particular knowledge attributes which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have. A regularly used statement for common sense is: "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

But what if everyone around you shares a belief which you don't? Does it make your opinion less true? Shouldn't you be acting on your thoughts then? Before science hit us with its truth, people thought the earth was flat. The possibility of falling of the edge of the world was common sense at the time. Thinking differently would have exposed you to mockery at the least, but more likely to facing the inquisition for blasphemy. Even to this day, your life can be in danger in some places where your beliefs, be it religious, ideological or simply political, are a minority.

How can you tell that common sense makes sense?

I don't think you can! Common sense is not always based on facts. Actually, it navigates quite often between science, pseudoscience or just popular belief. Between realism and idealism.

Why do we use it so rigorously?

Sharing beliefs gives us a sense of significance, comfort and security. The more we share, the more it takes refuge in our social DNA, as fundamental patterns of our behaviour.

Is that a bad thing?

Jein (this is a portmanteau of the German equivalent for 'yes' and 'no'). Many of our daily choices are made on our built-in automatic pilot, also known as our conscience or ethical compass. At times when you turn indecisive, a quick check with the majority opinion or what your peers are doing, can ease your passage through life. But that is also a pitfall. The use or at least the overuse of common sense seems to have two side effects you might consider as negative:

A low appetite for risk, causing us to rely on other people’s knowledge – or what we think they know - instead of evoking exploratory behaviour.

It involves past thoughts. Thoughts take time to manifest into the physical world. What is creating our reality today is in large a result of the thoughts we have been thinking or sharing with others a while ago.

Is there a way to practice common sense in forward decision-making for an unknown reality?

Of course. As I said, common sense navigates between realism and idealism, meaning that there are still individuals or collective thinkers who will continue moving beyond the frontiers of common reality or immediate possibilities, mostly for the better of society. They do not see common sense as a constant but rather as a variable in a complex formula. In fact, without this continuous challenge of what we think to know, we would not have evolved as a human race.

Where can I find these forward thinkers?

These individuals can be found in various parts of our community. They can be scientists, teachers, entrepreneurs, CEO’s or politicians. Even as a parent you may find yourself in a role where you will have to prepare your child not only for today’s reality but the future one as well.

What unites these people?

LEADERSHIP. Common sense can become a dangerous instrument if not in the hands of people who are fearless enough to challenge the status quo. Or when applied in a scientific manner without counterbalancing opposing views. A fearless leader will ask questions like these: 

• How common is our common sense?
• Why has it become common?
• When did something else stop being common?
• Is there a minority belief? And if so, what is it?
• Do these opposing opinions need to be brought together?
• Etc.

The Ultimate Question Being:

How do I ensure that our common sense can answer tomorrow’s questions?

What does your common sense tell you?

The Four Questions

Khartoum, 2005. While sitting in the small office of a local team member in charge of flight bookings, the following conversation took place:

"Muna, did you know that this chair (opposite to her desk) is broken?"

"Yes, I know."

"So why don't you get a new one or get this one fixed?"

"No, it's ok. (pause) This way people don't hang around in my office too long."

During my expat assignment as HR manager in North Sudan, I enjoyed many of these short talks with my HR administration team of local hires. At the beginning I felt a bit awkward stepping in as their boss. Apart from them being more senior in the team than I was, they clearly out-knowledged me on how the local system works. Since I was only going to be there for a couple of months, I decided to limit my boss activities to these 4 questions:

1. What is it exactly that you do?

2. Do you like doing it?

3. Do you ever run into problems?

4. Is there anything I can do to solve them?

Question 3 & 4 were repeated, almost on a daily basis. As the years passed by, I may have tweaked these four questions when leading other teams in different settings, but in essence I find them still relevant today. Without stating the obvious by promoting the value of servant-leadership, there is another lesson learnt I want to share.

Seven years ago, in this particular context, asking these four questions seemed the only legitimate thing to do. The team members knew what was needed and why, and were competent enough to deliver. Were they all star players? No. Actually it was quite an ordinary, average-performing team. In fact, herein lies the lesson that I have learnt. What needs to be managed if your business has a clear purpose and your staff full command over their work? Apart from flagrant underperformers, people management theories seem to be missing a target population. Yet, there are probably a thousand theories out there with an equal number of consultancy firms who are willing to train your managers in applying them.

I have learnt a very simple rule on how to deal with underperformers:
If they are unwilling, let go of them. If they are unable, bring them in a situation that enables them.

The latter could be that you need to clarify your goals much better, develop someone’s competencies or find that person another job inside or outside your organisation that better fits their abilities. A matter of personal attention. And for your regular performers? Try to solve whatever keeps them from doing their job. That simple!

Do you think my four questions are sufficient to manage your team? Or am I oversimplifying matters?

Can We Please Start Innovating?

One morning on my way to work, a man sitting opposite to me in the train caught my attention. He was drawing stuff in his sketchbook which I recognized as an organisational chart. Normally I am able to control my nosiness in such a public setting, or at least know how to conceal it well, but that morning I caught myself fascinated by his illustration of, what I consider to be, an organisational defect.

For those who are not familiar with the concept, an organisational chart or organigram is a graphical representation of relations between people in an organisation, often to illustrate the hierarchy. Operating units or positions are commonly pictured as text boxes. The connecters between them show a hierarchical relationship or co-workership.

My fellow passenger was in fact drawing a straightforward, conventional organigram. Being in the HR business, this alone was enough to get me interested. But then he did something that almost made me intervene and to this day is puzzling me. He drew a square around two boxes as if he was grouping them, and then named that section 'Innovation'. It appeared that these two units or positions were made responsible for the organisation’s innovative power, maybe as of that very moment. Perhaps later that day he was going to tell someone, somewhere in some organisation, to start being innovative. That day, I would not want to have been either of them. Sender nor receiver.

Why wouldn’t you assign innovation as a task to a unit or position?

Let me start by saying that I do not have a magic formula on how you should innovate or 'organize' innovation. I could tell you that many billion-dollar ideas have originated in suburb garages, but it does not suggest you should occupy your garage. And if I would tell you that research has shown that individuals are equally, if not more, productive in coming up with brilliant ideas by themselves than would they have been put together in a brainstorm group, I am not saying you should dismantle your innovation teams. Chances are in fact that many of you will try to proof me wrong, saying a recipe does exist. Showing me examples of innovation teams that have transformed companies into the market leaders they are today. And consultancy firms would mind-boggle me with statistics of success rates in Fortune 500 companies that have used their innovation roadmaps.

I can however, tell you that I have learnt that people have a natural tendency to do things better and faster by continuously challenging the status quo. If you have read my previous post, The War for Talent Hoax, you could consider that essentially everyone has such a gift. I have seen ideas sprout out of nowhere or grow after having been planted as seed. And sometimes they came from one single creative mind, where at other times they came from a collaborative thought. Some have hit immediate success whereas others needed to be reshaped to turn around failure. In some settings, innovation can only excel with unlimited resources whereas innovators in India have shown resourcefulness amid serious constraints with a concept they call Jugaad (pronounced “joo-gaardh”). It is therefore my strong belief that innovation is a universal, organic experience rather than an oiled machine.

Is there anything leadership can do to propel innovation?

Yes, leaders should get out of its way! Their efforts of organising innovation are equally helpful as harmful, quite often preventing people from being creative as management comes with restrictive rules. Then again, getting out of its way does mean that leaders should create an environment without any barriers, while working with local economic realities and constraints.


3 Most Common Leadership Pitfalls in Innovation:

1. Assigning separate units or positions with the task of innovation
With this, leaders are implicitly telling their other workers that they do not have to be innovative in their work.

2. Creating multi-layer or multi-discipline groups to brainstorm
Again, innovation is being addressed in isolation from the majority population. And although diversity assumes to increase the variety of insights, members tend to be more reserved when it involves a group of unequals, afraid that some of their ideas might be found ridiculous.

3. Starting innovation projects
Projects automatically assume a set of rules, which may act restrictive when applied to the process of innovation. For instance, innovation does not have clear, tangible deliverables. The goals are rarely clear from the beginning and may need to morph significantly along the process. Deadlines would probably even cause what you might call an 'inventor's block'.


As said, I am not claiming that if you have organised innovation in one of these ways, there is no chance for success. I am merely advocating for a different way of leading innovation. One that is more inclusive. Leading innovation should not be about managing those who are tasked with it, but about taking away barriers for everyone to be innovative. This alternate approach aims to inject innovation in the genes of the organisation, creating an innovative culture.

Next time, I will tell you more about the lessons I have learnt on how to take away these barriers. Or you can let me know yours by commenting on this post right now!

The War for Talent Hoax

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." ― Albert Einstein

This quote by Einstein has been my motto for some time now. At first, because it gave me the pleasure of knowing that I am a genius too. But the more I learn about myself and about others, and what motivates us in our personal or professional life, the more meaning these words seem to acquire. Moreover, it has raised questions with me about the concept of 'talent' in business, finally causing me to think that talent management is just one big hoax. I will tell you how I came to this conclusion...

Everybody is a genius
Various intelligence tests pretend to give conclusive, scientific proof of differences in cognitive and emotional intelligence between individuals. But what are these tests actually measuring? In 1968, George Land gave 1,600 5-year-olds a creativity test used by NASA to select innovative engineers and scientists. He then re-tested the same children at ages 10 and 15. The test results were staggering! 98% at age 5 registered genius level creativity, 30% at 10 year and 12% at 15 years of age. The same test given to 280,000 adults placed their genius level creativity at only 2%! (Source: http://www.calresco.org/lucas/create.htm)

It seems from this test that there is a negative correlation between what we are taught by education or upbringing and the capacity to be a genius. Now you could argue that George Land's test is dated or have doubts about the soundness of his methodology. However, you cannot deny that education has prepared us first and foremost for a place in society, for a J-O-B. Building knowledge and skills to increase performance behaviour for our adult professional life. Whether these learnt behaviours actually match our innate talent, emerges for some at a young age (wonder-kid or high school drop-out), for others at an older age (career swappers) but for most of us never at all. We are all born unique, but many of us sadly die as a mass product of society. What we did has defined who we are, instead of the other way around.

So if everyone is a genius at birth and has the capacity to be great, what exactly is that talent 'thing' that distinguishes us?

Judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree
Could it be that in business we identify talented people on behaviours that might not have anything to do with their TALENT? At least it is not as conclusive as e.g. in sports or in certain arts. Now let's assume that this is in fact a system error, still these acquired behaviours may have great value for your business. In the end, knowledge and skills are the vehicles for performance behaviour. And those who are eager to continue learning are likely equipped to improve their performance, increasing the chances to success for themselves and consequently the company they work for. If the task is 'to climb a tree', one can execute it and has the ability to raise standards, who cares it is a fish? Maybe nobody does. The sad thing is however, that somehow it is missed out that the fish could have been the fastest swimmer. A task that was already assigned to Sid the sloth.

Of course, the system would probably not allow for such flexibility that everyone can be shuffled around within a company towards a job that better fits their innate ability. Anyhow it would take a lot of courage of leaders to do so without any probability of successful performance behaviour they are so used to measure through knowledge and skills.

The alternative for finding the best job for your employee is evidently finding the best employee for your job. Now in a business era of extreme competition where time is money, companies are fighting for the best tree climber. And so the war for talent has started.

Recognize the hoax!
Everyone knows that you need a strategy to win a war. This is where companies started developing talent management. A very broad concept, where activities range from attracting to retaining key talents for the organisation. However, we might as well call it 'waste-management'. A lot of companies apply talent management in a utilitarian manner. Employees who, if they are not, or at least not fast enough, showing the expected behaviours, are exchanged for the next candidate. These companies are stuck in an obsessive search for the best person for the job that they miss out on the possibility that:

1. an under-performer can be an over-performer in a different job
2. business success is a team effort and successful teams require complementary instead of similar minds
3. creating successful teams cannot be done with blue prints
4. team performance will excel once each individual knows his/her talent and understands how to combine them with the other talents
5. not recognizing your 'non-talents' creates an atmosphere that eventually makes people want to leave, whereas 'talents' leave first as they can easily find another job


But as I am still learning, I am sure I have missed some lessons. Can you teach me?

Ethical codes: A catalyst for responsible behaviour or a waste of paper?

Being part of an international organisation with offices in about 100 different countries and a workforce with 150 nationalities, I have witnessed a growing stack of rules on professional and ethical behaviour. The more the organisation grew in staff numbers and subsequent cross-border mobility, the more need for employee compliance, partially imposed by the environments we operate in. Partially. As a value-based organisation, the majority of rules are self-imposed.

Did all these ethical rules help create a safer environment with less workplace issues?

I am not about to disclose any sensitive information, but I can tell you that we most probably behave as an average organisation. So let me just put it to you bluntly: There is no evidence that ethical rules lead to better performance or a friendlier atmosphere. It is more likely that an organisation's core values and mission attracts people with compatible personal values, allowing communal values to exist which in turn foster the office culture. This makes it hard to justify the existence of ethical codes.

Will a person who has difficulties controlling his/her anger behave less aggressive with a protocol in place? Will a corrupted person then operate with more integrity? Not very likely.

An ethical code could assist employees in understanding the difference between 'right' and 'wrong', and applying that understanding to their decisions. But then again, how many errors can you make in a professional environment by not knowing the ethical rules? Or, not very uncommon, what if the rules do not give you a black and white answer to an issue?

If you want to create a safer environment, here are 3 Lessons-learnt from my experience:

1. Make values tangible
If decisions are better when made within the ethical frame of an organisation, then it would make sense to recruit on personal values that are compatible with the organisation or a particular trade. Use them as criteria with higher value than knowledge or skills. It will proof harder to change values as opposed to enhance someone's knowledge and skills. Evidently the organisation's leaders relentlessly make decisions that touch base with core values.

2. Create an open environment for raising concerns
An open door, I know. Though I want to stress that a nonjudgemental approach is paramount. Behaviours are best discussed on the impact that they have on one's environment, team dynamics, results etc. An open environment also implies that dealing with ethical concerns should not be delegated to some committee somewhere in a far corner of your organisation. They should be discussed at the heart of your organisation, preferably on the workfloor.

3. Show zero-tolerance for misconduct
Once someone has portrayed questionable behaviour, it needs to be addressed. The worst thing a leader can do is disconnect from the issue and allow for it to evolve to an endemic situation. This does not imply that one should always respond with discipline (often why codes exist). Sometimes it is even not necessary to address the individual directly, in private or public. Nevertheless the behaviour itself should always be addressed, preferably with the entire team present.


For clarity sake, I am not promoting for a deletion of codes. I am merely downplaying their value as opposed to these three things you can influence as a leader. As I am still learning, I am sure I have missed some lessons. Can you complete my list?