Heroes, supporting casts, and management

About 15 years ago, I was involved in a management situation that I still think about from time to time, because it made me so uncomfortable at the time.  Here is what happened:

As a call center manager in a large software company, I was tasked with finding a solution to a problem that was impacting customer satisfaction and increasing our support costs.  At the end of the project, I was to present my findings and recommendations to the company’s Operating Committee for their approval.

The project was a blast, and I pulled in several managers that reported to me to help with data gathering and analysis.  I also pulled in people from the product team to determine the feasibility of my product-related recommendations, and some financial analysts to help crunch the numbers to create a cost/benefit model.

At the end of the project, I was really proud of our results, and the Operating Committee funded us to act on my recommendations.

OK, sounds like a happy ending so what’s the problem?  In a word, the issue was “credit.”

One neck to wring?

You see, when I prepared my findings document and presentation, my first draft had a list of all the people who contributed to the research.  When I reviewed it with my VP, he told me to take those names off the report. 

“You own this – you’re the one throat to choke,” he said.  “I know they contributed to this, but you drove it and you are accountable so your name is the one that should be on there.”

I did what I was told, but it still bothers me to this day that they didn’t get their props in front of the Operating Committed.  If I had it to do over again, I’d probably add a section in the report listing the contributors and/or outlining the process I followed so I could mention them by name.  At least the VP knew who contributed, and most of them were in his division…

Remember the supporting cast

From this experience, I learned that I am uncomfortable taking credit for other people’s work.  Maybe it’s my desire for “fairness,” or perhaps it’s rooted in my own ego – I don’t like it when people take credit for my ideas, and I don’t want them to feel like I’m taking credit for theirs.

The “star” gets the limelight (and the big paycheck) in movies, but the people behind the scenes are still listed and recognized. I think that’s a good model for any team.

What do you think?  Are you a manager who’s cracked the code on this?  Share your secrets, please.

How Did That Happen?

I got an advance copy of a book called “How Did That Happen? (Holding People Accountable for Results The Positive, Principled Way),” and am pleased to see that it was released recently.  That means there is nothing stopping you from picking up a copy, right?

Roger Connors and Tom Smith, the book’s authors, have done a very effective job of grappling with some of the key issues that inhibit accountability, and provided some practical, prescriptive methods to help increase the level and consistency of accountability in your organization.

A lot of books about accountability are hard to act upon unless you are the “king of the world” – the head of a company, division, team, etc.  This book isn’t like that.  Sure, you can wield more might if you’re in charge, but there is a lot of advice in here designed to help you improve your own accountability, and to insist on more accountability from others – whether they are your peers, bosses, or even friends & family.

Rings of Accountability

The authors use a model that consists of an Outer Ring, which deals with setting appropriate expectations; and an Inner Ring that deals with managing unmet expectations.  This is all about having an effective “Accountability Conversation” that keeps people clear and aligned about what’s been committed, and what’s expected.

One of the things I really like about this book is the large number of “tests” you can use to determine where gaps exist that may negatively impact Accountability, each accompanied by specific processes and techniques to address any gaps.

There are also a number of stories of accountability in action, which help illustrate the points.  These stories helped crystallize the concepts for me throughout the book.

For example, I enjoyed the discussion of the difference between Complete Alignment, and “Complyment,” in which people aren’t fully bought into the mission.  I must say, I’ve seen the symptoms of Complyment far more than I should.

Likewise, there are tools to test for “Hands & Feet” and “Hearts and Minds” so you can gauge the level of buy-in and commitment to the things you feel are important.

My favorite new concept:  Phantom Reality

Of all the concepts in this book, the one I keep thinking about over and over is “Phantom Reality,” which is “an inaccurate description of how things really are.”  This is caused by things like misreading the situation, refusing to believe / acknowledge facts that don’t fit your world view, and poisoning your outcomes by expecting the worst.

I really want to get better at recognizing and dealing with the trap of Phantom Reality, since this is the phenomenon that causes you to get blindsided by things you should have seen coming, but chose to ignore.

It’s not easy to see your own blind spot, but this book provides some tools to increase your chances of catching yourself believing a Phantom Reality.

Customize the tools to fit your style

Before I wrap up, you might be wondering if these tools will work for you.  After all, each of us has our own style, preferences, and ability to tolerate ambiguity.  You’ll be pleased to know that there are also tools in the book to help you analyze your own management and accountability “style” and preferences, and that you can adopt and adjust the tools differently based on how you work.  For example, if you are a micromanager, there are tips to help you tone it down a bit and give people room to breathe; if you’re a hands-off manager, there are tips to help you exert a bit more active control.

I’ve just scratched the surface in this review, but I can confidently recommend “How Did That Happen?” to anyone who wants to up the level of accountability in their world – whether that’s by improving your own skills, or helping others work together in a more accountable way.

Go with the Flow to get into the zone

I was chatting with my friend Matt the other day about productivity and how hard it was to get started on some tasks.  He pointed me to a model called “Flow,” which was developed by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi.  According to Csíkszentmihályi, “Flow” happens when you are engaged in a highly challenging activity, which is also an activity at which you are highly skilled.

When I read about “Flow” it seems analogous to the feeling you get when you are “in the zone” and performing in what seems to be an effortless way.

Diagnose what’s happening

I’ve printed out a copy of the “Flow” diagram at right and have been using it to help diagnose why I’m avoiding certain tasks.  For example, I don’t really like doing my expense reports.  I find them to be time-consuming and tedious, so I procrastinate like crazy.

There is no “tedious” zone on the diagram, but my feelings most closely match the “boredom” part of the diagram.  That makes sense, since that indicates an unchallenging task that I have a reasonable ability to do.

In a case like filing expenses, there isn’t much I can do to make the task more exciting, so I just batch them together and get them done through sheer force of will (combined with threats from our Finance team that I’d better get them in by quarter end if I want to get reimbursed).

In other cases, when I’m avoiding tasks because I don’t have sufficient skills to be competent at a challenging task, I have two dominant paths I can take:

1. Increase my skill level (which could be through practice, study, or asking for help from someone more skilled), or
2. Alter the task in some way to make it seem less challenging.

Intersection with productivity best practices

In the past, I’ve often gone for option one, but that can be time consuming. 

In my recent “meditations” on the Getting Things Done (GTD) methodology, I’ve found that option 2 is more achievable than it seems at first glance.  By breaking the difficult challenges down into less daunting subprojects, then translating those into discreet next actions, I can take some of the difficulty out of the work.

I’ve tried this with a number of challenging projects lately, and I’ve managed to get them unstuck through this method.

If you’re interested in more thoughts on this topic, there are a couple of good resources that I know of:

• An excellent book, “Find Your Focus Zone,” that takes best practices from performance coaches (athletes, artists, etc.) and enables anyone to get better at getting “into the zone.”
• An interesting article by Kevin Chiu, discussing how the Flow model integrates with GTD to solve procrastination.

Category sprawl and GTD

I’m in the process of doing a “reset” on my GTD system.  Basically, I ripped out all of my categories, printed out all my list and deleted them, and am starting from scratch.

Why? I found that I let my lists turn into “junk drawers” which meant that I was a) afraid to open some of them, and b) couldn’t find anything useful when I did force myself to open them.

One of the culprits was what I call “category sprawl,” which meant that I created so many granular categories for my tasks, and so many goofy ‘contexts’ that my lists really weren’t all that useful any more.

Basically, I acted like I was “special” and made a bunch of changes to the recommended GTD method.  It was fun for a while but turned out to be not such a great idea.  And now I’m paying the price.

Preventing the sprawl – my strategy

I’ve taken a number of steps to try to get back into a clean place with GTD:

1. I have reverted to the recommended, default contexts as recommended by David Allen (those shown in the screen grab at right). [Note:  I am about to add one additional category called @ONLINE but will try not to add any more].
2. I turned of automatic categorization in ClearContext so that I have to manually assign categories to tasks.  (This wasn’t an issue for the GTD Outlook Add-In)
3. I am “forcing” all of my next actions to fit into one of these categories.

There are (obviously) a lot of other tweaks I’m doing to my process, like getting back into the discipline of truly identifying physical next actions, moving all projects I’m not actively working on to SOMEDAY/MAYBE, and more.

If you’re a GTD person and you find yourself with category sprawl, this kind of a clean-slate approach might help.  Let me know if this resonates with you, or if you’ve got any best practices for a GTD reset.