good work equity

Much frustration and disappointment between employees and managers comes down different values put on work completed. Obvious, right? Indeed. But for something all of us working untethered to an assembly line understand, we are bad at having plain, direct conversations about the value we create-- and it's different than our performance.

Ideally, we'd sum the resulting value of our work similarly. Also an ideal, we'd have a ongoing conversation about what the organization needed and what steps to achieve the goals were most important. To often, we don't see the value the same.

When the employee sees the value created as less than his boss, he questions her awareness and smarts and may even suggest that she's out of touch with the needs of the business/organization.  

When the employee sees a higher value created than her boss, disappointment and conflict soon follow. A one-off event can be annoying or frustrating. Though, often the reality is that we each have patterns of estimating the value -- and so do our bosses. Task after task, we're adding things up in one way and they're adding them up in another. Over the course of a year or tenure at at the company, the cummulative effect can feel like we're looking at each other from differnt rims of the Grand Canyon-- there's a huge hole in the middle.

These differences are at the heart of conflict and disappointment because the value we create is basis for promotions, salary increases, management assignments, and so on. People think it's performance but it's not-- which is especially true as you ascend the ranks of an organization.

It's not only possible but common for you (or me or anyone) to have a great year performance-wise and not be any further along in your career. Assigned work was done, development boxes were checked, no fits or flare-ups were reported, and enough time was put in on weekends to ensure everyone knew you were committed-- AND you're no closer to your next promotion.  Why?

Because your contributions are appreciated but the good work equity created was insufficient. I can ramble on about this but I'll stop here and say the one action that I think is critically important-- have a (possibly difficult) but deeply honest conversation with your boss about value and how it's created within your organization. If you get party-line about the mission, it's a sign to push on and ask more. Your leadership may or may not know the answer yet themsevles on a conscious level-- having only judged employees subconsciously before.

If you're working within a business, surely one of these things will be revenue or cost avoidance. Others might include visibility, relationships, less conflict, more decisiveness, and so on. Knowing this and flexing your skills and style to do work that adds up to value created in these categories (whatever they are) is a much more straightforward path to advancemnet and influence. 

The equity for good work done accrues sets the tone for our professional relationships and the doors opened through opportunity in the future.

26 questions to kick-start your week

Reflective questions get me unstuck when I'm spinning my wheels. I posted this piece to my Inc. column last week.  If you're interested in a printable version of the questions to keep handy by your desk, click here.

deliciously technical and controversial

My meetings started here this morning. As my grandfather would have said it, "We couldn't have had a prettier day." And, it's AUGUST.  In DC.

Gorgeous weather aside, I had the pleasure of working with a group of scientists gathered in DC this week to share their climate change research and talk about the challenges they see in doing this work going forward.

As is so often the case with highly-skilled experts, the technical challenges are big-- no doubt-- but those don't scare them. The issues that keep them up at night are around talking about their findings, building understanding and acceptance, gaining support, and, ultimately, seeing behavior change. In short, all of the communications stuff. I learned this week that answering the common question, "what do you do?" can start a debate in a bar.

The vested man above is Paul Ollig. He's a National Park Service employee and the Chief of Interpretation for the National Mall and Memorial Parks.  He's a fantastic storyteller-- if you ever have a chance to walk the Mall with him, you're guaranteed to learn something new. So, Paul led a tour today for this group of climate scientists to talk about climate change impacts to the Mall and the city and park's adaptation efforts-- including the construction of a massive levee to protect the monuments from storm surges.

Before setting off, he opened up a discussion on what techniques are effective when talking about climate science. The insights shared by the group were great-- and I think can be a good starting point to communicating any highly technical and controversial material.

1. Humanize your work. Describe why you personally are drawn to the specifically challenges. What experiences or beliefs lead you to this point?
2. Chunk the message. Talking with someone who is incredibly knowledgeable and enthusiastic about their work can feel like being sprayed with a fire hose. Be able to chunk your message into "bite site" points and know how to sequence them in case people ask for more information.
3. Avoid trigger words (audience-dependent). Know your audience and what trigger words might cause them to shut down and stop listening. For some, "climate change" are those trigger words that have such a strong association that it might be difficult to overcome someone's position. The goal often is to talk about the impacts, the risks, the behavior changes needed, etc. Being flexible enough to do that with more general language can keep a much-needed conversation going.
4. Make it visual. Snow, I learned, is a visually compelling way to talk about climate change. What are the pictures that help people understand the risks and impacts of your issue?  Use those.
5. Take opportunities to talk with kids. Of course, any conversation with a kid has to be age appropriate-- and ideally pre-approved by a parent or teacher.  The point is though that kids help you test how accessible your message is. Can a 5th grader understand your point? Kids will also has great questions and will typically come to a conversation with fewer preconceived ideas. If nothing else, you both might learn something.

One of my colleagues has this great picture of Einstein with a quote that reads, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  I love this because it's so true. Times (many, many times) in the past that I've stumbled over technical messages have come down to precisely this problem.  My understanding was more superficial that I realized. Engaging with an active listener can quickly reveal those holes.  

So, if there was one overarching recommendation, it would be to know your topic well.  Know it so well that you can avoid jargon or terms that only another technician would understand. My key takeaway from meeting with these awesome scientists this week is that they're not out to impress anyone with their smarts-- though their knowledge and skills certainly are impressive.  They've trying to make a difference in the world and you can only do that by bringing others along.

Target requirements, save money on federal real property

Every once in a while you come across a beautifully designed, remarkably functional federal facility. Sadly, it’s probably not the one you work in. Most of the federal buildings we’re familiar with are big, boxy and concrete. They were designed during a period of our American history when our sense of style was trumped by a number of civil rights, economic and technological priorities—a time many of us don’t or can’t remember.

For those in the biz, you know that these buildings are owned by the General Services Administration and rented back to agencies. The footprint is the biggest and hairiest in Washington, but there are federal buildings in major cities across the country.

In addition to all of these buildings, the federal government owns and operates a lot of other stuff such as roads, bases and labs. There is even more that falls into the amebic “other” category, such as levees, miles of fence line, archeological sites and the Statue of Liberty, to name just a random few.

Altogether, this portfolio of federal facilities is a key component in the complex equation of what makes are country work. Our economy, our energy resources, our ability to move products in and out, and our national security are all inextricably linked to these physical locations.

Legislation and guidance during the last 10 years has evolved, but remained consistent on a couple of important concepts. Facilities tend to be an unpartisan issue with a lot of agreement that we need some facilities, they cost a lot and anything agencies can do to reduce spending or redirect funds to missions is great.

As you might imagine, there are lots of rules that govern how federal facilities are acquired, built, renovated and eventually disposed of. There are required data elements, progress reports and performance measures mandated by programs such as the Federal Real Property Portfolio (which requires the collection of 25 key data elements) and Freeze the Footprint—not coincidentally managed by GSA in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget.

With this background in mind, I went to the Federal Facilities Council and International Facility Management Association’s Eighth Annual Policy Forum April 15 on Capitol Hill. The afternoon event coincided almost perfectly with the gyrocopter guy landing on the West Lawn.

The agenda was loaded with heavy hitters. A number of legislators and staffers included Dan Matthews staff director for the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management; Karen Lee, chief of OMB’s Management Controls and Assistance Branch; and Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The key take-away? Federal real property is still important and expensive, so all are anticipating more progress in the new Congress. On what, you might ask? It sounded like the same but more. It's like when your favorite snack cracker has a new amped up recipe and packaging that says "now with more flavor.” For example, Freeze the Footprint will become Reduce the Footprint. GSA will continue to collect and maintain the FRPP inventory, and agencies should keep trying to find creative ways get rid of stuff they don’t need or use.

All of that is fine and good for building management. It’s a source of frustration and, ironically, a cost sink for agencies responsible for a lot of real property in the “other” category. Specifically, land management agencies such as the Interior Department, the Army Corps of Engineers and parts of the Agriculture Department struggle to see the value in collecting and maintaining data that they don’t really use.

It’s expensive to comply with the regulation. Some of these agencies have two or more staff members dedicated full time to collecting and checking data that they don’t use, and there is no evidence that GSA or OMB are using it on their behalf.

Data for data’s sake can be an irritating distraction for managers who would otherwise remain focused on the parallel data collection and analysis efforts underway on the stuff that actually matters most to them. As an alternative to blanket application of these federal facility mandates, a more nuanced approach would reflect the diversity and range of important federal assets. 

For starters, a categorical exclusion from FRPP reporting for all land management agencies is needed. 

Legislation to enable more visibility into how big buildings are managed and disposed of was raised at the meeting by Carper—one of the originators. The need became apparent after he and Tom Coburn, former senator from Oklahoma, toured the Old Chicago Main Post Office. The dilapidated, 2.7 million square foot space was shut down but continued to consume budget for many years awaiting a decision on its fate. Carper and Coburn wanted to encourage agencies to reach cost-saving solutions faster.

Thousands of small buildings got swept up in the government’s well-intentioned efforts to get their arms around this big budget drain. Through the FRPP and Freeze the Footprint, a problem of inverse proportions was inadvertently created. The greatest burden for data collection and compliance falls on the agencies with the highest count of federal buildings—not those with fewer, large buildings. Agencies with small buildings—such as remote cabins converted to backcountry offices and warehouses—are relatively low cost to operate and not at all what the originators had in mind.

So while collecting 25 data elements may not seem like a lot—and it’s not if you have 100 big places—it becomes overwhelming to collect and maintain that data on 25,000 structures all typically smaller than 5,000 square feet.

Further, these agencies lack the authority to dispose of facilities through sales, leasing or transfers without an act of Congress. So they go on collecting the data that is too high-level and imprecise for their unique needs, knowing that no one on the receiving end really cares. The management of these smaller, often remote locations is left up to the agencies—as it always has been.

Granting an exception for the land management agencies that have no office buildings of this scale would immediately save staff assigned to collect and check the data, as well as, countless hours spent correcting data that is never used or analyzed.

Originally posted on govexec.com on April 30, 2014.

count me in, mapping performance metrics to build buy-in

You have an idea and a planned approach to take to your leadership and to start the journey toward buy-in and support. If your boss is a numbers person (and they all are, right?), metrics will be helpful in making your case. 

The metrics I’m referring to are different from the data you might use to demonstrate the problem or to create a sense of urgency. Performance measures are typically implemented near the end just before launch. The idea, of course, is to understand the results or impact the change has had on our desired goal. Articulating what these metrics might be can be a compelling way to demonstrate our understanding of the problem and how tuned in we are to solving it. Giving tangible examples might also help our leadership envision a future state and begin thinking how powerful that information would be.

Yet there are many challenges with creating meaningful metrics, collecting data, and interpreting the results.

• In the beginning, setting up metrics (or even imagining which might be most useful) can be a hurdle to overcome.
• Issues may surround the cost and time associated with collecting the right data, establishing a firm baseline, and figuring out a way to credibly tie back any results you observe to the idea or action you’re proposing to take.

To overcome these challenges, I created this guide  to map existing and develop new performance metrics that align to your organization’s strategic plan. You can also read more about building buy-in with metrics in my book, Flock: Getting Leaders to Follow. Hopefully, the examples will help jump-start your thinking on what might resonate with your leaders. 

what are you talking about?

No, really. It's an honest question. What are you talking about?

I came across The Good Men Project during a typical click to click to click browsing session. I was curious to learn what was meant by "good men" and why the hell this too had to have the "project" bit at the end. (I think PMI's relentless marketing is to blame for the runaway use of this term for anything and everything people want to say, do, or explore on the Internet. Time for a universal find and replace!)

Anyway, I got sucked in and spent a good hour or so clicking around trying to understand what good men are talking about. Scanning the site, I saw stuff on social and family issues, professional challenges, and personal values. This are thoughts on how to raise good children, achieve work/life balance, and improve relationships.

I was surprised. I guess not surprised that men were talking about these things (after all there are men's opinions all over the place) but previously unaware that they were swapping views within a circle of other men.

Prior to coming across this site, I'd imagined that most man-to-man conversations (outside of work or direct father to son type stuff) were focused on sports, maybe a little politics, and on the one slow sports day each year, you might get a a calendar review that went something like, "I went to X, then ate Y, then sat in traffic back to X."

To my knowledge, no such site exists for women. In fact, women have been trying to un-have the conversation about what makes a "good woman" for more than 50 years now.

It made me wonder what people are talking about within their circles of same-ness.  For me? I have a pretty good handle on running conversations among federal management consultants (procurement is broken), working moms (there's never enough time), and half-assed vegans (green smoothies count, right?)

Reflecting on what people are talking about with others they view most similar to them (in life stage, circumstance, interests, race, religion, and so on) provides a lot of insights into their worries and priorities. Understanding these ongoing conversations is important-- not so that we can parachute in to solve them-- but so that we can better understand each other, be more empathetic, and more helpful when the opportunity presents itself.

It's sometimes difficult to answer the question-- what's on your mind? To get to the same place we might instead ask, what are you talking about?

knowing the limits creates freedom

This is desirable not to discourage you from stepping out of bounds. On the contrary, knowing the boundaries enables you to step out with intention which is much better and, ultimately more successful, then doing so accidentally or with sheer force.

When you have a great idea, you want to win over your leadership in a way that sparks their imagination and gets the wheels turning on “how to.” Anything short of that kind of deep, resounding support is risks wasting your time in the long run. But winning someone’s support isn’t easy. The sheer force of your personality—even coupled with strong relationships—won’t cut it.

Instead, you need a plan to ensure that your approach reflects your leadership’s interests and concerns—just to be heard—and then is logically structured around the purpose and function of the organization. Two components are essential to planning your approach:

1. knowing your boss and
2. knowing the boundaries, or the organizational “box.”

“Knowing your boss” involves gaining an understanding of your leadership’s strengths, weaknesses, and work style. Unfortunately, we most often have this information about ourselves and our subordinate staff. We don’t often have the conversation with our leadership about what their styles are. What you’re even less likely to have are any insights into the issues they are working on for themselves with their supervisors. Gaining more insight into what issues your boss or leadership are working on might be difficult, but it’s important to understand as much as you can about where they are in their professional journey. 

In addition to knowing your boss, you need to understand the “box” within which you’re working—what are the documented (and less formal) rules of engagement. This step includes understanding the limits by engaging leadership in sketching them out (if they’re unspoken or inferred). Once you know where the boundaries are, you will also better understand where your solution falls—inside or outside of those bounds. Understanding this upfront is critical for building buy-in for your idea. Shedding any self-imposed constraints and determining anything and everything you can do within your current power is also important to fully exploring the organizational box. 

To solve something in a new, innovative way, you first have to know what new is. Only then can you purposefully step off the prescribed path. One of the most compelling things you can do early on to build support is to demonstrate that you have the perspective, vision, and direction to at least get your idea started and implement whatever aspect of it you can in your own work. Your own adoption of the idea will go a long way in gaining buy-in from leadership.

let's take the next 2 days off

It's been a crazy week. Nearly everyone I've crossed paths this week seemed up to their eyeballs in something.  It's times like these when we're both busy and suspect there are better things we could be doing (such as enjoying the summer) that we search for not-yet-tried productivity tips, hacks, and solutions.

Personal productivity is tricky. We all want to optimize our impact, but the goal seems elusive. Some days, I feel incredibly productive, while other days, I’m just busy. I know other people worry about their productivity, too: about 99 percent of the articles online for Fast Company alone have something to do with increasing our own impact for our time spent working. The message here is that if we’re just better at using our own time, things at work will get better. 

The demand for articles on productivity reveals a lot more about what we’re worried about at work—on a personal level—than it actually changes any of our distracting, counterproductive habits. The truth is we all have varying degrees of productivity and our own yardsticks to measure ourselves and others. There really is no absolute standard for knowledge worker productivity. 

And when it comes to productivity, no matter how much we’re doing, we all worry that it’s not enough. Will my boss think it’s enough? Will my clients be disappointed? Will my coworkers think that I’m not pulling my weight? All these are common concerns but are they worth the continuous retooling of your “to do” list?

The issue with focusing on this tough-to-quantify characteristic is that even if we were all off the charts in terms of our productivity, it doesn’t necessarily mean that our business is better or clients are happier because of it.

Solutions flash across our brains in a matter of seconds. With the right conditions lined up, we can effect change in the course of a day—or a week. And this could be the change the makes all the difference. Focus pushes us toward something big and meaningful. 

Contrast that with the slog we’re often more familiar with. We chip away at big, amorphous problems and settle for progress in the smallest possible increments. Worrying about our own productivity within that system seems really dejecting. Working harder or more diligently on a problem that will never or should never be solved is an unfulfilling way to live and work.

The other problem with worrying about productivity is the concern that someone senior to us isn’t going to think we’re sufficiently productive so we hold off asking for anything else. Until we’re feeling like we’re at the top of our game and are producing everything they’ve asked, plus a little more, these little worries around our worth and value linger.

Often times, the best way to generate ideas to is stop putting so much pressure on ourselves and our teams to produce them. Let them simply come to us whether it be a quiet moment or part of a team discussion, a highly productive day or simply a day when we’re busy. In the end, it’s the idea that may be of greatest importance, not the productivity that surrounded it.

three steps lead down a better path

So, you’ve hatched an idea. That’s great! Now what do you do with it?

The challenge now is figuring out how to share that idea in an interesting, intriguing, or compelling way and start the process of achieving buy-in. To start, you have to get ultra-clear on precisely what problem you’re solving, what the impact will be, who will need to be consulted, and whether it’s an idea even worthy of being said out loud to begin with.

To sort, shape, and validate the idea, ask yourself (or your team) the following questions:

1. Sort the idea by problem solved: What issue does this idea solve? What pain does it eliminate? Is it a total or partial solution? How do you know that this is a problem? Include the supporting the data, trend, or feedback that not only speaks to the existence of the problem but its magnitude.
2. Shape: To shape your idea, examine how known culture, attitudes, resources, spending sensitivities, and anything particularly polarizing should be considered. What about external conditions, such as the economy, public perception, customer/market surveys, industry trends and so on? Will they have an impact? Make adjustments or shape your solution to account for (or acknowledge) these factors.
3. Validate: Do you have a confidante or trusted adviser whom you can safely bounce ideas off of? Ideally, this is someone who isn’t directly affected by the proposed outcome but who has some understanding of the organization and purpose. Someone like this can be invaluable and, such these relationships really blossom when they’re reciprocal. Touch base with a trusted adviser to float your concept and get a gut reaction. Based on their feedback, decide if tweaks are needed, additional people should be pulled in, or if you’re good to go.

Disciplining yourself to take these three early steps for each idea you’re passionate about pursuing helps lay the foundation for success in the future.

days gone by

Two Fridays ago, I wrote about CBP here and their fresh take on the federal workplace.

Just for fun this week, I wanted to share some pictures from another federal facility that opened the year I was born-- 1974. I had the pleasure of working in this location over the last couple of days.

The physical structure is so rigid that even with recent updates to the floors and furniture, you can't help but feel like you stepped back in time. Someone said they said they saw a dedication plaque from President Nixon but I couldn't find that little gem.

Bonus points if you know where this is...

Have a great weekend!

the truth about change

Didn't George Carlin have a classic joke about driving? It went something like -- anyone driving faster that you is a maniac, anyone slower is an idiot. So, so true. And actually, the same is true about change at work. The bottom-line is that we're all most comfortable when we're in the driver's seat and controlling the speed.

So, counter to the concept that “people hate change,” the desire for change is fundamental to who we are. We just want to be in charge of change and how it impacts us. We can’t help but observe our surroundings and think of all the ways our processes, relationships, and environments could be better. 

And we crave impact from that change—and not in a static, predictable kind of way. We crave being part of a team and being connected to others. This isn’t an introvert versus extrovert thing, but a recognition that we all need and want to feel part of something greater than ourselves. 

We want to leave our mark by making changes—even slight ones—to our world. This desire is most often channeled through our work but because we’re paid to do so, an immediate, dynamic tension is created. As we arrive at the office or log on in our jammies from home, we become a force driven to make change. I don’t know about you, but that’s what I’m thinking when slogging through hundreds of e-mails each day.

And on that point, what if you’re already feeling overworked and overwhelmed? Doesn’t pitching new ideas just make matters worse? Is it even worth it?

This is one of those cases where the opposite is true. You feel better when you proactively pitch ideas and pursue the changes that you want to see at work because it puts you in the driver’s seat. Conversely, we get anxious when we cede control of our days and stop being the director of our own energy.

All of our organizational constructs—the org chart hierarchies, networks, training sessions, meetings—were all created to tamp out, fan, guide, or otherwise control all that energy. Taking some of that control back can be accomplished by thoughtfully pitching an idea.

this is your career

Available on Amazon!

This is your career. Whether you have your dream job or “just a job,” you owe it to yourself to bring your best ideas forward. If you’re doing work today in exchange for money, it all counts toward the body of work that is your experience, your contributions, your career.

Waiting to do your best work until a better role comes along is a lost opportunity regardless of whether you plan to stay in this line of work in the future.

Once you make the decision to fully participate in your career (and if you’re reading this, my guess is that you made that decision a long time ago), getting leadership buy-in and support for your ideas is essential. Not taking action because you can’t (or because you don’t want to try) to earn your boss’s buy-in is, ultimately, an excuse and one that completely impedes your ability to meaningfully contribute.

Don’t you owe it to yourself—and your ideas—to share them?

Today, I'm launching my first book, Flock: Getting Leaders to Follow. It's the why and how to gain leadership buy-in and support for your ideas so that you can have the kind of impact you want in your career.  Click here to download a copy and let me know what you think!

we need more words for meetings

There’s a rumor passed down from one Anthropology 101 class to the next each year.  Eskimos have like 30 words for snow. Whether it’s true or not, the idea that communities come up with more descriptive terms for their most frequent events makes sense. It also makes sense that someone else who sees a snow a couple times a year would be baffled by this buffet. It’s just snow. Snow is snow.

Meetings are my snow. And, probably yours too.

Many of us work in a climate where the weekly forecast calls tons of meetings. They’re often back-to-back and sometimes go for days on end. Many are purposeless, energy-depleting endurance events and others have no value. It’s not news that meetings are unpopular.

But for someone who spends a lot of her time planning, attending, facilitating and following-up after meetings, this bad rep bums me out, man. I kinda like ‘em—especially the ones that are clear in the objective and when everyone is paying attention and participating.

Using the umbrella meeting label for any event calling for 2 or more people to communicate with each other is how meetings became comparable to unmedicated dental work. I’d argue that not all meetings are the same and the bad ones are ruining it for the rest. For example, conference, summit, gathering, and party are all meetings. These terms conjure up something specific with the expectation that something interesting will happen. Right?

On the flip side, here are a couple words that I think should be added to the lexicon that describe what we hate with more precision.

• Duck, duck, staff: When you go around the room and “tap” each person one at a time.  Adding random selection to the typical, let’s-go-around-the-room update helps make sure everyone is paying attention.
• Monopo-me: Many gather at the request of one. Time is generously but begrudgingly donated to the cause making one person feel important and listened to. The real message heard? Me. Me. Me.
• Statusize: Like jazzercise but less strenuous. You’re not sure you actually accomplished anything but you showed up and there are points for that.  Everyone does jazz hands at the ends because, well, it’s over.
• Strategery: Held annually because you’re supposed to or in crisis because you have to. These events have the build-up and the buzz words (strategic, innovative, creative, solution-oriented) but no real way to get there.
• Catch-up: Quick, casual and not time-sensitive. Just like the homonym suggests, you squeeze out what you can and don’t worry about what’s left in the packet.  You have a dozen more in the glove compartment.

We should skim these dreaded events out of the pool and reserve the word “meeting” for those occasions when we get together with purpose, focus, and function.

Together, we can save meetings.  Will you join me?

when more data doesn't work

I get so much out of reading Seth Godin's posts because he puts words and perspective to many of the common frustrations we encounter at work. His precision around communications is just so, so useful such as this post on how to win an argument with a scientist.

Seth's point is to know when to stop talking and charting and start to regrouping and trying another angle. This trick is knowing when additional data and logic has ceased to persuade your audience. Recognizing this this point-- which may come at time between the spark of an idea and full implementation-- saves tons of frustration and rework.

To make it a little personal, I'm interested in nutrition.  The more science the better. I'm a complete sucker for any food-related headline starting with, "New study shows...."I'll read and consider it especially if it relates to the benefits of wine and chocolate.

Conversely, I'm completely uninterested in an electric toothbrush. I couldn't care less about how many dentists agree and actually get annoyed when certain people keep pointing to the science. A plain ol' toothbrush and floss seem to work great for me and I might resort to posting my cavity to cavity count scorecard in the bathroom if those same certain people persist. 

We accept and embrace science when it jives with how we already see the world. This truth doesn't mean that we can't be convinced to change our minds, it just means that we have to examine other angles. This is the fundamental challenge of communications at work and what makes coming up wit the strategy so interesting. 

getting clear on roles

They say that good fences make good neighbors. Good fences at work make us focus—clarifying roles to keep the important and relevant issues in and everything else out.

From sweeping initiatives to mundane meetings, we all show up on any given day and assigned a roll that is one of three. These rolls are to unlock, propel or support the solution in motion. Knowing our role (and sticking to it) increases our impact while enabling others to play their part-- not to mention avoiding confusion, frustration, and disappointment. Let's break this down a bit...

• To unlock is to bring expertise to the problem, clarify the issues, and offer paths that work (or just might work). To be the unlock-er, you show up prepared-- armed with questions, with data, with anecdotes, with horror stories, whatever you need to get clear on the challenge so that you can credibly and confidently propose a solution and convince others to consider your options. The performance metric is binary.  Will the solution work for now- yes or no?
• To propel is to apply all the kick-off, kick-start, kick-ass project management, list-making, and inspiration skills you can muster. With conviction, your job is to move the (already agreed-upon) solution forward, generating excitement and momentum along the way. The performance metric is binary. Is the project progressing for now- yes or no?
• To support is to show up, play as a team, coordinate, collaborate, and celebrate the little successes. With dedication and reliability, you embrace the processes and protocols.  Like the others, the performance metric is binary. Are you getting your job done- yes or no?

We can all quickly recall occasions (probably from this morning) when the lack of fencing around these roles created a problem-- an avoidable problem heaped on top of the original one we were there to solve. One reason why we stumble over these roles is that they are ever-changing. Depending on the need, we're called upon to flex different skills. This is clearly easiest when you know what's expected.  

So, the trick for whoever is in charge is to ascertain what's needed in the moment, line up who's right for what, communicate that expectation, and go. Rinse and repeat for the next issue. 

the problems with project-focused organization units

Watching people swim laps is pretty boring. Some people are faster, some are slower. Most do some kind of flip turn, some cling to end to sneak in a couple of deep gasps before paddling back in the other direction. The lane ropes separately them are absolutely critical to maintaining order and ensuring everyone gets the basic “work” of their swim done. 

Watching people (especially kids) play in the pool is totally different. It’s loud, a little chaotic, and unpredictable—swimmers disappear periodically under the water only to pop back up some place else. If someone thought to bring a raft or noodle, the ever-changing games are played just a little differently. Occasionally someone gets kicked in the head but still there are no ropes separating the swimmers. Those would defeat the purpose.

Our organizations are largely built to sustain lap swimming. There is a ton of work to do each day. We need clear focus and direction to get things done. However, few of our best organizational leaps forward cleanly fall within the boundaries of one division. 

So every once in a while, an opportunity comes up at work that requires experts from different divisions—a chance to pull people from their organizational swim lanes into the big open pool to do something special. There, they’re all mixed together and suddenly need to rethink how they swim.

When cross-divisional opportunities come up (especially big, important ones), someone will often pipe up with the idea to create one big lane (a combined organizational unit). It idea is that they’re relieved of their regular swimming duties and allowed to focus on the new, new thing. These initiative or project-focused units are typically promised a new box on the org chart, a new hierarchy with new leadership positions, and is often shown reporting directly to someone very senior. The whole thing can be really attractive to those tapped to create something new, as well as, the leadership who thinks they’re buying progress, agility, and accountability.

The message is that this new project is important and we can’t trust the existing organizations to come together, get creative, collaborate, and work it out.  After all, we need to get it done already.  Right?  

Well, sometimes these realignments absolutely make sense such as when the business model is fundamentally changing and certain services are no longer needed or will be outsourced.
Other times, these pop-up project-focused groups undermine the existing structure.  Assuming that you’re not doing away with finance, communications or IT any time soon, projects that skim a few key resources from these functions create more problems than they solve.

• For one, the residual organizations feel robbed.
• Then, the new group spends a lot of time figuring out how to secure resources and be productive together.
• Lastly, the leadership is put into the position of defending and refereeing instead of enjoying watching actions get ticked off the list.

Alternatively, time is better spent helping existing organizations collaborate productively. A series of facilitated planning discussions focused on who does what and when can move projects forward faster and with fewer kicks in the head.

the workplace reimagined

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) hosted the Federal Real Property Association (FRPA) members today at their 90 K Street NE offices to show off their revamped and renewed workplace.  Over the last several years, a team led by Trent Frazier has worked on tackling a big problem. CBP had a large and growing workforce delivering a critical mission that was facing a large and growing rent bill if something didn't change.

What they did: Removed assigned desks/offices, removed desktop computers and telephones, and removed the requirement and expectation to be physically in the office for set hours, 5 days/week. Added tablets with computing and phone capabilities, added shared work and collaboration space, and reinforced existing team-building and performance management practices.

What they accomplished:  What they've accomplished is both logical and remarkable. Logical in that all of the steps CBP took just make sense. It is remarkable, however, that they've so fundamentally reimagined work and workplaces for a federal program with all of the tradition and history that is both rich and constraining.

CBP started where many agencies are today. They had a federal and contracted workforce very much accustomed to working in conventional space—with a literal and figurative tether to a desk in an office. CBP saw this as a problem and an opportunity. Their workforce and the way people work was changing. That force was happening with or without intentional action on the part of CBP. 

Many employee’s responsibilities had evolved over the last decade to essentially require the movement of information from one place to another while interpreting, analyzing, and making recommendations in the process. CBP’s physical environment didn't match where they wanted or needed to go to support that more agile, mobile, responsive mission work.

So to start, they stopped viewing their workplace as a real estate challenge and, instead, viewed it as a people challenge.  Makes sense, right? Right. Well that mindset became fundamental to all of the decisions that followed and was the first point Trent and his team needed to sell to senior leadership.

With the executive staff onboard (at least in concept), CBP launched a pilot because, of course, that’s the cool thing to do in DC right after complaining about traffic and the weather.  And sometimes things are popular for good reason, they got some great lessons learned at out of the test.  Here are a few:

“We all talk about ‘results-oriented management practices’ but that was too lofty of a goal going in. We needed to focus on the basics like calendaring and electronic file storage but ended up getting the bigger stuff too.”

— Trent Frazier, Director at US Customs and Border Protection

• Don’t cherry pick the space.  Take what is available and make it work. The constraints might actually help spark more creative solutions.
• Count on the need to quantify the return on investment. CBP’s goal was to pay back the agency all of the upfront investment in tools, technology, and process changes within 36 months of implementation. How would they realize that savings?  By reducing the office space needed for staff—a direct reduction of rent costs per employee.  And for CBP, that savings is an estimated 36 percent. Based on their successes, they plan to aim higher for their next project.
• With the people piece top of mind, teach employees how to work in the new environment. Allow ample time for staff to get used to the new way of working. Don’t remove the old systems (desktops and phones) and simply replace them with tablets.  Instead, distribute the new technology with ample training and let people have both. Also, allow employees to practice hoteling in their familiar office location. Whatever the new, new thing is, support them in migrating at their own pace and retrain or provide hands-on support when needed.

Listening to Trent talk about CBP and their workplace transformation, you get the sense that he is precisely the right person to be leading this change. He has the experience, the insights, and vision, and the sense of humor to disarm even the most skeptical CBP agents. In his closing remarks, he said, “It’s not hard to come up with the technical solutions. It’s hard to convince people that they’re the right ones.  Change management is critical.”

Indeed.

fit in or stand out

Girl with Asymmetrical Bob Hair by Marta Biittner

To advance your career, you can only do one at a time. Trying to do both will make your head spin—and not in a good “just a glass of rose on the patio” kind of way.

Ahh. It’s really lovely here in DC at the moment. And, it’s really just for the moment because, as any resident will tell you, the weather here is exempt from complaining only about 2 days a year. It’s either too cold or too hot and humid to do anything—so we all just work, instead.

Some of the lovelies that I have the pleasure of working with daily had me thinking about this tug we all feel from time to time. It’s a tug that pulls us in-- seeking ways to make ourselves fit. At other times, it’s a tug the other way—a pull to stand up and stand out. 

Both states of being at work are right and are both important. Despite what your coach or momma might tell you, you can’t be all one way, all of the time. Building awareness of where you are in your career, what the organization needs from you at the moment, and how to intentionally toggle between the two is an important skill.  

Understanding that being new to the job or newly promoted probably warrants a period of learning the ropes and fitting in. Your days might be filled with a lot of active listening, reading, studying others, and sticking pretty close to delivering what you’ve been asked to produce. 

Other times demand that you intentionally stand up and stand out. Big changes on the horizon? Is leadership needed to set a more profitable course for the future? Assuming that you’re working under normal office conditions (i.e., not managing a crisis response team in Nepal), efforts to stand out are more effective when done from a foundation of understanding. When you have a solid grasp of your organization’s purpose and culture, your ideas and suggestions come from a point of strength and awareness, as opposed to wild ass guesses about what might just work.

have you heard?

I binged on Ted Talks during the long 11 mile drive between Virginia and Maryland yesterday evening on my way to celebrate on a dear friend's 40th birthday eve.  Here's what I heard en route...

• Why we need to rethink capitalism from Paul Tudor Jones.  It's a goodie and, don't worry. You can keep your Lexus.  
• How to manage for collective creativity by Linda Hill. I got something different out of this than what I was expecting based on the title. Linda pinpoints the leadership characteristics needed to spark and grow innovative companies. It's both thought-provoking and practical. I'm also happy to report that Linda has a completely normal, easy to understand voice. Without realizing it, I'd hit 2x (the speed) on my phone.  For the whole first half, she sounded like a chipmunk after a venti. Good to know though for the future that you can speed up the boring ones.
• In praise of macro — yes, macro — finance in Africa by Sangu Delle. Sangu had me at "gluten-free banana flour." This guy makes a compelling case for bigger markets that yield bigger opportunities.

Swirl all of the messages together and you get... Innovative leaders are needed to build big, just companies.  Oh yeah and traffic on the inner loop at 5:30 still sucks.

Have a great weekend!

Planning to plan? Answer these 9 questions first

A client asked me this morning to review and comment on his organization’s strategic plan template.  A template?  Wait, what? After a bit of (polite) questioning, I learned that this client's organization director is asking several sub-units to draft strategic plans. Once completed, these plans will be rolled up into a master strategic plan.  

I wanted to respond with something helpful but the thoughts racing through my mind went something like... "You can’t template a strategic plan. I mean, sure, there are a handful of broad headers that you could type up but to what end?  Creating a template would exacerbate one of the biggest problems with our typical approaches to strategic planning. And that problem is more focus on the end document than the process of discovery, team building, creative thinking, and cross-discipline input.

Back to my client... he elaborated that he was looking for some thought-provoking questions to include in an annotated outline. The outline would be the basis of a strategic planning meeting agenda and would be during the session to facilitate discussion. Sigh.  Ok, that makes sense.  Based on his request, I jotted down some basic strategic planning guidelines and the kind of questions you should be asking of your team.

“Bottom up planning is different and worth trying for organizations really needing or wanting buy-in. It’s not fast or neat or clean but you will get a pretty good sense of what gets people interested and excited about the mission. ”

Before doing “save as” and creating your spanking new strategic plan file, set some time parameters.  As arbitrary as they might seem, establishing short but reasonable boundaries around the effort is tremendously helpful to participants.  Without sideboards, strategic planning can and will go on forever and eventually be crushed under its own weight  So, I’d suggest that you set a deadline of about a week-- 2 max.  Seriously. You (meaning all the participants in your organization) really do not need more time. Simple and clear beats perfect and polished.

Ok, here you go...

Problem Statement

1. What are two problems we're trying to solve?  (Sit back and enjoy the range of answers. Giving everyone 2 helps them focus and provides a little wiggle room)
2. How do other comparable organizations describe the same or similar problem? (Include for a quick compare and contrast exercise.)

Current State and Desired End State

1. Briefly describe where the organization stands today in the face of this problem.
2. In an ideal world, where would you be and by when?  Answering this question can and will consume most of the discussion. You can only include this question if there is a pretty good sense of the options. If the problem is truly unsolved, additional research and exploration is needed. A good meeting but just one step back. Another thing... Personally, I recommend that you keep the goals modest and the timelines relatively near-term.  Multi-year strategic plans have very limited practical value.

Stakeholders and Customers

1. Who or what is impacted by the problem? Try to name the biggies and cut people off before you get too far past 6-8.
2. Within the organization, who owns the biggest pieces of trying to solve this? (Good list for pulling in future reviewers and collaborators)
3. Who are you trying to please, support, engage, or help?  These are your customers (even if you’re not “selling” anything.) Spend most of the time you have talking about this group then take another pass through your decisions and tweak from the customer’s point of view.
4. Besides you, who outside of the organization cares about this outcome?

Opportunities and Limitations

1. What events can you reasonable anticipate in the set time frame that you want to take advantage of or avoid.  Keep it short and snappy.
2. So what’s the path?
3. Given all the thoughts above, provide some sense of the range of options considered.  Which path best takes advantage of all of the resources at your disposal? This is your strategic path.  Write this down—on paper if that’s easiest.

Evaluation Points

1. What logical evaluation points along the path exist?  Mark these roughly on your calendar and commit to a quick (less than 1 meeting) evaluation of how you’re doing.

Have fun with it.  To me, one of the most commonly missed opportunities with strategic planning is that we all take it too seriously and limit input to only the coolest kids in the office.  Lame.  Instead, even the most modest effort to make it interesting, take some guesses, accept some risk, and integrate as many viewpoints as possible will make this different from the last time.

Oh and encourage participants/contributors not to get too hung up on the language and meaning of strategic.  I’d say that a plan is strategic if it reflects multiple viewpoints and illuminates a path forward-- given the best information available at the time.  A project plan would follow and describe the step-by-step once this approach is finalized.