Okay, so you have successfully made people realize they have got a problem and that maybe change is a good thing (see post 26/01/11). You have got push, but is it enough? Do not ‘stoke up the fire’ any more, shift your attention to reducing their fear of the future, of the unknown, Schein teaches us (The Corporate Culture Survival Guide, 1999). Often fear of the future is stronger than the fear of staying put.

So what can you do to reduce the fear of the future. First of all you paint a picture of that future that is understandable for the individual, taking the individuals’ interests into account. As long as people cannot visualize their future, the great majority will be reluctant to change.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations)

The minimalistic way to describe the future is multiplying the present situation with minus 1. For example: in the future the student registration system is fast not slow, students are satisfied not dissatisfied, et cetera. Contrary to the description of the present situation however, where you stick strictly to observed fact, in describing the future you use your and other people’s expertise and creativity to enhance the picture. For example: performance standards have been agreed with all stakeholders and the performance is regularly evaluated, leading to continuous improvements.

You can even create a really compelling perspective, an attractive vision as recommended by Kotter (Leading Change, 1996). This will induce so called creative tension, a pull towards a common goal. People then behave proactively, your role becomes more one of coaching and less convincing and directing. And don’t worry, at this stage it is not necessary to know how you will get to that future, that will be the next – solution – stage, but only to understand what will be awaiting you at the end of the road.

In my problem solving courses, we spend quite a bit of time defining the problem. A challenge there is to tap into the motivation to deal with the issue of parties concerned, the stakeholders. Surprisingly though, people wanting to solve a problem often forget to take this step. They limit themselves to a sort of emotionless statement of the present situation. But does it motivate other people to act if you tell them ‘the student registration system is slow’? They might react ‘Yeah, and so what? You have got time on your hands, haven’t you?’

Tapping into motivation is all the more important the more independent and professional the people involved are. If people work under strict supervision, it is relatively easy to make them change their way of working. Not so when you are trying for instance to make a consultant change his ways, this consultant working alone with the client and out of your sight for most of the time. In other words, a situation with a strong possibility for pocket veto, that is to say ‘yes’ and then do ‘no’.

So how do to deal with this? Determine and address their interests. What if you add: ‘the students are complaining that they cannot prepare for their first lectures.’ And it is the dean you’re addressing. Or, ‘it means that the invoices are not sent out in due time’, and you are talking to the person financially responsible? Or, the University marketer before you, ‘so the students have problems getting their scholarships and they turn to other Universities!’

Determining and addressing interests threatened by the issue creates the much needed ‘suffering’ or Leidensdruck that the psychologists will tell you is a prerequisite for change. It is in this context that the ‘founder of social psychology’ Kurt Lewin coined the phrase “unfreeze, change, freeze” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Lewin.

De bijlage Opinie & Debat van de NRC van 7 en 8 januari opende met de kop We lijden aan obsessieve digitale verzamelwoede. Het artikel trok mijn aandacht, zeker waar ik kort geleden begonnen ben e-mails te deleten die niet onder de administratieve eisen van de belastingdienst vallen of anderszins als belangrijke referentie kunnen dienen. Omdat mijn Outlook-pst file maar groeit en groeit. En zeker waar ik met stijgende frustratie naar de eindeloze stroom tweets kijk die ik via LinkedIn op mijn mobiel krijg, of, eerlijker, binnenhaal. Wil ik dit allemaal lezen, hoef ik dit allemaal te lezen, kan ik me permitteren om dit allemaal te lezen?! Zoals auteurs Anouk van Kampen en Jan Truijens Martinez schrijven: “Doordat we alles registreren en niet hoeven te verwijderen, naderen we het keerpunt, waarbij het bekijken van onze foto’s en het lezen van alle meningen die we op internet hebben achtergelaten meer tijd in beslag neemt dan het leven dat ons nog rest.” ‘People, Planet, Profit? Sorry, geen tijd, ik moet mijn status updates nog lezen!’

Aan het eind van hun artikel stellen de auteurs “…we (hebben) juist een machine nodig die ons helpt te selecteren. Een machine die ons leert te bepalen wat het onthouden en beleven waard is.” Hoe diep moet je gezonken zijn om een machine nodig te hebben om te leren wat het onthouden en het beleven waard is? Van Kampen en Truijens Martinez komen niet met die machine over de bühne, Piers Steel reikt mogelijk handvatten aan in zijn boek The Procrastination Equation. How to Stop Putting Things Off and Start Getting Stuff Done, als ik de bespreking in de NRC van 26 juni 2011 mag geloven. Piers Steel heeft onderzocht wat uitstelgedrag is en hoe je daar wat aan kunt doen. Hij stelt “Chronische uitstellers zijn over het algemeen geen perfectionisten, maar impulsieve mensen die geen weerstand aan verleiding kunnen bieden.”  Aha!

Wat noteerde ik met een rode cirkel er omheen op 2 januari? Prioriteiten 2012 opschrijven! Verleiding is namelijk direct aanwezig, verleiding komt door de maag, is emotioneel, is gratis. Prioriteit daarentegen is rationeel, prioriteit moet je organiseren om te kennen en je hebt discipline nodig om het toe te passen. Wat dan in ons werk is het onthouden en het beleven waard? Mijn advies aan mezelf en aan u? Neem nu de tijd om achterover te leunen en goed na te denken en te voelen, echt eerlijk naar jezelf te zijn. En hang het resultaat in grote letters aan de wand. Dan heb je er nog bijna een heel jaar plezier van. Succes!

After the holidays I have to get back into the routine again. Especially the routine of doing the most important, urgent and not urgent things and not just the most urgent. Recognize this?

I had my first encounter with time management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_management) sometime in the eighties. I was part of the 15% of participants in a two-day course that actually took up the methodology. Later, among other sources, I found Stephen Covey’s enhancement of the explanation for the important-not urgent quadrant of the Eisenhower diagram most enlightening: investing in the future. Only last year I was made aware of Getting Things Done by David Allen. Combining all their input and my own knowledge and experience of the subject, I now have the following checklist on my wall:

Daily order of priority

Plan:
- Yourself. If you do not manage yourself, you cannot manage others. To be able to effectively manage yourself, you first determine your own priorities.
- Others: processing inboxes and stuff. If you do not manage others, that will have a leveraged negative effect. To prevent other people’s priorities taking over your day, you only open yourself to external input after you have planned your own day.

Excel in your job and/or social life. That is what all the management is for, that is what you are paid for or why you are considered a good friend, husband or father, wife or mother.

Maintain your own organization, invest in the future. If you do not pro-actively take care of yourself, one day you will find that the machine stops running.

Finish off all activities. Leaving loose ends will build up a backlog of work that will trip you up when you can least afford it.

Evaluate your day.

Good luck with your restart!

When introducing quality management systems, often the word quality is used without too many questions asked. Possibly people feel they would disqualify themselves if they asked for further explanation. Quality is an undefined notion though. If people are left to define quality for themselves, if the exact content of the notion is not discussed, all kind of different interpretations might result. One or more definition could be applicable to the organisation or a part thereof:

1. Following procedure
2. Conforming to specifications
3. Fulfilling needs and expectations
4. Delighting the customer
5. Managing expectations of all stakeholders
6. Managing people, planet, profit with a view to future generations

Important is that everyone in the team shares the same understanding of what (combination) they are going for. Else for instance one person could be trying to excel at a sizable cost, whereas his colleague could be trying to stick to procedure to minimize cost. Or one person could be … Whatever is the case, the definitions listed above seem to sum up all the possibilities. Or maybe not?

In preparing an exam I used a real life case in which the truth was that quality was defined as staying out of trouble while making money! To illustrate, when presented with an analysis of the top 5 dissatisfied customers, the directors’ first reaction was “Can’t we get rid of them?” My students made the exam, some came up with good answers like option 1 and 2, but none went for the 7^th option I gave: “Or else … ?”. Clearly, although there was clear evidence of this situation in the case description. the option was just not acceptable. But true nevertheless!

So have you agreed the definition of quality with your colleagues?

In oktober stond de krant er nog vol van, inmiddels zijn we al gewend. De regering is terug naar de situatie van voor 2002, tussen 12 Europese landen staat Nederland op een 9^e plek met de deelname van vrouwen aan de regering. ‘En dus?’ zegt u?

(Gegevens grafieken uit NRC 16-17/10/10, Zelfs mannen zien tekort aan vrouwen in kabinet)

De NRC kopte Politiek als voorbeeld samenleving voorbij (NRC, 12/10/10). Het artikel meldde “Op de vraag waarom Rutte niet meer vrouwen heeft aangesteld, reageerde de aanstaande premier dat bij de selectie van het kabinet alleen gekeken is naar kwaliteit.” Yvonne Benschop, hoogleraar bedrijfskunde aan der Radboud Universiteit in Nijmegen, reageerde “De impliciete boodschap is dus dat er geen geschikte vrouwen zijn. Dat is niet waar, er is gewoon niet naar gezocht.” Ik ben het daar hartgrondig mee eens.

Diverse teams presteren beter. Sinds oktober vorig jaar weten we bovendien dat niet alleen de gezamenlijke intelligentie van een goed samenwerkende groep hoger ligt dan die van individuele leden, maar ook dat de neiging tot goed samenwerken gerelateerd is aan het aantal vrouwen in die groep (Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010, October 2). Collective intelligence: Number of women in group linked to effectiveness in solving difficult problems. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/09/100930143339.htm?ref=nf). De onderzoekers vermoeden dat dit verschijnsel te wijten is aan de gemiddeld hogere sociale sensitiviteit van die vrouwen. En als we Manfred Kets de Vries mogen geloven (Management Team 39, 10/9/10), aan minder narcisme?

Waarheen verschuiven onze prioriteiten als het aantal vrouwen (hoger) in onze organisaties afneemt? In Cultures and Organizations (2005) geven Geert en Gert Jan Hofstede het volgende overzicht:

Let u op, geen overlap tussen de prioriteiten van de twee groepen! Trekt u zelf uw conclusies. Ik stel voor dat we ze terughalen, heren?

Dear all, 

How magnificent will the world be where everyone respect each other. The other day I saw this beautifully described as*:

“… … a community where everyone:

I cannot better put into words what world I wish for you for 2011! And that your contribution to it will be looked upon with respect.

* Source: Pedagogische Begeleidingsdienst, Departement Onderwijs & Opvoeding – Stad Gent. Gelijkwaardigheid en respect voor diversiteit Retrieved 31/12/10 from http://www.pbdgent.be/oldsite/kinderopvang/prngelijkwaardigheid.htm

A while ago a colleague and I were invited to deliver a lecture on individual professionalization at the technical university of Delft. Now if you are an independent professional in my line of work, the responsibility for professionalism lies with yourself. There are no legal standards nor obligatory standards with the Dutch Association of Management consultants. So how did I get to be the professional I consider myself to be and what makes me confident that I am up to the jobs I accept?

In addition to potluck stuff like being born into an academic household, without television, reading a couple of books a day, in addition to the training events that I participate in, I came up with three factors. Each carries a risk.

First an attitude of always wanting to know, to understand. Insatiable curiosity, so whenever you read, look, talk you associate, you organize, you find uses. It does carry a risk of spreading yourself thin, trying to know and understand everything.

Secondly the determination to learn from experiences, in work as well as live, from the good as well as the bad ones. What did you do well and what could you improve? I would suggest that the risk is that you become too hard on yourself.

Lastly the love of challenges. Reaching just that little bit higher, taking the holistic approach, encompassing all elements of your clients’ need. The risk: failing to see a need for specialists?

I am a lucky person, my hobby is learning and my work is learning! Mrs. Lubavitch, doyenne of the ‘oldest profession’ described: ‘Oy, yoy, is this a business . . .  you got it, you sell it and you still got it!’ (in: Sveiby, Lloyd (1987) Managing Knowhow). I do even better as I can say: ‘I got it, I sell it and then I got more!’

Kort geleden kopte de NRC: Ook de machtigen moeten slapen. Vermoeidheid en stress kunnen onderhandelaars, politici en wereldleiders tot slechte beslissingen kunnen brengen. (http://archief.nrc.nl/?modus=l&text=machtigen+moeten+slapen&hit=3&set=1) Het artikel beschrijft een aantal uitglijders in de politiek die geweten kunnen worden aan oververmoeidheid. En het citeert neuroloog Hans Hamburger: “Maar uit onderzoek blijkt (ook) dat als mensen langere tijd achter elkaar minder dan vijf uur slapen, hun cognitieve vermogens daaronder stevig lijden.” Maar is het alleen in dit soort extreme situaties, of kan het veel eerder al het geval zijn dat je beter even uit kunt stappen uit een intensief besluitvormingsproces?

In Het slimme onbewuste (2007) beschreef Ap Dijksterhuis hoe ‘onbewuste nadenkers’ bij complexe beslisproblemen betere beslissingen namen. ‘Onbewuste’ nadenkers wil zeggen mensen die eerst even wat anders gaan doen voor ze een beslissing nemen, die eerst even hun onbewuste een kans geven om de informatie te verwerken. Er zit dus wat in, wat Meatloaf zong eind jaren ’70: Let me sleep on it and I’ll give you my answer in the morning!’

Het complexiteitsomslagpunt, zo bleek uit onderzoek, ligt ergens tussen 4 en 8 kenmerken.

(Illustratie vertaald uit Dijksterhuis, A. (2007) Het slimme onbewuste Amsterdsam: Bert Bakker)

Hoeveel kenmerken hebben uw complexe beslissingen? En hoe gaat u dan met die beslissingen om? Wanneer de druk op de ketel staat? Om kwaliteitsgoeroe Philip Crosby te citeren: There is never enough time to do things right first time, but there is always enough time to do them again! Ga dus eerst eens lekker lunchen, voor u dat besluit neemt, of sla een balletje. U zult zien, ook onderzocht, u bent veel tevredener met de uitkomst van uw beslissing!

A week ago, delivering a Project management training in France, I had a discussion with a participant on the words ‘in a structured manner’ being part of the definition of project management. The participant was adamantly against ‘structure’, I argued that it was indeed the structure in my preparation that allowed me to improvise in the delivery. To me, structure represents the black and yellow poles sticking out of thick snow that prevent you from losing your way in the mountains. Probably your off the path more than on it, but you are getting to your destination: 

Only true professionals properly improvise, that is, act instantaneously ánd effectively. Think of professionals like Navy Seals, negotiators, the RAC mechanics, the stand-up comedians at Boom Chicago in the Leidseplein in Amsterdam. In these cases successful improvisation is not a coincidence, it is enabled by their rigorous preparation. Structure again?

Another thing I find that comes with rigorous preparation, is an opportunity for flow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)). When you can take your mind of the stuff that needs to be there in any case, you can let go in the discussions, in the free associations. And really relish the experience.

Structure versus improvisation is not black versus white. Professor Wim de Moor once presented to me structure versus improvisation on a continuum. Both extremes of the continuum were clearly over the top, be it at the one end stasis – stagnant uniform thinking i.e. extreme bureaucracy – or at the other chaos – stagnant anarchy. At the one extreme the organisation will implode, at the other it will explode. In the middle though, we find dynamism, creativity, innovation, flexibility and entrepreneurship. That is the positive centre of our balancing, dependant on circumstances and avoiding the extremes.

Structure? Yes, as much as needed and no more than necessary!