Both/and Trumps Either/Or

The business and political worlds are catching up with what the great religions have long known and science has discovered in the last 200 years.  The deepest understanding and practical progress in all fields is driven by a “both/and” approach, rather than by a deterministic “either/or” approach. 

Post-enlightenment westerners have struggled to fully digest the slippery, evolving dynamic nature of the Asian concept of yin and yang.   Many believers, clerics and secular leaders have simplified, denied or ignored the deeper meanings of the Christian trinity, relationship with Judaism and tension between the vertical (God) and horizontal (community) demands of the faith.  The fully developed religions provide training, terminology, sacraments and advice to attract, retain and grow members, without reducing “the mystery of faith” to a simple recipe.

The western scientific tradition meets the heartfelt needs of man for a deterministic description of the universe, delivering the potential for security expressed in Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”.  Aristotle, Euclid and Newton are rightfully celebrated for their authoritative development and formalization of logic, geometry and physics.

Nineteenth and twentieth century science shattered the deterministic paradigm, replacing it with a probabilistic paradigm.  This was presaged by Hegel’s philosophical method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.  Thomas Kuhn’s mid-twentieth century history/philosophy of science documented both the human process of how science progresses and the Necker Cube-like way in which a new paradigm destroys the old and blinds us to any new ways of perceiving.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle demonstrated that the location and speed of material items was dependent upon the measurement applied and was inherently uncertain.  At the same time, it became clear that the location (energy level) of an electron was only probabilistic!  Kurt Godel’s impossibility theorem destroyed the hope of defining a Euclidean basis for a fully functional arithmetic and algebraic system of mathematics that could include the concept of infinity.  Darwin’s theory of evolution included the concept of random events in populations determining the future of biological species, without necessary guidance from god.  Biology then described the details of genetics, which includes random mutations, reproductive combinations, multiple genes, developmental sequences and the impact of the environment.  Freud described the role which unconscious thoughts, drives and the “mind” can play in determining consciousness and behavior.  Statisticians defined populations, estimates and metrics, emphasizing that there are inherent conflicts in making estimates.  Finally, Einstein developed the theory of relativity, making time, space, matter and gravity functions of each other.  Ironically, Einstein unsuccessfully devoted 20 years of his life to finding a unified theory that would combine all aspects of physics into a deterministic framework.

In the last 50 years we have seen the development of insightful “both/and” approaches throughout the business and political worlds.  Management has evolved from unilateral theories X, Y and Z to situational leadership which uses both task and people factors to deliver results.  Effective thinking coaches have defined the best use of convergent and divergent thinking skills or six thinking hats to improve results.  Jim Collin’s “Good to Great” book highlights the central role of a fixed vision/goal and flexible means/strategies.  Gallup’s Strengthfinder approach to personality profiles overcomes the “either/or” nature of Meyers-Briggs, concluding that some individuals do have apparently conflicting “talents”.  Bottom-up and top-down planning approaches have been incorporated into the balanced scorecard framework.  Goods production has evolved from custom craft work to mass production to a combined lean manufacturing pull system.  Goldratt’s book “The Goal” provides further insight on how defining the goal is logically distinct from the means of reaching the goal.  “Best practices” project management has evolved from informal management to fully prescribed sequential tasks to a new hybrid approach that retains the broad project stages, but allows cycles to resolve issues when needed.

In economics, the Keynesian revolution overturned “Say’s Law” which deterministically stated that supply always creates its own demand.  In governing, representative democracy seems to balance various needs.  In politics, the “third way” attempts to use market mechanisms to deliver liberal objectives.  In religion, the reformed faiths attempt to adapt received faith to current knowledge and realities.

The “both/and” approach is not inherently best, but everyone should be challenged to consider it at all times based upon its impressive track record.

I’d like to thank Mark Cavell, Annamarie Melodia Garrett and Doug Loudenslager for their contributions to identifying this pattern.

Screening for Leadership Experience

As firms return to a normal economy where success is determined by the ability to set and implement a distinctive strategy, develop new products, processes and customers, and align functional resources in a project based matrix structure, it is time one again to screen for leadership in the hiring process. For the last 2 years, with an abundance of candidates and a preference for risk aversion, hiring managers, human resources and recruiters have laser focused on finding the very best match between a candidate’s industry, functional and positional experience for an open position, without regard to long-term considerations. Hiring managers should insert more behavioral interview questions about leadership into the process and they should screen for evidence of leadership success in the resume review and screening interview process.

Ask ten experts to define “leadership” and you’ll get ten different answers and lists of competencies, but they’ll cluster into a few areas such as building teams, being self-aware, growing personally and professionally, displaying trust and integrity, communicating effectively, motivating/influencing/persuading, helping others to succeed, setting and sharing a strategic vision, taking risks, innovating, being responsible, making tough decisions, showing tenacity and taking a long-run view of what is best for the organization as a whole. A simple leadership checklist can be used to identify candidates who have the leadership experience needed to succeed.

Leadership Screening Checklist

1. Positional responsibility, staff count, manager count, functional variety.

2. Cross-team member, positional leadership, selection by others, larger projects.

3. Non-work leadership roles, professional and civic groups.

4. Progressively responsible roles and promotions across career.

5. Professional mastery/certification and CPE in one or more areas.

6. Five year tenure at most employers.

7. Variety of recommendations available/given in 360 degree fashion.

8. Internal or external teaching, training and documentation experience.

9. Projects/assignments in new, challenging or unpopular business areas.

10. Projects/assignments in high value, visibility or risk business areas.

11. Matrix experience in product development, IT, M&A, national account management.

12. Formal mentoring, association or accountability partner experience.

13. Strategic, product, marketing, financial or operational planning leadership role.

14. Top-level responsibility for a function or business unit of any size.

15. Variety of headquarters/field, line/staff and domestic/international experience.

16. Variety of industry, function and organization size experience.

17. Change management experience through start-ups, rapid growth, turnarounds, recessions, acquisitions or reorganization.

18. Implementation of new professional methods and technologies.

19. Human resources recruiting, retention, promotions, transfers and morale.

20. Responsibility for new products, sales, suppliers and negotiations.

Organizational success today requires leaders who are experienced and confident in challenging and ambiguous environments. Screening for this broader experience and capacity may be more important than hiring someone who has done exactly the required role at the closest competitor for the last five years.

The Quality Paradigm

The Quality paradigm has emerged as a significant competitor to the Financial paradigm.  The Financial paradigm says that organizational results are best delivered through the sum of individual rational decisions focused on incremental costs and benefits.  The Quality paradigm agrees that costs and benefits matter, but focuses on the underlying process as the primary driver of minimizing inputs (costs) to produce a given output (benefits).  The Quality paradigm has evolved from the “scientific management” studies of “time and motion”.  It has a process engineering focus, aiming to optimize the relationship between inputs and outputs.  Improvements are inherently valuable, without tallying financial valuations.

The Quality paradigm made progress because its effectiveness in Japanese manufacturing became apparent by the 1970’s.  It also gained favor because Western organizations, relying on the financial decision-making tools, were clearly not delivering optimal results. 

The Quality advocates made five major criticisms of the existing practices.   The practices greatly underestimated the total cost of poor quality at 1-2%, while the total costs ranged from 5-10%.  The financial approach often created a cost reduction mindset when greater opportunities existed for improved revenues and margins through quality products and customer service.   The marginal approach overlooked less material cost reduction opportunities that were very significant in the long-run.  It optimized individual functions, while ignoring connection costs.  It underutilized the assets of workers who could make improvements.  While some of criticisms were misplaced or exaggerated, the Quality Paradigm presented a compelling story that lead to changes.  The new, process-based approach was delivering value that the old approach had missed.

The Quality paradigm delivered several insights that could be repeatedly applied to reduce costs, reduce defects, increase volumes, increase timeliness and better meet customer needs.  First, a controlled system inherently reduces errors and risks and leads to improvements.  Second, examining a whole process in terms of well-defined desired outputs focuses staff on the greatest improvement opportunities.  Third, the key to understanding process failures is through understanding the drivers of variability.  Fourth, variability naturally accumulates through a process, leading to greater defects and costs.  Fifth, inventory of time and goods hides current performance and improvement opportunities.  Sixth, there is no practical limit to the improvements possible in reducing variation, reducing defects or improving input/output ratios.  Seventh, a quantum leap process break-through is usually possible.  Eighth, in the long-run quality improvements usually have a net benefit, rather than a net cost.

In the last two decades the Quality paradigm has come to complement the Financial paradigm, leading to a balanced scorecard approach to strategic planning with both financial and operations measures in the performance dashboard.  Finance continues to emphasize costs and benefits while Quality focuses on the underlying processes.  This combination approach is delivering more valuable results for most firms today.

Role of Corporate Culture

In the years since World War II, the organizational environment has changed from
 one of static, mechanical efficiency optimization to another of dynamic, organic,
 effectiveness evolution.  Global competition, innovation and limited resources in the
 face of a growing and wealthier world population have lead to non-stop, disruptive
 change in all industries.  This change is accelerating, impacting all organizations
 which now need to improve their activities or face extinction.  
 
 In addition to competitive industry threats, organizations must compete for highly
 qualified staff as never before. The increased requirements for success mean that
 there are more organizations pursuing a limited number of high potential employees. 
 Increased organizational demands for mastery level skills, flexibility, innovation,
 accountability, teamwork, tolerance, self-control, service, self-motivation and loyalty
 have outstripped the ability of labor markets to provide these new versions of the ideal
 employee.  Organizations with the greatest needs and resources are providing
 compensation and work environments to attract, motivate and retain these
 individuals.
 
 There is a growing consensus by thought leaders  that  success requires:
 
 A. Innovation
 
 The ability to digest changes by staff members at all levels and functions.
 The ability for all staff to innovate and apply innovations made elsewhere.
 A customer focus that shapes decisions and relations that first meet external needs.
 
 B. Best Human Resources
 
 Access to the very best human resources at all levels and functions (inside, outside)
 A work environment that is attractive to the very best human resources.
 Cost-effective recruiting/retention of high value employees, contractors,  suppliers.
 Staff members whose value-added assets and results grow by 5% annually.
 Embracing diverse talents, perspectives and cultures in decisions and practices.
 
 C. Cost-Effective Use of Resources
 
 Best use of all resources by matching talents and experience to needs.
 Best use of resources through developmental delegation focused on results.
 Best use of leadership, management and professional roles.
 Synergy from combining complementary talents to produce breakthrough results.
 
 D. Alignment Within Complex Systems
 
 Engaged, self-motivated staff with a minimum of management overhead costs.
 Shared accountability, reducing the need for oversight and measurements. 
 Complex processes that connect many individuals, departments or organizations.
 Systems that motivate achievement, rather than attempt to control behavior.
 Less detailed planning/forecasting, with more capacity for adapting to situations.
 Commitment to a team, organization or mission that motivates personal effort.
 Alignment of global supply chains, without fully integrated planning systems.
 Elimination of waste, duplication and conflict through coordination mechanisms.
 
 Overall Strategies
 
 Organizations that are able to evolve and adapt in a challenging competitive
 environment must have several complementary overall strategies, including:
 
 Effective Strategic Plans … 
 … clearly defining direction, evaluating situations and choosing priority actions.
 Human Resources … 
  … attracted, engaged and motivated by a true commitment to win-win results.
 Leadership … 
 … to set direction, coordinate plans, engage staff, serve customers and inspire.
 Resources … 
 … financial, supplier, brand, processes, patents, intangible and tangible assets.
 Performance Management Systems …
 … planning, reporting and improving systems.
 Culture … 
 … a set of values/expectations that create alignment and motivate optimal results.
 
 Culture
 
 A well-defined organizational culture honestly reflects the expectations of staff
 members for each other and for the organization as a whole.  A set of values defines
 what is expected in terms of behaviors and habits, and what is deemed
 unacceptable behavior.  These values are consistent with the organization’s history,
 customers, experience, strategy and institutional features.  A well-defined culture is
 internally consistent.  It captures the history and expectations of the organization.
 
 An effective organizational culture supports the drivers of success.  It promotes
 innovation and change management.  It values and rewards high performers.  It
 embraces cost-effective practices, especially in terms of delegation which
 empowers strong employees.  Finally, it honors accountability and promotes the
 ability and commitment of staff members to create alignment as an intrinsic part of
 their daily work.
 
 In the end, an organizational culture serves to make explicit the bargain between
 employee and organization in a challenging environment.  Organizations are
 modifying the way they do business to attract, engage, motivate and empower
 individuals who can create the most value.  In return for a commitment to the
 organization and the benefit of their services, employees are provided with an
 environment that maximizes their personal growth, rewards and market value.  
 
 Different organizations select different individual values to define the essence of their
 ideal or preferred cultures. Taken as a collection of values, they clearly provide an
 answer to the question, “what is it like to work at …?” The values represent ideals,
 both of staff and organizational attainment.  They describe what employees want to
 be like, what they aspire to show at their best.  Organizations can slowly change their
 values if they find that the existing set is inadequate to meet the needs for survival. 
 This is a slow process, requiring very significant investment in selecting, defining,
 complementing and implementing.
 
 As an ideal system that coordinates and controls behavior, cultures and values in
 organizations are like those in other social institutions: families, churches,
 communities and clubs.  They are effective only when the members believe in them. 
 This means that leaders are held to a high standard.  It means that trust is essential. 
 It means that individuals must have personal relations with others and that emotions
 matter.  Inconsistent messages or behavior can rapidly undermine commitment. 
 Like an emotional bank account, organizational values can be a reservoir of goodwill
 or an overdrawn checking account.  Directors, management and staff are required to
 hold each other accountable or the values and culture can quickly become
 worthless.
 
 In addition to setting an example in their personal behavior and creating an
 environment of trust, senior managers are responsible for ensuring that
 complementary policies, procedures, processes and plans are consistent with the
 organization’s values.  The primary focus is on human resources systems for
 recruiting, performance management, training, advancement and benefits.  Systems
 for planning, measurement and control are equally important.  Managers must also
 commit to enhanced communication to ensure that consistency is understood or
 inconsistencies addressed.  In addition, managers must operate consistently,
 holding all to the same standards. Managers must develop open, constructive
 relationships with their bosses, peers and staff which allow for constructive
 communication to address situations that appear to challenge the organization’s
 values.
 
 Summary
 
 The demands on organizations are greater today than ever before.  Organizations are
 concluding that global competition, innovation and competition for the best staff will
 continue.  To survive in this environment, they are adjusting their structures to
 promote innovation, best human resources, cost-effective use of resources and
 alignment within complex systems.  A key strategy is to define a set of values which
 comprise the organization’s culture and expectations.  By formally defining their ideal
 values and committing the organization to operating in accord with these values, they
 are seeking to attract, engage and retain the best employees, who are then motivated
 and aligned to produce the greatest results for the organization.  This organizational
 effectiveness strategy is being adopted and refined in all industries with increasing
 success.  It is not the easiest strategy, but it promises the greatest individual and
 organizational rewards to those who can commit to living up to the high standards of
 an ideal culture.

ROI on Personality Styles

In a world of non-stop change, financial managers agree that “alignment” is the most difficult challenge faced by most organizations.  Through time, more equal access to all other resources has grown: materials, suppliers, facilities, financing, technology, products, entrepreneurs and human resources.

 Organizations have used a variety of methods to create alignment.  Military command and control, strategic planning, portfolio management and process management in various forms have been tried with mixed success.  In some static environments with less technology change, less competition and simpler processes, these approaches have worked well.  In the highly specialized, global, decentralized, changing, virtual world of today, many organizations have concluded that alignment can best be achieved through defining, shaping and reinforcing their corporate culture.

 A critical element in any corporate culture initiative is helping all staff members to have the self-awareness and other-awareness to manage their relations with others.

 My favorite introduction to self-awareness and paradigms is through the fable of “The Blind Men and the Elephant”.

 http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/stories/stories.cfm?psid=110

 Individual blind men conclude on the basis of their personal investigations that an elephant “IS” a wall, a snake, a spear, a cow, a magic carpet or an old rope.  The moral is that an elephant is more than the sum of his parts.  Attempts to generalize from limited information or paradigms are doomed to failure.  The blind men can see neither the forest, nor the trees.  Many individuals have these same blind spots.  They are unable to see the big picture and they passionately hold onto their world view because they are not aware of the possibility of another approach.

 To help staff members with the personal growth needed to overcome this limitation, many organizations implement a personality styles program.  Myers-Briggs, DISC, Predictive Index, Gallup Strengthsfinders and a dozen others can be used to help all staff understand a few key results and begin to practice seeing the world from multiple perspectives, even forming the habit of expecting to employ multiple perspectives.

 These programs deliver 5 main lessons.  Individuals tend to behave in their own patterns or styles, which can be described.  No pattern is inherently better or worse, except as a means for completing certain responsibilities.  Personal styles make individuals especially effective in functions (accounting, sales, design, or engineering) that match their natural talents.  Individuals are not limited by their styles, but these habitual behaviors are more natural and using other complementary styles requires significant effort.  Since organizations have many functions and individuals with different styles, it is necessary for all staff members to be aware of their styles, recognize the styles of others and learn how to flex their styles to get along with others.

 Since these programs have been implemented many times in most firms across 30 years, one might expect that self-awareness would be the norm, followed by cross-functional cooperation and sophisticated used of different perspectives.  Unfortunately, many of these programs have not delivered the desired results.

 For personality styles programs to build self-awareness, complement corporate cultures, align teams and deliver results, firms need to invest more resources.

 1)      All managers, beginning at the top, need deep training, evaluation and feedback.

2)      All staff require experiential learning, examples, reinforcement and consistent guidance.

3)      Firms need to use the tool everywhere to create the skills, habits and expectations: training, hiring, promotions, cross-teams, planning, performance evaluations, etc.

4)      Firms need to break down the functional barriers and require a mix of styles in each function, job rotation for managers and cross-team experience for everyone.

5)      The personality styles tool, profiles and understanding needs to become part of the culture.  This is the language we use.  These are the stories we use.  These are the executives we use as examples of this style.

 Invest the resources to create a real asset for your organization.  Half of an investment produces little return.

The Effective CFO: Black and White!

A friend of mine has been a highly successful CFO with middle market companies for 25 years.  I pondered what made him succeed in a variety of companies and industries.

 He’s professionally competent and intellectually curious.  He’s always had a large professional network.  He is a good listener and is especially skilled at cutting through ambiguous or complex situations to identify the core problem or most promising solution.  He understands the basis for business success in his industry and he’s a good negotiator.

 On the other hand, he’s sometimes overly direct, not a technical leader in the CPA profession, not someone who automatically attracts the spotlight, doesn’t outsmart the quantitative business analysts and doesn’t often lead cross-functional projects.

 I think he succeeds because he has established a role and the skills to guide all key players to honestly confront the gray reality of situations.  He offers the financial perspective, but is just as quick to insert a sales, strategy or cultural viewpoint.  He ensures that risk versus return is considered through numbers, stories and analogies.  He contrasts short-term with long-term factors.  He plays devil’s advocate as needed to derail quick decisions or to shore up support for a tough alternative that must be chosen.

 In addition to these decision making skills, he has the wisdom, courage and skills to anticipate the perspectives of the key roles and to guide players into greater self-awareness and understanding of other perspectives.

 He helps finance, accounting, HR and IT staff to see that the fully integrated system and a 1,000 page policy and procedure document, without exceptions, is probably too structured.  He encourages engineers and six sigma black belts to reduce variation and to consider financial and strategic implications.

 He works with entrepreneurial owners to support change and risk taking, but to also gauge how much can be digested, how it can be hedged and what an ideal portfolio looks like.

 He works with boards and shareholders to understand that stock values do not always go up in a predictable manner, unless the books have been “managed”.  The long-term growth in shareholder value includes short-term fluctuations.

 He works with IT, engineering and product developers to have resources, time and authority to learn, experiment and develop new products – within a framework of long-term evaluation.

 He provides sales and marketing teams with the freedom and flexibility to meet company goals, but ensures that measures of final results are fair and the system can’t be beat.

 The effective CFO serves as a fulcrum in Jim Collins’ world of “both/and”.  Stakeholders and role players must be able to leverage their talents and preferred styles AND the contrasting factors which must also be considered for long run success.  CFO’s need to be more than gray; they need to be both black AND white.

Effective Leaders

 Everyone has their own theory or theories of leadership.In my experience, effective leaders …Are authentic expressions of their unique talents and experiences. They are  
 independent and non-conformist. 
 
 Are shaped by their personality profiles.  They leverage their strengths and minimize their non-talents.  They flex styles for short periods, with effort.
 
 
 Are true to themselves, applying constructive approaches to work, home and community.   This natural style leverages their assets.
 
 
 Are internally driven and project a clear commitment to making progress, overcoming 
 challenges, reaching goals and making a difference. 
 
 Are human with strengths and non-talents.  They are effected by biases and paradigms.  
 Self-awareness and self-control are partial. 
 
 Recognize the strength of organizational and cultural inertia in preventing change, 
 alignment and pursuit of lofty objectives. 
 
 Accept the political nature of organizations and the role of self-interest as part of the natural arena for leadership practice.
 
 
 Understand the value creating role of key leaders in organizations, but do not minimize the value of managers and staff.
 
 
 Appreciate the social psychology of organizations and teams.  They demonstrate their 
 passion, commitment and belonging in real and symbolic ways. 
 
 Use an interactive decision-making process to engage contributors, frame 
 decisions, generate options, evaluate solutions and build commitment. 
 
 Are patient, unstructured decision-makers.  Organization level issues, plans and policies 
 require time to define, analyze, choose and embrace. They change perspectives, urge 
 creativity, challenge traditional answers and encourage contrasting paths to answers. 
 
 Value the contributions of professional specialists, but employ a generalist perspective and 
 healthy skepticism. They employ various facilitation tools to work through ambiguous 
 situations. 
 
 Employ a broad array of skills and experiences, as decisions are increasingly complex, 
 including political, ethical, global and environmental dimensions. 
 
 Embrace a modern approach to diversity, deeply understanding the value of diverse 
 perspectives in contributing their piece of the truth to decisions.