Frankenstein started out with good intentions. The Dr. lost his brother to a tragic accident and vowed to bring him back to life. With all the best of intentions to create life, his work led to the creation of a monster. Management by Objective (MBO) is much like a Frankenstein monster. I am sure Peter Drucker had the best of intentions when he created the idea of MBO but it hasn’t turned out that way.
MBO is a tool to align all actions in an organization around a set of objectives by first identifying the objectives, giving employees objectives consistent with those of the organization, monitor progress, evaluate the employees and the performance (usually through performance appraisals), rewarding the achievers, punishing the slackers, and then revising the organization objectives again.
MBO is an outgrowth of a certain set of assumptions and these include:
• Employees won’t put in extra effort unless they are constantly reminded, rewarded, and threatened to work on what is most important. The pay-for-performance portion of MBO is a critical element for this.
• Improving the performance of individuals will improve the performance of the organization.
• Measuring results and holding people accountable to those results will create improvement
The unintended consequences of MBO (the monster) have just recently been confirmed thanks to the “No Child Left Behind” legislation passed by President Bush in his first term. A recent series of articles by USA TODAY uncovered frequent cheating by teachers and principals. This is not the first time cheating has appeared since No Child Left Behind was implemented. A study by the Wall Street Journal uncovered purposeful tampering of the Regents exams in New York. I think they should re-name the program: No “Cheating” Left Behind: MBO Fails Again!
Holding people accountable to results where they can’t control (or even influence) all the factors necessary for success will cause either manipulated numbers or cheating. The environment created by pay-for-performance and MBO encourages manipulation because of the pressure for results. Various studies show that students (when asked if they cheat) report as many as 80% admitting to some kind of cheating. The reports by USA Today and the Wall Street Journal confirm the pressure to achieve as one of the root causes.
Some of you may be thinking that these are isolated instances. If so, then why did Bausch and Lomb executives forge sales data and hide inventory to meet stretch goals? Why did Auto repair managers in Sears bilk customers with unnecessary repairs to meet monthly bonuses? Why did Jiffy Lube managers sell unnecessary parts to customers to meet weekly goals? Why did Enron executives manipulate projects? I could go on.
Pressure to perform damages employee engagement. It robs employees of pride and encourages breaks in rules to achieve the results. It puts results in front of ethics.
With the best of intentions your senior leaders may be creating a monster with MBO, stretch goals, pay-for-performance, and performance appraisals. This monster will damage employee engagement and stunt performance improvement. These are the exact opposite of the original desired outcomes. It is time to eliminate the growth of MBO and to reverse its course before it consumes more employee engagement and valuable resources. We must especially protect the engagement of employees and must especially protect our children. We must kill this monster now.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
How to Drive Results without Forcing “Employee Engagement” into the Ditch
Our current management model is still based on the military model. I say that because most organizations still use an organization chart showing a pyramid structure, pay-for-performance policies, and the performance appraisal policies to control behaviors. These are all symptoms of embracing the management model consistent with the military model where you give a command and you follow it. It is based more on fear than on trust.
Think about the language we use to describe how leaders must lead. We have managers who must “drive” results or drive outcomes. Drive is a control word. Drive is a military term. In the dictionary even the words “to manage” means “to control.” Control is a military term. The General, or manager, gives an order and you need to follow it.
What does it take to move away from the military model? It has served us well for years but it is as outdated as Windows 3.1 operating system.
The first thing we can do as leaders is to change our language. If, as leaders, we want to increase trust, leverage our knowledge (increase delegation with confidence), and create higher accountability we can begin to use the word “agreement.”
An agreement is a specific, measurable, and time sensitive task or action that a person can complete because they already have (or can predictably obtain) all the tools and/or resources necessary to complete the action (task). A goal is different. A goal is also a specific objective or task that can be measurable and time sensitive but all factors, resources, or tools may NOT be available.
My wonderful wife and I decided to lose weight together as a team. She brilliantly suggested that we skip dinners for six weeks and see how well we do. She most often makes dinner for us because I always work late. I told her this was a great idea for her because it would take the pressure off her to always plan and make dinners. She could exercise or do something nice for herself.
Our goal was to lose weight. We agreed to shoot for 20 pounds each. To accomplish the goals we agreed to keep the following agreements:
• Eat breakfast and lunch and skip dinners
• Remove all sweets and snacks from the house
• If we got very hungry at dinner time (or afterwards) we could have a treat like nuts or fruit but no large meals
• We would support each other
The agreements we made will predictably get us to our goal. The agreements are actions or steps that will lead us to our goal. The agreements represent the steps in a process.
Most leaders, because of the military model, still attempt to bribe or threaten to hold employees accountable to the results without thoroughly discussing the agreements that need to be performed along the way.
A Wall Street Journal analysis of high school Regents test scores in New York showed a “bulge” in scores of 65 or just barely passing. Apparently teachers saw scores close to the passing grade and just “pushed” those kids over the line to be sure they passed.
The goal of the teachers was to increase the number of kids passing the Regents exam. There was no apparent clear set of agreements to achieve that goal and avoid the “gaming” of the system. The teachers made up their own method by pushing kids over the edge. Also, how much are the teachers learning about their teaching methods and/or future improvements by “gaming” the system. This approach also damages learning.
Leaders who skip the step of the “creation of a process,” skip the creation of agreement, and then threaten or bribe employees are “driving” results. However, they risk unintended consequences. To protect employee engagement, improve performance, optimize learning, and maintain integrity, leaders must learn the skill of “facilitation of agreements.” They must begin to learn how to study a system, identify those steps necessary to reach a goal and then create the list of agreements from those steps.
It is a lot better (and sometimes easier) to hold people accountable to agreements than it is to hold people accountable for results.
Think about the language we use to describe how leaders must lead. We have managers who must “drive” results or drive outcomes. Drive is a control word. Drive is a military term. In the dictionary even the words “to manage” means “to control.” Control is a military term. The General, or manager, gives an order and you need to follow it.
What does it take to move away from the military model? It has served us well for years but it is as outdated as Windows 3.1 operating system.
The first thing we can do as leaders is to change our language. If, as leaders, we want to increase trust, leverage our knowledge (increase delegation with confidence), and create higher accountability we can begin to use the word “agreement.”
An agreement is a specific, measurable, and time sensitive task or action that a person can complete because they already have (or can predictably obtain) all the tools and/or resources necessary to complete the action (task). A goal is different. A goal is also a specific objective or task that can be measurable and time sensitive but all factors, resources, or tools may NOT be available.
My wonderful wife and I decided to lose weight together as a team. She brilliantly suggested that we skip dinners for six weeks and see how well we do. She most often makes dinner for us because I always work late. I told her this was a great idea for her because it would take the pressure off her to always plan and make dinners. She could exercise or do something nice for herself.
Our goal was to lose weight. We agreed to shoot for 20 pounds each. To accomplish the goals we agreed to keep the following agreements:
• Eat breakfast and lunch and skip dinners
• Remove all sweets and snacks from the house
• If we got very hungry at dinner time (or afterwards) we could have a treat like nuts or fruit but no large meals
• We would support each other
The agreements we made will predictably get us to our goal. The agreements are actions or steps that will lead us to our goal. The agreements represent the steps in a process.
Most leaders, because of the military model, still attempt to bribe or threaten to hold employees accountable to the results without thoroughly discussing the agreements that need to be performed along the way.
A Wall Street Journal analysis of high school Regents test scores in New York showed a “bulge” in scores of 65 or just barely passing. Apparently teachers saw scores close to the passing grade and just “pushed” those kids over the line to be sure they passed.
The goal of the teachers was to increase the number of kids passing the Regents exam. There was no apparent clear set of agreements to achieve that goal and avoid the “gaming” of the system. The teachers made up their own method by pushing kids over the edge. Also, how much are the teachers learning about their teaching methods and/or future improvements by “gaming” the system. This approach also damages learning.
Leaders who skip the step of the “creation of a process,” skip the creation of agreement, and then threaten or bribe employees are “driving” results. However, they risk unintended consequences. To protect employee engagement, improve performance, optimize learning, and maintain integrity, leaders must learn the skill of “facilitation of agreements.” They must begin to learn how to study a system, identify those steps necessary to reach a goal and then create the list of agreements from those steps.
It is a lot better (and sometimes easier) to hold people accountable to agreements than it is to hold people accountable for results.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Human Resources is Sadly Unsophisticated
I just read Susan Heathfield’s article in About.com on how to create an environment that encourages employee engagement. Susan claims organizations are bad at employee engagement because it is hard work. This response is true yet sadly incomplete and unsophisticated.
Susan is right about some things. We need to improve employee engagement. It is a critical condition for success as we continue to feel global competitive pressures. We must protect the intellectual property of our organizations by reducing turnover of employees and protecting the knowledge they continue to accumulate in their brains.
Susan and Human Resource professionals continue to avoid a sophisticated discussion about the root causes of the lack of engagement. They claim to know what managers should do to create employee engagement and they always list the same tasks, i.e. adopt an engagement as a strategy, align the values, listen to employees, measure performance, hold employees accountable, yadda yadda yadda. Most of these ideas are fine but they don’t address the real root causes.
Human Resources professionals continue to recommend these basic steps but fail to recommend the abolishment of performance appraisals and the dissolution of pay for performance. In fact, in Susan’s case she continues to support these policies by recommending holding people accountable for results. This recommendation is the same thing as supporting Management by Objectives which almost always includes the current performance appraisal as part of the process. She also recommends an effective reward and recognition program. She still recommends rewarding top talent and using pay for performance as a carrot and club to both threaten and motivate top performers. This dysfunctional policy is what got Enron in trouble and Human Resource professionals continue to ignore the data that supports its demise.
Human Resource professionals continue to be in denial. These two policies represent the root cause of organizations inability to fully accomplish these other steps.
This is disappointing coming from the typical HR professional. It borders on incompetence when it comes from someone who is supposed to be a professional consultant and an author and advisor for Human Resources on About.com. There is no excuse. Research abounds supporting the dissolution of performance appraisals and pay for performance and anyone who is supposed to be an expert with forward thinking recommendations should know it and at least discuss it. I am seriously underwhelmed.
Susan is right about some things. We need to improve employee engagement. It is a critical condition for success as we continue to feel global competitive pressures. We must protect the intellectual property of our organizations by reducing turnover of employees and protecting the knowledge they continue to accumulate in their brains.
Susan and Human Resource professionals continue to avoid a sophisticated discussion about the root causes of the lack of engagement. They claim to know what managers should do to create employee engagement and they always list the same tasks, i.e. adopt an engagement as a strategy, align the values, listen to employees, measure performance, hold employees accountable, yadda yadda yadda. Most of these ideas are fine but they don’t address the real root causes.
Human Resources professionals continue to recommend these basic steps but fail to recommend the abolishment of performance appraisals and the dissolution of pay for performance. In fact, in Susan’s case she continues to support these policies by recommending holding people accountable for results. This recommendation is the same thing as supporting Management by Objectives which almost always includes the current performance appraisal as part of the process. She also recommends an effective reward and recognition program. She still recommends rewarding top talent and using pay for performance as a carrot and club to both threaten and motivate top performers. This dysfunctional policy is what got Enron in trouble and Human Resource professionals continue to ignore the data that supports its demise.
Human Resource professionals continue to be in denial. These two policies represent the root cause of organizations inability to fully accomplish these other steps.
This is disappointing coming from the typical HR professional. It borders on incompetence when it comes from someone who is supposed to be a professional consultant and an author and advisor for Human Resources on About.com. There is no excuse. Research abounds supporting the dissolution of performance appraisals and pay for performance and anyone who is supposed to be an expert with forward thinking recommendations should know it and at least discuss it. I am seriously underwhelmed.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
“Work as a Team to Remove the Cookies” – Create Engagement by Discouraging Incivility
We have a problem with incivility in our country. We even hear the President of the United States appealing for it from Congress and from the public while conducting political debates.
A 2011 study by Blessing and White (a management consulting company) reports only 31% of employees are engaged. Employees who are not engaged or especially those who are actively disengaged will have a higher likelihood of exhibiting inappropriate or uncivil behaviors. This means that 69% of the employees in the average organization might exhibit discourteous behaviors.
A University of Michigan researcher (Lilia Cortina and her colleagues from two other universities) found that 71 percent of workers (1,100 surveyed) had experienced workplace incivility in the previous five years. The incivility was from coworkers and superiors.
The problem of incivility in the workplace is compounded by our tolerance of it. We teach what we allow and we are allowing it more and more. We need to change this. What do we do?
Like most of you I wanted to lose a few pounds. My first strategy was to eliminate all sweets. This is a huge challenge for me for a number of reasons including my wonderful wife is a great cook and she is Italian. These two factors combine into a large family with lots of birthdays and anniversaries and she shows her appreciation and love for family members by baking.
The very first morning of my new “diet” my wife made two dozen chocolate chip cookies. The smell filled the house. They are my favorite. Do you think I broke my diet pledge? You bet I did. I asked, “What harm could one cookie cause?” I ended up eating four.
Which strategy will work best to help me lose some weight? Take a seminar on how to be more disciplined or remove the cookies from the house? Improving discipline is always useful to ensure better behavior but removing the cookies is the most effective strategy.
Which is the best strategy for leaders who wish to remove incivility from the workplace? Should leaders continue to try to change the individuals who demonstrate incivility or should they remove the real root causes of the outbursts and frustrations?
How does incivility play out in the work place? How do it manifest? In my experience rude behaviors most often occurs because someone is upset that they can’t do their job with pride. It is not because the person was born a jerk. Everyone gets frustrated and some of us behave poorly. They act out. They say things they regret. They damage relationships. All they really wanted was to be able to do their job to the best of their ability but something got in the way. Something triggered a negative reaction.
One of my clients has an employee who is demanding and a high driver. He easily confronts people and often offends them because he is so demanding and wants to look good. He wants to do the best for his clients. His co-workers get offended. Certainly, his style is rough and some even say it’s obnoxious. Yet, he is not purposefully mean. He is driven to perform and he has little patience for what he calls “incompetence” of others. He defines incompetence as events when he doesn’t get the information he needs to do his job or when he can’t provide the very best service for his clients. His style stinks. His motivations and intentions are good. His communication method is damaging. His motivation to provide quality service is strong.
What should a manager do with this person? Sure, improvements in his communication will help. Coaching will help. But is the real root cause of his incivility communication style? Or, is the real root-cause poor hand offs of information within the processes that fail to deliver the information he needs?
The poor performing processes and the poor hand offs are the chocolate chip cookies in the kitchen. If the cookies weren’t in the kitchen I would not have broken my diet. If the hand off of information was optimal, there is no reason to misbehave. Which is better? Remove the reason or improve his style? This is the choice leaders must make. If you keep the dysfunctional processes and incomplete hand offs there will always be a high probability of incivility.
The answer of course is both. I just find it useful for everyone in the organization to work as a team to remove the real root causes of the dysfunction. I find it most useful for everyone to get the “cookies out of the kitchen.” Any effort to reduce poor behaviors in the workplace must include a two pronged approach. Help with coaching for improved communication style but remove the root causes. We need both to protect the motivation and engagement of employees.
A 2011 study by Blessing and White (a management consulting company) reports only 31% of employees are engaged. Employees who are not engaged or especially those who are actively disengaged will have a higher likelihood of exhibiting inappropriate or uncivil behaviors. This means that 69% of the employees in the average organization might exhibit discourteous behaviors.
A University of Michigan researcher (Lilia Cortina and her colleagues from two other universities) found that 71 percent of workers (1,100 surveyed) had experienced workplace incivility in the previous five years. The incivility was from coworkers and superiors.
The problem of incivility in the workplace is compounded by our tolerance of it. We teach what we allow and we are allowing it more and more. We need to change this. What do we do?
Like most of you I wanted to lose a few pounds. My first strategy was to eliminate all sweets. This is a huge challenge for me for a number of reasons including my wonderful wife is a great cook and she is Italian. These two factors combine into a large family with lots of birthdays and anniversaries and she shows her appreciation and love for family members by baking.
The very first morning of my new “diet” my wife made two dozen chocolate chip cookies. The smell filled the house. They are my favorite. Do you think I broke my diet pledge? You bet I did. I asked, “What harm could one cookie cause?” I ended up eating four.
Which strategy will work best to help me lose some weight? Take a seminar on how to be more disciplined or remove the cookies from the house? Improving discipline is always useful to ensure better behavior but removing the cookies is the most effective strategy.
Which is the best strategy for leaders who wish to remove incivility from the workplace? Should leaders continue to try to change the individuals who demonstrate incivility or should they remove the real root causes of the outbursts and frustrations?
How does incivility play out in the work place? How do it manifest? In my experience rude behaviors most often occurs because someone is upset that they can’t do their job with pride. It is not because the person was born a jerk. Everyone gets frustrated and some of us behave poorly. They act out. They say things they regret. They damage relationships. All they really wanted was to be able to do their job to the best of their ability but something got in the way. Something triggered a negative reaction.
One of my clients has an employee who is demanding and a high driver. He easily confronts people and often offends them because he is so demanding and wants to look good. He wants to do the best for his clients. His co-workers get offended. Certainly, his style is rough and some even say it’s obnoxious. Yet, he is not purposefully mean. He is driven to perform and he has little patience for what he calls “incompetence” of others. He defines incompetence as events when he doesn’t get the information he needs to do his job or when he can’t provide the very best service for his clients. His style stinks. His motivations and intentions are good. His communication method is damaging. His motivation to provide quality service is strong.
What should a manager do with this person? Sure, improvements in his communication will help. Coaching will help. But is the real root cause of his incivility communication style? Or, is the real root-cause poor hand offs of information within the processes that fail to deliver the information he needs?
The poor performing processes and the poor hand offs are the chocolate chip cookies in the kitchen. If the cookies weren’t in the kitchen I would not have broken my diet. If the hand off of information was optimal, there is no reason to misbehave. Which is better? Remove the reason or improve his style? This is the choice leaders must make. If you keep the dysfunctional processes and incomplete hand offs there will always be a high probability of incivility.
The answer of course is both. I just find it useful for everyone in the organization to work as a team to remove the real root causes of the dysfunction. I find it most useful for everyone to get the “cookies out of the kitchen.” Any effort to reduce poor behaviors in the workplace must include a two pronged approach. Help with coaching for improved communication style but remove the root causes. We need both to protect the motivation and engagement of employees.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Employees Feel Like Volunteers or Slaves? 2 Changes to Make First to Create Engaged Volunteers
I bet every one of you has, at some point, been a volunteer (on a board or team). It is usually a huge challenge for a couple reasons. Often only 20-30% of the people do all the work. Most of the others either coast or don’t even bother to show up. If you are a leader of a team now, take a moment and ponder this idea. Imagine everyone in your organization was a volunteer. Would you treat them differently? Leaders who want volunteers must make two important changes. They must change their thinking about people and policy.
Treating employees as volunteers is the foundation for creating a predictably engaged workforce. By definition, volunteers do tasks because they want to. Slaves (disengaged employees) do things because they have to. Slaves (disengaged employees) are compliant. The word slave is emotionally charged. Let’s clarify. A slave, in this context, is a disengaged employee who must be under the control of another to perform their job because without that control they would not perform. Volunteers are committed emotionally and intellectually. Slaves are controlled by domineering forces either spoken or unspoken.
Which type of employee creates greater profitability, quality customer service, and innovative ideas, a volunteer or slave? Ask yourself, would you want all volunteers or all slaves?
It is a much bigger challenge to manage volunteers and it requires very different skills. Managing slaves is a challenge too but in different ways. Managers of slaves must put in controls and policies that create compliance. Managers of volunteers must spend their time helping employees understand the mission, vision, values, and strategy of the organization. They must also explain how the employee’s responsibilities fit into these and how they can contribute to the achievement of all of those items. Volunteers must also have their skills matched to the task they hope to perform. If the task is too difficult they will refuse it because it might embarrass them if they perform poorly. Conversely, if the task is too easy they get bored. The challenge of the task must match the skill of the volunteer or it won’t get done.
Managers of slaves must spend a good deal of time with attorneys to understand how to force accountability. Managers of volunteers must continuously manage trust. They must also continuously communicate with the volunteers to understand how the system is impacting their performance. The managers of volunteers must facilitate the removal of barriers to performance. Managers of slaves must create new rules when mistakes are found or when jobs remain incomplete.
Slaves must conform to policy. Volunteers must be treated as individuals with differences. Volunteers can self-manage. Slaves must be managed. Volunteers gain motivation from the tasks they perform and the progress they are making. Slaves work for wages or rewards and care less about the tasks they perform.
All these outcomes must begin after two very important changes in thinking. Two important changes must occur before leaders can begin to refine the culture of engagement. Leaders must think differently about people and differently about their policies.
Thinking differently about people
To create an environment of volunteers leaders and managers must begin to think about employees as unlimited human potential not as human resources. This potential, when released, can possibly add unlimited value to the organization. Resources can be used up. Potential can be tapped as an unlimited supply. It is for this very reason I have suggested, in previous blogs, the need for the Human Resources department to change its name to the Human Potential Department.
Thinking differently about policies
Two of the most popular employee management tools are the performance appraisal, in conjunction with management by objectives, and the pay-for-performance policies. These two policies are created for slaves not volunteers. Leaders must be willing to let go of these addictive policies. They are inconsistent with a culture of engaged volunteers.
Performance appraisals control behaviors with threats to either future promotional opportunities or future pay (if pay-for-performance is linked to the appraisal).
Here are some action steps for leaders. Decide which type of employee is desired, a volunteer or a slave. Decide to change your thinking and begin to build the new skills needed. This is scary for leaders because the leadership skills are so different and require discipline and effort to develop and to maintain those skills. Leaders have to think differently before they can behave differently.
Treating employees as volunteers is the foundation for creating a predictably engaged workforce. By definition, volunteers do tasks because they want to. Slaves (disengaged employees) do things because they have to. Slaves (disengaged employees) are compliant. The word slave is emotionally charged. Let’s clarify. A slave, in this context, is a disengaged employee who must be under the control of another to perform their job because without that control they would not perform. Volunteers are committed emotionally and intellectually. Slaves are controlled by domineering forces either spoken or unspoken.
Which type of employee creates greater profitability, quality customer service, and innovative ideas, a volunteer or slave? Ask yourself, would you want all volunteers or all slaves?
It is a much bigger challenge to manage volunteers and it requires very different skills. Managing slaves is a challenge too but in different ways. Managers of slaves must put in controls and policies that create compliance. Managers of volunteers must spend their time helping employees understand the mission, vision, values, and strategy of the organization. They must also explain how the employee’s responsibilities fit into these and how they can contribute to the achievement of all of those items. Volunteers must also have their skills matched to the task they hope to perform. If the task is too difficult they will refuse it because it might embarrass them if they perform poorly. Conversely, if the task is too easy they get bored. The challenge of the task must match the skill of the volunteer or it won’t get done.
Managers of slaves must spend a good deal of time with attorneys to understand how to force accountability. Managers of volunteers must continuously manage trust. They must also continuously communicate with the volunteers to understand how the system is impacting their performance. The managers of volunteers must facilitate the removal of barriers to performance. Managers of slaves must create new rules when mistakes are found or when jobs remain incomplete.
Slaves must conform to policy. Volunteers must be treated as individuals with differences. Volunteers can self-manage. Slaves must be managed. Volunteers gain motivation from the tasks they perform and the progress they are making. Slaves work for wages or rewards and care less about the tasks they perform.
All these outcomes must begin after two very important changes in thinking. Two important changes must occur before leaders can begin to refine the culture of engagement. Leaders must think differently about people and differently about their policies.
Thinking differently about people
To create an environment of volunteers leaders and managers must begin to think about employees as unlimited human potential not as human resources. This potential, when released, can possibly add unlimited value to the organization. Resources can be used up. Potential can be tapped as an unlimited supply. It is for this very reason I have suggested, in previous blogs, the need for the Human Resources department to change its name to the Human Potential Department.
Thinking differently about policies
Two of the most popular employee management tools are the performance appraisal, in conjunction with management by objectives, and the pay-for-performance policies. These two policies are created for slaves not volunteers. Leaders must be willing to let go of these addictive policies. They are inconsistent with a culture of engaged volunteers.
Performance appraisals control behaviors with threats to either future promotional opportunities or future pay (if pay-for-performance is linked to the appraisal).
Here are some action steps for leaders. Decide which type of employee is desired, a volunteer or a slave. Decide to change your thinking and begin to build the new skills needed. This is scary for leaders because the leadership skills are so different and require discipline and effort to develop and to maintain those skills. Leaders have to think differently before they can behave differently.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Employee Engagement and Wisdom Go Together – 3 Levels of Understanding
Some recent events have caused me to question how the general population thinks about intelligence and how our leaders think about talent management and employee engagement. An IBM computer named Watson recently appeared on Jeopardy pitted against two very successful human Jeopardy contestants. Watson very successfully demonstrated “his” superior “knowledge” after two days of competition but, was it really “knowledge?” I don’t think so.
Watson is a question and answer machine. Although Jeopardy requires speedy recall of facts and the ability to untangle a variety of thoughts simultaneously, it essentially is a contest between brains that are like encyclopedias. The more facts you know, the faster you press the button, the more you win. The more information one can retain and regurgitate the more money one can win on Jeopardy. Watson doesn’t understand the information; it only processes it quickly according to a software program.
This is the thought that gave me pause. I keep getting the impression that we have this assumption that the skill of regurgitating facts is an indication of intelligence. This is wrong. Leaders with facts only are passé and useless in our economy. We must be clear about the definition of intelligence. What creates intelligence in our new economy?
There are three levels of understanding.
Level 1: Information
Information is raw data that is verified accurate, timely, has a purpose, and is presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance. A good example is the internet. One can do a search on anything on the internet and receive numerous “hits” explaining or clarifying the search item. Watson is in level one. He is able to understand human verbal input but ultimately he really just processes the request and delivers the “right” answer from his database via a brilliant software package. Watson is Google on steroids.
Level 2: Knowledge
Knowledge requires the processing of information to make a prediction. The prediction, if it comes true, represents knowledge. A chart of ocean tides represents knowledge because it makes a prediction about when high tide will occur. The theory is based on the movement of the Moon in relationship to the Earth.
Leaders/managers must accept responsibility for predicting the outcomes of processes under their supervision. Leaders/managers must be able to predict their outcomes and so their decisions must be based on knowledge. Leaders/managers must appreciate the difference between knowledge and information. Without knowledge, a leader/manager’s world remains as chaotic reaction to solve problems instead of strategic proactive action to prevent them. Continuously accumulating knowledge helps leaders to manage costs and improve customer satisfaction.
Level 3: Wisdom
Wisdom is a deep understanding of people, things, events or situations, allowing someone to take action and consistently produce the optimum results with a minimum of time and energy. Wisdom is the ability to optimally (effectively and efficiently) and consistently apply knowledge to produce desired results. Wisdom allows one to share knowledge with others to make significant contributions to society including solving social ills or optimizing community resources. Wisdom is a high level of accumulated knowledge. It can often manifest as a “gut feeling” based on a combination of complex factors but it is steeped in knowledge.
Our economy is now “brain-based” rather than “labor-based.” While few managers would dispute that we are living in the Information Age, many leaders are still thinking and employing management tools developed during the evolution of the Industrial Revolution, the era when machine-driven economies were the rule.
The complexity of the new “brain-based” competitive world (vs. the labor-based) requires continuous knowledge exchange among its employees; the expansion of competition into a global economy has created the need for leaders and employees to be fully engaged and to understand how to adapt more quickly to trends and techniques which may develop half a world away.
Regurgitating facts is not one of those skills that enable us to adapt to change. The key asset of successful firms resides inside the brains of their employees and their freedom to use their brains to increase knowledge and wisdom, not just process information. Successful firms require diverse and continuously evolving skills and the most important of which is the ability to work with people to help them synergize information, diverse opinions to generate knowledge.
One necessary outcome of this trend is reduced interchangeability. Therefore, employee turnover has to be reduced to a minimum to protect the knowledge inside the heads of these highly skilled employees. This means engagement is more important than ever to keep turnover low. Workers that walk out the door take company knowledge that may never be recovered.
The flow of information is not enough. The flow of facts through a fast and sophisticated computer is not enough to make us successful. Watson can’t create new ideas. Watson can’t synergize. Only humans can problem solve and be creative and synergize with each other.
My fear is we still consider quick regurgitation of facts as intelligence. Many firms are adopting a talent management approach for improving results. Let’s hope the criterion is not just the ability to regurgitate facts or I.Q. (intelligence quotient). Let’s hope it also the ability to work with people to synergize diverse views. Let’s hope it includes the ability to build trust and relationships and create cultures of engagement that accumulate knowledge.
Malcolm Gladwell, in his article “The Talent Myth” (New Yorker Magazine, July 22, 2002) points out there is no correlation between I.Q. and job performance. Other factors are more important such as the ability to manage yourself and your emotions, your ability to maneuver through complex social situations, and the ability to bring people together to synergize to accumulate knowledge.
Watson does not have knowledge and “he” certainly does not have wisdom. Let’s stop calling “fact regurgitation” intelligence. It is merely a sophisticated and speedy way to deliver information. Only humans who cooperate and understand the right theories can fully utilize information to create knowledge and accumulate wisdom. An environment that allows for the accumulation of knowledge will be “employee engagement friendly.” Only leaders with wisdom can create these environments. Leaders with facts only are passé and useless in this new economy.
Watson is a question and answer machine. Although Jeopardy requires speedy recall of facts and the ability to untangle a variety of thoughts simultaneously, it essentially is a contest between brains that are like encyclopedias. The more facts you know, the faster you press the button, the more you win. The more information one can retain and regurgitate the more money one can win on Jeopardy. Watson doesn’t understand the information; it only processes it quickly according to a software program.
This is the thought that gave me pause. I keep getting the impression that we have this assumption that the skill of regurgitating facts is an indication of intelligence. This is wrong. Leaders with facts only are passé and useless in our economy. We must be clear about the definition of intelligence. What creates intelligence in our new economy?
There are three levels of understanding.
Level 1: Information
Information is raw data that is verified accurate, timely, has a purpose, and is presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance. A good example is the internet. One can do a search on anything on the internet and receive numerous “hits” explaining or clarifying the search item. Watson is in level one. He is able to understand human verbal input but ultimately he really just processes the request and delivers the “right” answer from his database via a brilliant software package. Watson is Google on steroids.
Level 2: Knowledge
Knowledge requires the processing of information to make a prediction. The prediction, if it comes true, represents knowledge. A chart of ocean tides represents knowledge because it makes a prediction about when high tide will occur. The theory is based on the movement of the Moon in relationship to the Earth.
Leaders/managers must accept responsibility for predicting the outcomes of processes under their supervision. Leaders/managers must be able to predict their outcomes and so their decisions must be based on knowledge. Leaders/managers must appreciate the difference between knowledge and information. Without knowledge, a leader/manager’s world remains as chaotic reaction to solve problems instead of strategic proactive action to prevent them. Continuously accumulating knowledge helps leaders to manage costs and improve customer satisfaction.
Level 3: Wisdom
Wisdom is a deep understanding of people, things, events or situations, allowing someone to take action and consistently produce the optimum results with a minimum of time and energy. Wisdom is the ability to optimally (effectively and efficiently) and consistently apply knowledge to produce desired results. Wisdom allows one to share knowledge with others to make significant contributions to society including solving social ills or optimizing community resources. Wisdom is a high level of accumulated knowledge. It can often manifest as a “gut feeling” based on a combination of complex factors but it is steeped in knowledge.
Our economy is now “brain-based” rather than “labor-based.” While few managers would dispute that we are living in the Information Age, many leaders are still thinking and employing management tools developed during the evolution of the Industrial Revolution, the era when machine-driven economies were the rule.
The complexity of the new “brain-based” competitive world (vs. the labor-based) requires continuous knowledge exchange among its employees; the expansion of competition into a global economy has created the need for leaders and employees to be fully engaged and to understand how to adapt more quickly to trends and techniques which may develop half a world away.
Regurgitating facts is not one of those skills that enable us to adapt to change. The key asset of successful firms resides inside the brains of their employees and their freedom to use their brains to increase knowledge and wisdom, not just process information. Successful firms require diverse and continuously evolving skills and the most important of which is the ability to work with people to help them synergize information, diverse opinions to generate knowledge.
One necessary outcome of this trend is reduced interchangeability. Therefore, employee turnover has to be reduced to a minimum to protect the knowledge inside the heads of these highly skilled employees. This means engagement is more important than ever to keep turnover low. Workers that walk out the door take company knowledge that may never be recovered.
The flow of information is not enough. The flow of facts through a fast and sophisticated computer is not enough to make us successful. Watson can’t create new ideas. Watson can’t synergize. Only humans can problem solve and be creative and synergize with each other.
My fear is we still consider quick regurgitation of facts as intelligence. Many firms are adopting a talent management approach for improving results. Let’s hope the criterion is not just the ability to regurgitate facts or I.Q. (intelligence quotient). Let’s hope it also the ability to work with people to synergize diverse views. Let’s hope it includes the ability to build trust and relationships and create cultures of engagement that accumulate knowledge.
Malcolm Gladwell, in his article “The Talent Myth” (New Yorker Magazine, July 22, 2002) points out there is no correlation between I.Q. and job performance. Other factors are more important such as the ability to manage yourself and your emotions, your ability to maneuver through complex social situations, and the ability to bring people together to synergize to accumulate knowledge.
Watson does not have knowledge and “he” certainly does not have wisdom. Let’s stop calling “fact regurgitation” intelligence. It is merely a sophisticated and speedy way to deliver information. Only humans who cooperate and understand the right theories can fully utilize information to create knowledge and accumulate wisdom. An environment that allows for the accumulation of knowledge will be “employee engagement friendly.” Only leaders with wisdom can create these environments. Leaders with facts only are passé and useless in this new economy.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Which comes first, Employee Engagement or Cooperation?
Which comes first, employee engagement or cooperation? Employee engagement is a complex emotional response to a vast number of factors too numerous to mention here in this short blog. Because it is such a complex emotional condition that can vary from employee to employee, an effective strategy for leaders is to create the right environment and manage those factors that best facilitate its natural growth.
Just as a gardener would create the right conditions for a delicate orchid plant to produce its lovely flowers, it is useful to think of engagement as an outcome of just the right conditions and just the right love and tender care.
Following this logic, we might again ask which comes first employee engagement or cooperation? Cooperation must come first. Cooperation is a condition in the environment that allows optimum productivity, achievement, and engagement. This begs the question, “How do we create an environment that encourages cooperation?” Do we just hire cooperative people or are there factors we can control in the environment? Are there system factors we can create?
I walk my dogs twice a day. During the winter I take them to the beach. We have lovely beaches in Southwestern Connecticut. Dogs are not allowed on the beach in summer. It is a local ordinance. It is a shame. One reason for this is because cleanliness of the beach is compromised by those few owners who fail to clean up after their dogs. Anyway, in the winter no one really bothers us and there are very few people who utilize the beach because the weather is very often unpleasant.
The other day while walking with the dogs on the beach I noticed an unusual accumulation of “dog dirt” in various places. Irresponsible owners were walking their dogs and not cleaning up. Having extra plastic bags with me I began picking up the “extra dirt.” Needless to say this was an unpleasant job. I began to get very angry. Yet, I kept working to clean up. I was willingly doing a task that was not my responsibility. Why? Why was I cooperating with people who were so irresponsible? Why was I so engaged in an unpleasant task?
According to the book “The Evolution of Cooperation” Robert Axelrod explains that there are three conditions that can create cooperation. Two parties will cooperate naturally if, there is frequent expected future interactions, clearly understood benefits each party will enjoy if they cooperate, and clearly understand negative consequences if they fail to cooperate.
All three elements were in place for me and the dogs. I wanted to use the beach frequently in the future. The benefits of going to the beach with the dogs are numerous including the lovely scenery, an opportunity for the dogs to run free and get lots of exercise, a place to walk unencumbered by extra snow to name a few. The consequences for not picking up the extra dirt (for not cooperating) is someone will complain, an Animal Enforcement Officer might be called in to inspect, I might get a ticket, and I will have to stop coming to the beach with the dogs.
As angry as I was with those irresponsible owners, I was willing to cooperate and clean up after them. I had a bigger set of reasons to cooperate and my emotional reaction was overridden by other factors, i.e. the factors that create cooperation.
Leaders can do this in their teams. The factors of cooperation are not enough to keep engagement going. These are not the only factors that create “the right conditions for a delicate orchid plant to produce its lovely flowers.” For example, in an organization I would expect to be able to influence the offenders to change their behaviors. I would expect I would have an opportunity to communicate my anger and someone would listen.
Without cooperation engagement is difficult to nurture. If you are a leader keep in mind these factors when you see a lack of cooperation in your team. When anyone of these factors is missing there will be damage to the “delicate balance” that leads to the “delicate flower” of employee engagement.
Just as a gardener would create the right conditions for a delicate orchid plant to produce its lovely flowers, it is useful to think of engagement as an outcome of just the right conditions and just the right love and tender care.
Following this logic, we might again ask which comes first employee engagement or cooperation? Cooperation must come first. Cooperation is a condition in the environment that allows optimum productivity, achievement, and engagement. This begs the question, “How do we create an environment that encourages cooperation?” Do we just hire cooperative people or are there factors we can control in the environment? Are there system factors we can create?
I walk my dogs twice a day. During the winter I take them to the beach. We have lovely beaches in Southwestern Connecticut. Dogs are not allowed on the beach in summer. It is a local ordinance. It is a shame. One reason for this is because cleanliness of the beach is compromised by those few owners who fail to clean up after their dogs. Anyway, in the winter no one really bothers us and there are very few people who utilize the beach because the weather is very often unpleasant.
The other day while walking with the dogs on the beach I noticed an unusual accumulation of “dog dirt” in various places. Irresponsible owners were walking their dogs and not cleaning up. Having extra plastic bags with me I began picking up the “extra dirt.” Needless to say this was an unpleasant job. I began to get very angry. Yet, I kept working to clean up. I was willingly doing a task that was not my responsibility. Why? Why was I cooperating with people who were so irresponsible? Why was I so engaged in an unpleasant task?
According to the book “The Evolution of Cooperation” Robert Axelrod explains that there are three conditions that can create cooperation. Two parties will cooperate naturally if, there is frequent expected future interactions, clearly understood benefits each party will enjoy if they cooperate, and clearly understand negative consequences if they fail to cooperate.
All three elements were in place for me and the dogs. I wanted to use the beach frequently in the future. The benefits of going to the beach with the dogs are numerous including the lovely scenery, an opportunity for the dogs to run free and get lots of exercise, a place to walk unencumbered by extra snow to name a few. The consequences for not picking up the extra dirt (for not cooperating) is someone will complain, an Animal Enforcement Officer might be called in to inspect, I might get a ticket, and I will have to stop coming to the beach with the dogs.
As angry as I was with those irresponsible owners, I was willing to cooperate and clean up after them. I had a bigger set of reasons to cooperate and my emotional reaction was overridden by other factors, i.e. the factors that create cooperation.
Leaders can do this in their teams. The factors of cooperation are not enough to keep engagement going. These are not the only factors that create “the right conditions for a delicate orchid plant to produce its lovely flowers.” For example, in an organization I would expect to be able to influence the offenders to change their behaviors. I would expect I would have an opportunity to communicate my anger and someone would listen.
Without cooperation engagement is difficult to nurture. If you are a leader keep in mind these factors when you see a lack of cooperation in your team. When anyone of these factors is missing there will be damage to the “delicate balance” that leads to the “delicate flower” of employee engagement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
