The smart “no”

You need to cancel something on someone but you do not know how? Well, there are for example the …

 

8 ways of saying “no”

  1. I would like to … but unfortunately I can’t.
  2. This would contradict my personal maxims.
  3. I would like to make an alternative suggestion.
  4. My wife doesn’t want it.
  5. I would gladly pick up later … but currently I am at full capacity.
  6. I appreciate your kind offer … but to my opinion even more is possible.
  7. I need to think about it.
  8. John can do it much better!

(by Darius Götsch in the German Movo magazine, issue 1 2016)

 

The smart “no”

To my personal opinion, the best way in any case is being open, transparent and honest and letting people not wait for your decision longer than necessary.

If something is going beyond your capabilities … clarify it. If you are fully loaded … say it. If you need time to think about … request it. If you have an even better idea … suggest it. If you have an ethical or fundamental issue … put it on the table.

But do not delay your “no” because you are afraid. Fear is a bad advisor. And in case you are concerned about the possibility of negative consequences of a “no”, promptly document your decision and the underlying justification with a brief mail (optionally with CC to your line manager and/or the project manager).

Be clear with your “no” and be clear with your “yes” without dancing around the cake. And most people will appreciate. Those who do not anyhow don’t care about your opinion. But this is a different story.

The true reason why younger candidates are favored

If you challenge an existing preference for hiring younger workers over e.g. “best agers” (50+), you get a series of arguments which initially sound somehow reasonable.

  • Younger candidates have more energy and higher productivity.
  • Younger candidates bring along more recent expert knowledge due to their contemporary professional training/university education … and thereby deliver higher quality.
  • Younger candidates are cheaper.
  • Younger candidates are less resistent to change.
  • In an aging society it is more future-oriented to hire younger candidates and develop them internally on the long-term.

As non-involved I can dare to say: all those are dumb stereotypes … if not lies!

 

The “younger is more productive” myth

It has been repeatedly investigated and proven hat “best agers” on average do show at least a similar productivity and level of achievements while typically being more efficient and delivering higher quality. No more to say.

 

The “younger is cheaper” myth

Is it? I would like to challenge this assertion by stating that the average “best ager” achieves more with less energy and in less time. He compensates youthful freshness with experience and beneficial learnings from the past. So, I dare to say that a complete and honest calculation will give at least the same if not lower costs for the “best ager”.

And by the way, cheap or valuable, you always get what you pay for!

 

The “younger provides better knowledge” myth

Yes, sure, the expert knowledge a mid-20s university leaver brings along is more recent. But …

  1. By whom did they get it? From “best agers” being their trainer/teacher, am I right or am I wrong?
  2. Blank knowledge from professional training or university is by far not enough for real life success and best practice. “Best agers” typically provide expert knowledge plus experiences from years of daily working including highly valuable experiences and learnings the youngster simply miss. The overall level of current and real-life knowledge is much higher with the “best ager”.

And by the way, it is impertinent to generally insinuate that older colleagues do not continuously develop their expert knowledge to the state-of-the-art level.

 

The “seniors are more resistant to change” myth

To my observation, more senior colleagues are not above average resistant to change but in many cases even drive it. And I was involved in quite a few change projects/processes. No, senior colleagues do more dare speaking up for stupid changes and dumb implementations … where many  youngsters just follow like sheep. For me this level of commitment by senior colleagues never has been a bug but a feature. And in most cases it was highly beneficial for the whole change project.

 

The “younger provides more long-term benefit” myth

Especially the more promising youngsters have a much higher tendency to switch their job if not the company due to career aspirations. Exception proves the rule and there are certainly companies which do a proper good job in developing and keeping their staff. But I dare to say that many companies will benefit longer from a hired “best ager” staying 10-15 years than of a “±30 ager” leaving for the next career step after 3-4 years.

 

The true reason

I think there is another important point which is typically less mentioned but more influencing the preference for younger candidates within a hiring process.

Younger workers are much easier to influence and to manipulate. They challenge instructions and decisions by their line manager (who is also their hiring manager) much less. And just to avoid any misunderstanding: to my opinion this is bad, at least with  advanced, innovative, forward-thinking companies. But unfortunately there is a fatal correlation between leader quality and the tendency to hire team members which are better qualified than oneself.

“Best agers” are not more difficult to lead. But they are more resistant to bad leadership. So they are less likely hired by bad leaders who cannot stand to be constructively challenged.

Check it! Just watch the leaders in your own working environment. Which of them would you rate as better leaders and which as worse? And what is the average team age of the better … and what the average team age of the poor leaders? *

You see, what I mean!


* OK, and please kindly ignore any constitutional bias, e.g. by type of job or team where the average age is unavoidably lower. 

Do not let your customer doing your QC

I call it the “Microsoft principle” … and it is a mess. For many years, Microsoft is quite famous for delivering half-baked software, which is subsequently improved by patches and “service packs” based on customer findings. Microsoft lets its customers do the quality control (QC) for them.

 

Change of scenery. A couple of years ago, I attended a lean processes workshop. To make a long story short, the resulting “optimized” lean process basically included an abandonment of the pre-delivery inspection process step and a shift of the final QC to the customer. To be fair, some new QC cross-checks were included at handover interfaces within the process … but the proof that the product is finally OK was factually handed over.

I was surprised finding myself alone with speaking up and insisting: “this is simply crap!

At this point I need to admit, that my horizon of experience had been different from the others. Before joining the pharmaceutical company (I was working for at that time), I had had my own little service business for about 10 years. So, I knew by heart, that customers typically wish if not clearly expect to get a product of reliable high quality delivered for the money they pay. And I think, they can expect to get the same. Also I myself do. As a service provider it had always been a wonderful and tremendously satisfying experience getting customer’s feedback that he is vice versa satisfied and happy with a high quality, error-free delivery. I tell you, it is really great to enjoy your own appreciated product.

 

Certainly, a customer needs provide an explicit confirmation of proper delivery which by design requires some kind of  cross-check on his side. But this is not what I am talking about. Ideally he should not find anything. At least no careless mistakes or faulty deliveries which typically would have been identified and rejected by a proper pre-delivery QC.

Change of scenery again. I recently worked with an agency where I typically had to check every delivery several times. In my view, I was doing their work. And we are talking about mistakes which were obvious and would have been solved by a simple pre-delivery cross-check at the agency before reaching my desk. And I found myself asking, why I am doing a part of the job I am actually paying for? I clearly expect (just in case any current of future collaborating agency might read this) a reliable, rock solid product which is finally QCed already before landing in my inbox. This agency was simply annoying me.

Would this be the basis of a long fruitful collaboration?

I do not really think so.

 

Altogether, delivering properly QCed products might be better for business than being “over-lean”. Do not play Microsoft until you are in the same monopoly position.

Satisfy by quality … and enjoy satisfaction and success!

Why doesn’t anyone tell him …?

post20141107A zur deutschen Versionnew division head is in town. And he (or she) wants to share his vision and plans with the team members in subordinate departments and business units. First of all, a fair approach.

So, the new boss arranges a “townhall”, which is .. how should I say … a mix of collective self-congratulation, motivational speaker show, and blatant puffery. Actually, the intended purpose is to reduce need for the new boss to deal with each subordinate individually but rather polish off all at once.

Making a digression. Back to the topic …

Well, said new division head stands in front of the audience, perhaps something between 300 and 400 subordinates, and talks about his plans. He mentions that in the past quite a few things had been done quite well already, and that he appreciates those efforts and the great expertise of the teams and people … but that there certainly is room for improvement and optimization. He presents his new master plan, laid out for 5-6 years, at last solving all issues of the division, and which will be the ultimate solution for a prospering future of the enterprise. Goes without saying that the plan crucially includes a reorganisation.

There is just one problem: he (or she) is the 3rd new division head in 5 years already. And the majority of colleagues sitting in the audience have repeatedly heard exactly the same speech. This is still very much present, it hasn’t even reached long-term memory yet. And those colleagues sit on their chairs, listen to the presentation, and think: “What a speechifier! In 2 years max you will been gone again. And then the next one jumps in, and retells the same, that he now knows how it really works. And your master plan is going to be history like all the other big master plans before.”

Summary: Actually the new division head just now makes a fool of himself.

Is that really necessary? Why did nobody appropriately prepare and brief him? Who the heck coaches middle managers such amateurishly? It almost appears as would someone simply follow a checklist … a rather goony one by the way.

An honest and down-to-earth announcement gaining respect and appreciation by associates rather would sound like this  …

“Hi everybody! I am the new boss, and I also cannot turn water to wine! We are going to spend the next 2 years together, perhaps even a bit less. Let’s make the best out of it! So that at the end all of us are able to show some smaller or bigger but nice achievements and progresses, without any unneeded collateral damages.”

Don’t forget to gaggle!

post20130301zur deutschen VersionWisdom out of life for (working) life:

Once there was a countrywoman and her three chickens. While the three chickens were laying their eggs into the same shared nest, the countrywoman found only two new eggs in the nest every day.

So, she started to watch her hens. And after a while evidence seemed to be clear:

Every day always the same two chicken left the nest gaggling loudly. The third one, also always the same, quietly stole off.

So, the countrywoman quickly came to an inevitable  decision … and the modest chicken ended up in the stockpot.

But, from the next day on – to her very surprise – there was just one egg in the nest every day!

Now, what are the conclusions of this story:

  1. Some gaggle loudly even without having performed and achieved.
  2. Achieving without gaggling can kill!

 (translation from German, unknown author)

From Builders and Maintainers

zur deutschen VersionI so far met basically three types of human characters within – esp. larger – companies: Builders, Maintainers and Destroyers.

Builders

post20130120Building is their passion. They are restless. The status quo never is good enough. After the implementation is before the implementation.

Builders are thinking forward, innovatively and constructively. They see changes as tools for improvement and development. But they set a high value on a well-founded and provable rational for any changes needed as part of their overall plan.

Builders know that for being successful they have to convince others (like Maintainers) and bring them in. They are usually quite clever in positively influencing people, and they can be very inspiring and motivating for others. On the other side of the coin, Builders can be quickly frustrated by resistance to – in their view – obvious room for improvement. E.g., Builders have the tendency to underestimate the importance of politics, esp. when going beyond factual businesslike objectives. If they fail it is often due to a outflanking by games at work.

Beyond that, Builders will always be strong drivers of innovation and development.

Maintainers

Maintainers merge into ensuring stability and consistency … of processes, services, tools, etc. They can do the same set of tasks over and over again, day after day, year after year. Continuity is their mission. As a convenient side effect, Maintainers are extremely good in identifying deviations and threads.

So, Maintainers love the status quo. But they are not just resistant to changes, a common misunderstanding and complete misinterpretation. Factually, they just insist on a well-founded and convincing justification for a change. What is actually a fair approach!

Factually, Maintainers are the backbone of most companies, ensuring business continuity. They bring overeager Builders back to earth, and steadily mop up behind Destroyers.

Destroyers

The dilemma of Destroyers is that most of them are deeply convinced they would be Builders. So, a mismatch between self- and external perception is definitely an issue with Destroyers.

Well, basically they are right. Building often needs changes, and changes sometimes also need destruction. But they make 2 major – to my opinion – mistakes. First, they are biased and fixated on change. And second, they generally mistake change with destruction.

Many Destroyers follow the illusion that the event of a change itself would be good. They are disciples of change. In their thinking it boosts organizational creativity and evolution. The origin of this misconception is an outdated and wrong sociological interpretation of the biological evolution paradigm. On top, Destroyers often undervalue the importance of sound change management – not in proclamation but in implementation. Then, destruction is not an intrinsic consequence of the change but of bad (or no true) change management.

“Chopper managers” are typical Destroyers. So, you don’t know “chopper managers”? I am sure you do!  “Chopper managers” are hopping from one position to the other, like tourist doing a helicopter sightseeing tour. They simply fly in (whencesoever), make a lot of wind when landing, create a maximum of confusion, and fly out again soon enough before they need to face the outcomes or take responsibility for long-term consequences.

Unfortunately, Destroyers have the highest impact in many companies, giving Builders and Maintainers a hard time.

So, what are you?!

I found myself without doubt having a very strong Builder component. I love to develop, to implement and to provide new solutions. I can also be a Maintainer … for a while. But sooner or later this stops satisfying me, and I start looking for opportunities to do some “building” and improvement at least within my proximate range. I am also open to destruction, but I insist on well-founded and convincing rational as well as sound change management. And I absolutely hate destruction of a so-called “running system” without true need, or doing a change just for its own sake.

Altogether, it looks like that I seem to be a Builder, with a secondary Maintainer facet, and only constructive Destroyer qualities.

Builder, Maintainer or Destroyer … what are you?

Warning: Harvard Business Review may cause depression

Do you know that experience? You are reading the latest “Harvard Management Review” (HBR), and sooner or later you are reached by a melancholic mood.

Because you simply realize that – regarding recent management methods – there seems to be such a huge gap between aspiration and everyday reality.  On the one hand you are reading in HBR how things should be, or at least could be … and in real-life you have to stand the complete opposite. This can really get you down. So, a warning notice on HBR saying something like “Reading this journal may cause depression” could really be no bad idea.

OK, of course even in HBR all that glitters is not gold. There are also articles containing complete rubbish. Ultimately, HBR is no bible but a kind of discussion platform on new ideas and approaches. Some of it even being quite theoretical. And not everything reported for having worked in one branch of business or a particular company can be generalized.

But … I need to honestly admit that a lot of stories I read in HBR really convince me, because they obviously make sense. My particular interest is with articles on leadership. And there I regularly find a lot of extremely good and inspiring stuff written – at least to my opinion. Out of the practice and for the practice. Solutions which are often already proven to be successful, and always put into showcases.

However, something is obviously going wrong. Either not really all people who preen themselves on being regular HBR consumers actually read the HBR articles. Or the read is somewhere getting lost on the way to the brain. Or it is in a spontaneous amnesia instantly forgotten again. I really have no other explanation for the observation why so many managers behave such contrary to the state-of-the-art methods published in HBR. By the way, I experienced something similar with management trainings. The complete antagonism between leadership methods learned in a training … and real-life behavior. Does this not sound unfamiliar to you? Do not expect me to be able to provide an explanation, please. I am still searching for myself. As mentioned before, spontaneous retrograde amnesia is my hottest favorite so far.

But what can I do? Well, I can start with myself, that I don’t follow – intended or not – the same behavior. Reading HBR and not making anything out of it anyhow is inefficient and unproductive. This would be beneath a smart and successful manager. Beyond that many approaches you can read there just work. So, I am having a true benefit by not being just a HBR reader but a HBR implementer. Yes, it is a good cause to permanently work on yourself. To again and again self-critically challenge your own leadership practice. To learn from others. To change your own habits if being needful. Not just to read and to vaunt that, but to “digest” and implement. To actively develop yourself further.

Therefore, I would like to propose a new warning notice for “consuming” HBR: “Warning: Reading this journals may cause changed managing habits and personal development!” And subsequently result in more success. Your choice!