Follow Us Twitter Link | Email Us email us | 1.888.745.2520

Archive for the ‘business’ Category

How to Set the Bar for Better Performance in Your Organization

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

By William Seidman

Positive deviants model the ethical attitudes and best practices that others should achieve. They are the primary creators and preservers of an organization’s ethics. These individuals are motivated by a commitment to create a “social good” for their customers and for their organization: they are the ideal candidates to set the bar within your company’s culture.

Use your organization’s positive deviants to establish a clear, specific standard of ethical values, attitudes and behaviors. This is one of the most effective ways you can create change in your organization.

In this video I explain how to set the bar to create a useful picture of the results you want:

Answering Some Thoughtful Questions from Management Consultant Robert Morris

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

By William Seidman

I was recently interviewed by management consultant Robert Morris. Our conversation was posted on the  First Friday Book Synopsis,  part of ”The Employee Engagement Network.” I’ll be sharing some of the highlights (some edited for brevity) here.

Today: What I know now that I wish I’d known when I founded Cerebyte, the major challenges our clients face, and the difference between leadership and management..

Morris: What do you know now that you wish you had known when you founded Cerebyte?

Seidman: Our most valuable insight is this: how hard it is to establish an innovative product and process even if everyone says they want it and even if it has incredibly strong proof points to support it. More specifically, we thought there would be an openness to innovation in the area of performance improvement because almost every organization talked about the need to improve performance and there was widespread agreement about the ineffectiveness of the available approaches (e.g. training classes) at improving performance. However, there was actually a tremendous amount of resistance to change, even if everyone thought it was a good thing to do. It was only when the science actually caught up with what we had been doing, and became widely accepted that the resistance to change decreased.

Morris: Although there is great diversity among Cerebyte clients, in terms of both size and nature of business, which major challenge do all of them face? How specifically does Cerebyte help them to respond effectively to that challenge?

Seidman: They are serious about making the changes in their organization required to significantly improve performance, usually in a particular focus area. In many cases, it is a “change or die” situation for them so motivation and disillusionment with traditional approaches are high. We help organizations improve performance, faster, more completely, more predictably and at less expense than has previously been possible.

Morris: Do you differentiate leadership from management?

Seidman: Yes, though primarily in the leadership programs we develop for our customers. To us, leadership is much more about creating a compelling vision and providing the support and resources that enable the team to achieve the vision (in our terminology, it is about guiding “transformation”) while management is much more about the administration of the business (i.e. “transactions”). We find that this difference is most important when there are significant challenges to the organization. Managers retreat from performance improvements to a survival mode - Did I make my numbers today? -whereas leaders look at the challenges as an opportunity to drive the organization forward, even if it means taking some significant risks.

In addition, we know that “operational excellence,” which is the focus of management, is a subset of leadership —  so if you have great leadership, you get the best of both worlds. It doesn’t work the other way though. Managers, even good ones, literally think differently than great leaders and need extensive education to become leaders.

Are Your Managers Planning, or Are They Pedaling as Fast as They Can? Think Again.

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

By William Seidman

 

I’ve recently read two very good books: The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen and and The Knowing-Doing Gap by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton.

 

Christensen and Pfeffer and Sutton each tell the truth about what happens when organizations try to change – and why it is so hard to change.

 

Christensen describes how institutions develop infrastructure that is focused, to the exclusion of all else, on today,  emphasizing current issues over planning for the future. These hidden biases and barriers to thinking ahead tend to be the factors that most undermine change.

 

It makes sense that a company’s daily pressures to make short-term numbers demand quick action, and that this be done in ways that have worked before.  But it doesn’t help with tomorrow’s challenges — not one bit.

 

Vitally important changes are all but impossible to accomplish when managers are preoccupied with filling orders regardless of what might lie ahead.  I think of the bumper sticker I used to see, “DON’T HONK. I’M PEDALING AS FAST AS I CAN!”

Pfeffer and Sutton take this idea a step farther,  showing how management teams know about these issues and even know what they should do —  but don’t do it because, again,  of pressure to satisfy immediate needs.

 

An exasperated colleague said to me the other day, “Sometimes you just want to shake people!”

 

We try to break down these barriers by using existing leadership and showing, convincingly, that there’s a lot more to sustained success than “pedaling as fast as you can.”

 

Waking Up the Tiredest Term, “Solution” (It Isn’t a Liquid)

Monday, June 28th, 2010

By William Seidman

If you’re like me,  you’re tired of the term “solution,” a catchall term in business marketing which is so overused as to have lost its meaning.

I’ve been working with several companies lately who all claim to provide “solutions” to their clients. We work to define the term.

Each client has a different understanding of what their ”solution” needs to be,  and within companies there are often several interpretations:

For product divisions and groups, a solution is found in several of their products. The underlying thinking is multiple products, even if completely separate, equal a “solution.”

The sales collateral, sales training, pricing, and infrastructure typically line up with this notion of products that solve a problem.

For sales and marketing, a solution is often what they can sell - which still usually means multiple products because that’s how they’re set up.

I have come to favor a different perspective from the The Mind of the Customer: How the World’s Leading Sales Forces Accelerate Their Customers’ Success by Richard Hodge and Lou Schachter. In their view, a solution is really a means of helping clients to accelerate their organization’s ability to achieve its objective.

I don’t have a better word, but to me a solution is often broad: it’s about understanding what the customer wants and providing the means to get there.

While this means a mix of products and services, it is not driven so much by the individual item but by the synthesis of them.

A real “solution” enables  customers to feel better about what they buy —  and they buy more. Isn’t that what you want?

Band-Aids are Quick but Are They Enough?

Monday, April 12th, 2010

 By William Seidman

I recently worked with a management team that was in extreme pain. They wanted immediate relief.  I got them to admit that it had taken several years to create this painful situation.

It’s human nature to hope that a workshop and a simple prescription — a piece of new software or a brief training — will heal everything. Sometimes I’m asked for a redesign of an entire business process.

But I often find that what is actually wanted is some analysis and some conclusions that justify moving the problem from the suffering team to either another one, or … anywhere else!

When revenue targets are fixed, headcount and other costs are declining, and the core of the business process is dependent on unreliable software, the math won’t work, and neither will the logic.

There is an out though. It is to step back and do a deep redesign based on these parameters. That’s what  we proposed. It’s not lightning-fast, though, and the team wanted something quicker-acting.

They decided that, rather than really repairing some deep damage, that they’d do some shuffling of the pain and hope it solves the problem. My prediction is that they will be back talking to us again in 2 months. The pain will be worse, and now they will have lost 3 months.

It’s a scary way to manage.

Doing Something You’re Not Already Good At

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

By William Seidman

We’re working with a company that wants to change the way it does training.

Instead of the old dull Power Points, they asked us for a highly interactive type of training.
We agreed and designed an interactive approach that does not rely on Power Points.

The managers looked at it and were reluctant to even try it! Turns out they were much more comfortable with Power Point presentations and wanted to use them — staying in the old comfort zone which they agree isn’t effective — if only to show why they didn’t want to use them.

Is this logical?

No, but it’s human nature. 

Every level of an organization needs to step out of its comfort zone at times for real change to occur. Leaders can model this. It isn’t easy, but leadership must be willing to try new things — at the risk of some discomfort — for performance to improve. Most of us don’t want to do things we’re not already good at, but it’s just this kind of willing, open experimentation that can lead to effective change.

When Same-Old, Same-Old Needs a Transformation: Changing Company Culture

Monday, March 15th, 2010

By William Seidman

I’m working with a group of very competent, smart managers now. I’m coaching them to unlearn certain practices that, frankly, aren’t working anymore.

Our challenge: to change the culture of the company from one that fills orders and generally meets customer expectations — a transactional approach — into one that anticipates future needs and can propose new and creative solutions that please customers and energize managers. (And can still fill those orders!)  This new approach can be called transformational.

While the managers I’m working with may talk about making the organization transformational, like so many of us they tend to return to their comfort zone and stick with same-old, same-old business processes that are fundamentally transactional.

They’re constantly surprised when they don’t achieve their objectives.

Do you want your company to merely meet needs — or to be a vitally important resource?

Fortunately, these managers are learning the Cerebyte approach and to think and to function like positive deviants –  transformationally. We coach managers to think like their best positive deviants: that’s where the creativity is.

Managers who are empowered to think freshly are happier and more productive. We know that fresh thinking is an art and a craft that can be taught and learned.

Purpose, Autonomy, and Finally: Mastery

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

By William Seidman

Dan Pink in Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us names autonomy, mastery and purpose as key factors in creating intrinsic motivation.

He describes them as equal, but Cerebyte’s experience is that purpose is the foundation for the other two. People are inspired and motivated by a sense of purpose — and it inspires them to put in the extra work that creates mastery.

In turn, purpose-driven mastery creates trust which allows organizations to provide autonomy.

Once in place, these factors are self-reinforcing, but they start with purpose.

Purpose is the positive deviant’s “social good” and is the foundation for motivating others.

Want to read Drive with a group? It’s the New Yorker Online Book Club’s March pick.

Motivation: Do What You Know is Right, Not Because You’re Afraid of Consequences

Monday, March 8th, 2010

By William Seidman

I am enthusiastic about Daniel Pink’s newest book Drive, and have been discussing it a lot lately, but I had some questions for Pink:

Q. Why don’t more companies adopt and support intrinsic motivation? (Pink calls it “Motivation 3.0″)

Q. Most executives know that it is more powerful than the old carrot-and-stick approaches — “Motivation 2.0.”  So why not rely on it?

I emailed Pink and got a quick response. His thinking is that “folklore” was a critical factor. People have been brought up on Motivation 2.0 - the carrot and the stick — and told it is the way to drive work. Leaders rely on that.

I think it goes even further. I think Motivation 3.0 - intrinsic motivation, which comes from within — requires executives to trust people to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do, and executives are not really comfortable trusting others.

A move to 3.0 requires of a leap of faith.

Fortunately, recent advances in neuroscience make the leap smaller because this research shows how our brains respond differently to 2.0 than 3.0.

As Pink notes, intrinsic motivation literally stimulates different portions of the brain that are more closely associated with independent work.

This is the same body of research Cerebyte uses to create and sustain people’s motivation to change.

Intrinsic Motivation: Doing Things Because They Matter

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

By William Seidman

I’m excited about Daniel Pink’s book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.

Pink thinks “there’s a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.”  Intrinsic motivation, according to Pink, is what really motivates people. He calls autonomy, mastery, and purpose THE motivating forces, and the old carrot-and-stick approach “a lazy, dangerous ideology.”

Numerous good studies have shown that people want autonomy at work, and that it’s a better motivator than money.

Drive is consistent with Cerebyte’s approach. We focus on the knowledge of an organization’s positive deviants. Social good is a powerful motivator for these workers. They’re driven from within and by the pleasure of doing things they care about — and that really matter, both to them and to their organization.


 
Better Tag Cloud