When We Cross That River

Imagine two individuals standing on the same side of the same river but with some distance in between them. And one is standing at a point where the river is calm and gentle whereas the other is standing at a point where the river is wild and fast. Now what will happen when the two will call each other only to consult one another how to cross this river? Do you think they will agree on the way to get across? Probably not. Yet I see this happening every day in organisations. Individuals and groups in direct opposition when discussing solutions whilst they are facing a different problem. They share the same goal: reaching the other side. But they are looking at different parts of the river, requiring them to think differently. Now some would argue that it's simply a matter of reaching agreement on what the problem is. But sometimes we think we agree but we don't. Or we can't agree. Why is that?

First there are a couple of constraints that need to be understood by both. Recognizing these five may increase your options to reach that shared goal:

1. The premature solution
We try so hard to focus on solutions that often we forget to analyze the problem sufficiently, causing us to limit our data gathering, use familiar ways that we know how to solve, and finally, narrow too soon. This can also be 'the single-solution dogma'. We have found a solution to the problem as we see it. Can we accept that there might be several solutions instead of one?

2. The forgotten principle
Problems often reoccur. While this doesn't call for repeating a solution, it's not uncommon that organisations have thought of a principle to guide them each time a problem of similar nature occurs. But principles tend to be forgotten or understood differently over time, whilst they can help us agree that multiple solutions could fit.

3. The policy straitjacket
Organisations often seek efficiency and control by standardisation. If similar problems are addressed in the same way, policies are in place, then people know how to act and we can predict the outcome. But while standardizing manufacturing processes makes perfectly sense, it doesn't make any sense in problem-solving. It limits the use of common sense and may deny us better solutions for different contexts in which the same problem can occur.

4. The improbable testimony
You are looking at the problem but you fail to see it as the other does. Of course! You are looking at it from a different angle. Denying someone's perception of the problem is more harmful than the problem itself. It causes distrust and closes doors for further dialogue and collaboration.

5. The Babylon effect
Christian or not, we all know the story. In ancient Babylon, the Babylonians were building a tower to reach to heaven to sit next to God and rule the world. In the biblical story, God placed confusion of speech upon the builders so they could no longer communicate and complete their work. Are we really speaking the same language?


In fact, there are many more constraints to mention that can cause us to disagree on a solution, or worse, make us settle for a less optimal consensus. But the ones mentioned here are some within your direct span of control. Recognize these and you are half way there!

Is There Value in Ballyhoo and Hysteria?

Anyone in the HR business can relate to this, having been assigned to a project that, as it turns out, everyone has an opinion about, from the janitor to the board rooms. In one of my previous posts (When Good Turns Bad) I have discussed handling good intended but bad advice based on uninformed reasoning. But what if others start voicing their opinions, in full disregard of a careful alignment process, in a manner that can only be described as ballyhoo and hysteria?

Big HR projects have that tendency of evoking very heated, emotional discussions. They often touch the core identity of an organisation, reaffirming or challenging existing principles and values which are deeply rooted in the organisational culture. Some principles may have been forgotten, but once contested they can arise as a phoenix to inspire and guide as before.

These kind of projects prove a challenge for leaders to channel opinions towards a meaningful result. No doubt, every single comment has value. Question is, how much value should you give it? Or isn't that the key question?

I have learnt that opinions come in different shapes and depths. It is quite tempting to judge them on their value and dismiss them if they do not seem to bring you any. More than once have I been frustrated by people who have shared their opinion not hindered by any lack of knowledge, and wrapped with a fair share of value judgments. My default reaction has been until recently to educate the uninformed, militantly separating fact from fiction. Little did I understand that I was missing the point entirely.

Very few people are truly evil but many people partake in mindless behaviour. Uninformed or unsubstantiated opinions are easily read as inconsiderate, impolite or even narcissistic. As true as this often may be, it stands to reason that the underlying motives are those of disengagement. People feel they lose control. And when things change in an organisation, everyone has their own pace of understanding and acceptance. Such a development comes with emotions, silent or expressed. Those leading the change need to recognize and embrace it.

I have just read an article (The Missing Link of Change: Suspension) by a contemporary thought-leader, Lolly Daskal, discussing the stages of grief as a model for understanding emotional responses to organisational change. What I seem to have been missing all these years is to actually comprehend how people process change, to understand the process of emotional development. Addressing that process with tongue instead of ears, trying to knock out the critics with arguments instead of truly listening will strangle any re-engagement at birth. So the key question is: How to create space for people to re-engage?


How do you deal with ballyhoo and hysteria?

May The Leadership Be With You!

If you think the title of this post sounds familiar, you're right. It makes reference to one of the most famous quotes from the sci-fi motion picture Star Wars. "But what does that have to do with leadership?” you might wonder. You will find out in a minute.

It is not uncommon in larger organisations to have leadership turnover, leaders come and go. Some have had more impact during their term than others. And while some have pushed the organisation to a new level, others have been an obstacle for growth. Quite more interesting though is that during all these leadership - and perhaps course - changes, you will find that employees, followers, often remain a constant factor, true to the cause. Hard working, dedicated people who were at some point led by one and the next day by another leader, yet continuing to deliver what is needed, despite of. In my previous post (The Key Component in Leadership Communication) I have already raised the question whether people commit to the visionary or the vision. That post has got me thinking that one might find true leadership in more places within an organisation. Places where one would least expect it.

Don't get me wrong, I will not start to down talk the importance of a traditional leadership position nor the value people bring to it. Assuming a leadership role says a lot about a person. It is about taking responsibility to make things better. However, as important as it is to have true leaders in positions that can empower others to succeed in their tasks, it is equally important to have people who can allow those leadership positions to succeed their vision. This suggests an omnipresent leadership, which actually reminds me of The Force in Star Wars. The Force was thought to be present in most living beings, surrounding and penetrating them, thus making all living things connected by it. I would like to believe that leadership works in a similar way. Sure, not everyone can be a Jedi. But The Force can only grow stronger in them when being more attuned with other living beings around them.

Leadership is everywhere around us. I have seen leadership in many different types of position throughout the organisation I work for, from front-office to back-office jobs. People who may not have answered any leadership calling, but show such a passion and drive in what they do that they unintentionally and sometimes even without knowing, positively affect others around them. People who may have deliberately chosen to stay 'hands-on' and not sign up for a leadership position, but nevertheless are followed by others in how they master their job. These people are the organisation's beacons by which it sails its course, regardless of who is captain on the ship. I once read an article with interviews of Assistants to CEO's in major companies. The fact that they often are the gate to the CEO's office makes them almost more leader than the CEO. They influence what the CEO needs to know and decide on.

Smart leaders already know that they should surround themselves with people who are smarter. The best ones have come to understand that leadership is in fact universal and all around them. It is only a matter of creating sensitivity to it in order to use its strength. Just like with The Force. May it be with you!

Bullshit Management

Today I would like to share my book review of Bullshit Management: Return to the essence of organisations by Jos Verveen (The Hague, Academic Service, 2011). Why more than a year after publishing? Well, the simple answer is that I have just recently started this blog, but I really feel this book deserves your attention.

Bullshit Management busts the ubiquitous myth that investing in management pays off. It reads unfettered criticism, disputing any proof of a scientific blue print for success, even questioning well-established theories of Taylor and Mayo. Moreover: due to all these models, methods and terminologies, more and more organisation are losing sight of their essence. This book calls for abandonment of management and urges organisations to take matters into own hands again. While products and services prove distinctive quality of organisations, the best way to organize is unprecedented for as well. According to Verveen, you would anyhow not need a management book for that.

Paradoxically, whereas the writer critically questions the usefulness of models, theories, systems, structures and terminologies, his book went management book besteller in The Netherlands. To my knowledge there is no English edition yet, so my Anglo-Saxon followers unfortunately have to settle for this post, for now.

The Essence of an Organisation
I recently came across the following Tweets:
"Business is about creating value. Making money is just a pleasant sideproduct."
"Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their work done."

These are just two posts of many that I have seen and read, instigating critical review of management as a concept. Verveen builds his case around experiences he has gathered during his former career as business consultant. In his book, he claims that business management is characterised by continuous efficiency reviews whilst overlooking the essence of an organisation, which does not equal 'managing'.

"The essence of an organisation stands far from the goal of business management which is profit maximisation by increasing the productivity. The essence has therefore also nothing to do with finding an optimal strategy to obtain high productivity. Neither does the essence equal the effort of designing the organisation in the most efficient way to implement that strategy. An organisation has not originated, grown and survived due to management, but only by holding on to its core essence. Each step away from this essence opens the door for building an organisational 'house of cards' which needs management, a lot of management, to keep it straight. A house increasingly filled with people questioning themselves what it exactly is they are doing there."

A Vicious Circle
Recent U.S. gun control debates somewhat got me drawing a parallel between gun lobbyists and management disciples. They both claim to have the solution for a problem what according to others is the root problem in itself. And both advocate for even more of it when the soup hits the fan. Of course the impact of guns cannot be compared with that of management, though in the wrong hands, both can have dramatic social consequences.

If not already by the title of this post, then surely at this point in the text I must have upset some business school graduates. For some, management is a religion. But let me just ask those readers the following then:

According to you, what motivates people to work?
Certainly not management, right?

And according to you, what makes people engage to dreams bigger than their own?
I suspect few would answer 'management' here as well.

Lastly, according to you, what keeps people focused on creating value?
Precisely.

Yet with any sign that motivation, purpose or focus is lacking, we immediately seek to gain control by management. The irony is that management distracts people further from what should give them motivation, purpose or focus, perpetually clouding the essence of the organisation. A vicious circle indeed.

Return to The Essence
The solution this book offers to break the circle is quite obviously to seek that essence again. To stop organising work around peripherals and to start organising it around that what truly matters, what we feel will create value. His case continues even deeper by arguing that management and its goals, productivity and profitability, have poisoned our economies, and some businesses may find that there is actually no value in what they produce.

Verveen envisions a society that revolves around an economy with equal distribution of scarce resources in which true enterpreneurs and professionals bring genuine value while following their actual talents (see also The War for Talent Hoax). A Dutch politician has recently disputed that the current crisis could be solved with economical growth, arguing that economical growth is in fact the cause of this crisis. Maybe the crisis will lead us to a world closer to Verveen's vision...

My lessons learnt from this book: There is no blue print for success, but hard work, common sense and the ambition to bring genuine value will likely give you a head start on your competition.

For those (Dutch readers) who have read it, feel free to leave your review in the comments below. For the others, you can find Jos Verveen (@josverveen) on Twitter and ask him personally to publish an English translation.

The Extra Mile

Anyone who has ever worked for a boss is likely familiar with it. You have either read it before you applied for that job, seen it when you signed your contract or dealt with it during your employment.

Have you guessed it already?

I am of course referring to the job description, job profile, job requirements or whatever definition your employer gave to that piece of text explaining your role in the organisation. A narrative summary of the main job characteristics, formalizing the exchange relationship on the part of what you are supposed to deliver in return for rewards.

A job description is one of the main instruments in HRM. It supports hiring managers in the recruitment, payroll managers in designing equitable pay systems, development managers in defining possible career paths, supervisors in managing the performance and process engineers in improving efficiency. Adding the job's reporting lines will establish an organisational hierarchy as well.

You would imagine such a key tool to be maintained in detail. However, the reality is quite often far from this. It is not uncommon that organisations have to do a review of their job descriptions after 4, 5 years of neglect. Or worse, once started as concise descriptions of the main responsibilities, job descriptions have become interminable lists of tasks and activities. And yet organisations tend to militantly hold on to these paper truths. As if their absence would result in destruction and chaos.

At the same time, job descriptions become extremely important for employees during role evaluation or restructuring. When change can potentially result in adverse consequences for pay, employers have find themselves more than once in a dispute with the employee over it.

So why do people give so much value to job descriptions?

I have come to learn that job descriptions are needed in the absence of purpose, mastery and autonomy (see also Drive by Daniel Pink). People who understand what needs to be done, are capable and empowered to do it, would not need them. High-performers in your organisation who take responsibility over and beyond what they should contribute on paper, probably do not know even know what their job description says. Their drive is by no means influenced by anything remotely close to paper-based responsibilities.

But when purpose, mastery and autonomy are absent in an organisation, you will very likely not find leadership either. People follow people, not paper. But in the absence of a strong leader, they will hold on to that one certainty they have on paper which justifies their presence in the organisation and substitutes for a lack of purpose.

You will recognize organisations with paper-based responsibilities when the majority of employees are not going the extra mile for their employer; there are always individual exceptions. Minor inconveniences grow to be perceived as aggravating factors, often resulting in excessive claims for extra reward - to the extent of 'billing behaviour'. Worst-case scenario, clinging to paper-based responsibilities can create an organisational culture of island-thinking and dumping problems.

Should we then abolish job descriptions?

Job descriptions will go extinct one day. Forcing its extinction as a strategy would not be my advice. Focusing on leadership, on the contrary, is for many reasons advisable. Simultaneously you could work on a culture in which people learn to focus on what the organisation wants to achieve. The purpose and mastery which is fostered this way will shape an organisation with change capacity, forward-focused, instead of hanging on to the past by static documents with activities that were needed 4, 5 years ago. It will create a culture in which people will more likely go the extra mile, as their job is not defined by words but by a shared purpose they believe in.

Do you think job descriptions are still relevant? Do they make you go the extra mile?

Three Tips for Connecting With Your Staff

In one of my previous blogs (The Four Questions) I question the extent to which managers should be interfering with how staff do their job. One of my followers commented that the message of “staying out of their way” seems somewhat in paradox with “knowing what hampers them in doing their job”. I would like to come back to this in today’s blog.

Empowering staff has EVERYTHING to do with connecting with them. The main difference lies in how you engage. Here are three pointers that I have learnt in my professional career from people who have coached me or who I have coached:

Ask or Tell?
When performance is not as expected, do you tell your employees how they need to change things or do you involve them in formulating the answer by asking the right question? The best and most lasting solutions and resolutions are still those created by the people directly involved.

Focus of Attention
How much time do you spend on those succeeding their tasks as opposed to those who do not? Asking the right questions is as relevant for success as for failures, but for different reasons. Whereas failures are the cornerstone for personal development, individual or team successes can, when celebrated in choir, motivate and inspire those that did not succeed the first time.

Coach = Coachee
Connecting is a ‘two-way activity’. If you are not open to learn from the other person, you are not really engaging. By showing empathy or understanding you may think you are, but you are not. It requires a deeper conversation about how we can make things better together. The day leaders stop improving themselves, is the day of their businesses' doom.

Needless to say that consistency is the key in applying these.


Please be invited to complete this list of pointers as I am clearly still learning.

The Four Questions

Khartoum, 2005. While sitting in the small office of a local team member in charge of flight bookings, the following conversation took place:

"Muna, did you know that this chair (opposite to her desk) is broken?"

"Yes, I know."

"So why don't you get a new one or get this one fixed?"

"No, it's ok. (pause) This way people don't hang around in my office too long."

During my expat assignment as HR manager in North Sudan, I enjoyed many of these short talks with my HR administration team of local hires. At the beginning I felt a bit awkward stepping in as their boss. Apart from them being more senior in the team than I was, they clearly out-knowledged me on how the local system works. Since I was only going to be there for a couple of months, I decided to limit my boss activities to these 4 questions:

1. What is it exactly that you do?

2. Do you like doing it?

3. Do you ever run into problems?

4. Is there anything I can do to solve them?

Question 3 & 4 were repeated, almost on a daily basis. As the years passed by, I may have tweaked these four questions when leading other teams in different settings, but in essence I find them still relevant today. Without stating the obvious by promoting the value of servant-leadership, there is another lesson learnt I want to share.

Seven years ago, in this particular context, asking these four questions seemed the only legitimate thing to do. The team members knew what was needed and why, and were competent enough to deliver. Were they all star players? No. Actually it was quite an ordinary, average-performing team. In fact, herein lies the lesson that I have learnt. What needs to be managed if your business has a clear purpose and your staff full command over their work? Apart from flagrant underperformers, people management theories seem to be missing a target population. Yet, there are probably a thousand theories out there with an equal number of consultancy firms who are willing to train your managers in applying them.

I have learnt a very simple rule on how to deal with underperformers:
If they are unwilling, let go of them. If they are unable, bring them in a situation that enables them.

The latter could be that you need to clarify your goals much better, develop someone’s competencies or find that person another job inside or outside your organisation that better fits their abilities. A matter of personal attention. And for your regular performers? Try to solve whatever keeps them from doing their job. That simple!

Do you think my four questions are sufficient to manage your team? Or am I oversimplifying matters?

The War for Talent Hoax

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." ― Albert Einstein

This quote by Einstein has been my motto for some time now. At first, because it gave me the pleasure of knowing that I am a genius too. But the more I learn about myself and about others, and what motivates us in our personal or professional life, the more meaning these words seem to acquire. Moreover, it has raised questions with me about the concept of 'talent' in business, finally causing me to think that talent management is just one big hoax. I will tell you how I came to this conclusion...

Everybody is a genius
Various intelligence tests pretend to give conclusive, scientific proof of differences in cognitive and emotional intelligence between individuals. But what are these tests actually measuring? In 1968, George Land gave 1,600 5-year-olds a creativity test used by NASA to select innovative engineers and scientists. He then re-tested the same children at ages 10 and 15. The test results were staggering! 98% at age 5 registered genius level creativity, 30% at 10 year and 12% at 15 years of age. The same test given to 280,000 adults placed their genius level creativity at only 2%! (Source: http://www.calresco.org/lucas/create.htm)

It seems from this test that there is a negative correlation between what we are taught by education or upbringing and the capacity to be a genius. Now you could argue that George Land's test is dated or have doubts about the soundness of his methodology. However, you cannot deny that education has prepared us first and foremost for a place in society, for a J-O-B. Building knowledge and skills to increase performance behaviour for our adult professional life. Whether these learnt behaviours actually match our innate talent, emerges for some at a young age (wonder-kid or high school drop-out), for others at an older age (career swappers) but for most of us never at all. We are all born unique, but many of us sadly die as a mass product of society. What we did has defined who we are, instead of the other way around.

So if everyone is a genius at birth and has the capacity to be great, what exactly is that talent 'thing' that distinguishes us?

Judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree
Could it be that in business we identify talented people on behaviours that might not have anything to do with their TALENT? At least it is not as conclusive as e.g. in sports or in certain arts. Now let's assume that this is in fact a system error, still these acquired behaviours may have great value for your business. In the end, knowledge and skills are the vehicles for performance behaviour. And those who are eager to continue learning are likely equipped to improve their performance, increasing the chances to success for themselves and consequently the company they work for. If the task is 'to climb a tree', one can execute it and has the ability to raise standards, who cares it is a fish? Maybe nobody does. The sad thing is however, that somehow it is missed out that the fish could have been the fastest swimmer. A task that was already assigned to Sid the sloth.

Of course, the system would probably not allow for such flexibility that everyone can be shuffled around within a company towards a job that better fits their innate ability. Anyhow it would take a lot of courage of leaders to do so without any probability of successful performance behaviour they are so used to measure through knowledge and skills.

The alternative for finding the best job for your employee is evidently finding the best employee for your job. Now in a business era of extreme competition where time is money, companies are fighting for the best tree climber. And so the war for talent has started.

Recognize the hoax!
Everyone knows that you need a strategy to win a war. This is where companies started developing talent management. A very broad concept, where activities range from attracting to retaining key talents for the organisation. However, we might as well call it 'waste-management'. A lot of companies apply talent management in a utilitarian manner. Employees who, if they are not, or at least not fast enough, showing the expected behaviours, are exchanged for the next candidate. These companies are stuck in an obsessive search for the best person for the job that they miss out on the possibility that:

1. an under-performer can be an over-performer in a different job
2. business success is a team effort and successful teams require complementary instead of similar minds
3. creating successful teams cannot be done with blue prints
4. team performance will excel once each individual knows his/her talent and understands how to combine them with the other talents
5. not recognizing your 'non-talents' creates an atmosphere that eventually makes people want to leave, whereas 'talents' leave first as they can easily find another job


But as I am still learning, I am sure I have missed some lessons. Can you teach me?

Ethical codes: A catalyst for responsible behaviour or a waste of paper?

Being part of an international organisation with offices in about 100 different countries and a workforce with 150 nationalities, I have witnessed a growing stack of rules on professional and ethical behaviour. The more the organisation grew in staff numbers and subsequent cross-border mobility, the more need for employee compliance, partially imposed by the environments we operate in. Partially. As a value-based organisation, the majority of rules are self-imposed.

Did all these ethical rules help create a safer environment with less workplace issues?

I am not about to disclose any sensitive information, but I can tell you that we most probably behave as an average organisation. So let me just put it to you bluntly: There is no evidence that ethical rules lead to better performance or a friendlier atmosphere. It is more likely that an organisation's core values and mission attracts people with compatible personal values, allowing communal values to exist which in turn foster the office culture. This makes it hard to justify the existence of ethical codes.

Will a person who has difficulties controlling his/her anger behave less aggressive with a protocol in place? Will a corrupted person then operate with more integrity? Not very likely.

An ethical code could assist employees in understanding the difference between 'right' and 'wrong', and applying that understanding to their decisions. But then again, how many errors can you make in a professional environment by not knowing the ethical rules? Or, not very uncommon, what if the rules do not give you a black and white answer to an issue?

If you want to create a safer environment, here are 3 Lessons-learnt from my experience:

1. Make values tangible
If decisions are better when made within the ethical frame of an organisation, then it would make sense to recruit on personal values that are compatible with the organisation or a particular trade. Use them as criteria with higher value than knowledge or skills. It will proof harder to change values as opposed to enhance someone's knowledge and skills. Evidently the organisation's leaders relentlessly make decisions that touch base with core values.

2. Create an open environment for raising concerns
An open door, I know. Though I want to stress that a nonjudgemental approach is paramount. Behaviours are best discussed on the impact that they have on one's environment, team dynamics, results etc. An open environment also implies that dealing with ethical concerns should not be delegated to some committee somewhere in a far corner of your organisation. They should be discussed at the heart of your organisation, preferably on the workfloor.

3. Show zero-tolerance for misconduct
Once someone has portrayed questionable behaviour, it needs to be addressed. The worst thing a leader can do is disconnect from the issue and allow for it to evolve to an endemic situation. This does not imply that one should always respond with discipline (often why codes exist). Sometimes it is even not necessary to address the individual directly, in private or public. Nevertheless the behaviour itself should always be addressed, preferably with the entire team present.


For clarity sake, I am not promoting for a deletion of codes. I am merely downplaying their value as opposed to these three things you can influence as a leader. As I am still learning, I am sure I have missed some lessons. Can you complete my list?