Stalling the Engine of Success – When Ego Trumps Data

By Ahunt at en.wikipedia [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons

(Also published on LinkedIn Pulse here)

The phone rings, you pick it up and hear the voice of the company's Chief Operating Officer saying, “Come see me, I need to talk to you immediately.”

You drop what you’re doing and rush down to the boss’s office.

“I’ve got a project for the process improvement team,” he says as soon as you enter his office. “Our operating costs are rising faster than revenues.”

He proceeds to tell you what the problem and solution are, then pats you on the back and says, “Get your process improvement team together and get to work on the solution we talked about.”

While this is not an uncommon approach, this experienced leader is missing some key ingredients for effective process improvement and change management.

Over the years, I have been part of numerous process and quality improvement initiatives. Shepherding one through to successful completion is not easy. In fact, less than 65% of projects succeed, and of those that do, many are significantly over budget and fail to meet projected results.[1] 

A big reason for this is lack of adequate root cause identification, lack of organizational support, and an abundance of organizational resistance. Over the years, I have heard many explanations for individual resistance to change initiatives. The most common points seem to revolve around several main themes:

• “They talk about empowerment but don’t really mean it.  I tried the suggestion system, and no one listened.”
•  “All they want to see is a bunch of pretty charts that don’t really mean anything.  If they want to know what is going on, why don’t they just listen to what we have been telling them?”
•  “They don’t really ever take time to understand our processes and our problems.  They just sit in their office and come up with ideas that do nothing but make our lives harder.”
•  “They’re just changing for change’s sake.” or 
• "If it ain't broke, why are they fixing it?"

My years of training and experience in project management have given me a strong appreciation of the core principles of process improvement, the insights of the “Gemba” (those most directly involved in the processes), and the power of data. Information is the fuel modern, high performing organizations run on and these are its primary sources. Without information, progress stalls and resistance builds. 

However, surprisingly few organizations tap these powerful resources.

Today every desktop and most smartphones have the capabilities and tools to unlock the power of data, which 25 years ago was only accessible to statisticians and supercomputers. Furthermore, the number-crunching abilities of spreadsheets like Microsoft Excel and process improvement suites like Minitab have democratized data analysis and provided much more powerful tools for root cause analysis and problem-solving to anyone willing to spend the time to learn them.

More critically, the institutional knowledge of an organization has always been a largely untapped resource. With information restricted to silos and not generally accessible, organizations are leaving one of the most powerful sources of innovation untapped.

Together, data and the knowledge of the Gemba are powerful resources – if we will only trust what they tell us. In aviation, spatial disorientation is a serious situation and the cause of many accidents. This occurs when the pilot, usually during times of low visibility, loses track of the plane’s position relative to the earth’s surface. This becomes fatal when the pilot trusts on their own instincts and ignores what their instruments are telling them.

Similarly, when leaders ignore the data produced by their operations and the input of those most familiar with the processes, it can lead to serious leadership disorientation resulting in operational and financial inefficiencies and even disaster.

It’s not that intuition and experience are useless, leadership disorientation sets in when instincts and judgment are not validated against the instruments of facts and solid data analysis. In this state, they may miss key indicators that can point out additional or even true root causes. Until root causes are determined, it is impossible to find an effective solution.

No one knows everything, not even the boss. By eliciting input from all stakeholders involved, we learn more about the processes, real root causes, why things are currently done the way they are, issues with the current process, and possible solutions to the problems at hand.

Furthermore, soliciting input from stakeholders is more than data collection. Study after study has shown inclusive change management succeeds far more often than solutions dictated from the on high.[2] An inclusive approach not only addresses the common objections to change listed above, it also increases the pool of experts and points of view, making effective solutions much more likely and organizational buy-in much more probable.

Additionally, while senior leaders do not necessarily need to be Master Black Belts, Scrum Masters, or Project Management Professionals, an understanding of the principles of process improvement, project, and change management is essential. Project managers should take the lead in helping them understand basic principles and their roles in these processes. They should teach them that while an engaged and unified leadership approach is key to a project’s success, micromanagement and intellectual arrogance may muddy the waters and lead to missed cues and inadequate solutions.

Leaders, on the other hand, must understand the contribution accurate data analysis and subject matter experts play in identifying root causes and enhancing their ability to formulate solutions to address them. While gut instinct, education, and experience are key in reading the situation and input to root cause analysis, leaders who champion transparency during change, trust and truly empower their people, and build open communication channels will find their understanding of organizational processes, problems, and solutions increase. Having the objective data that not only confirms their initial understanding of the situation but also taking into account information, which contradicts it improves the quality of their decisions and may even prevent grave mistakes.

Finally, while traditional incentives play a part in motivation, most workers want to feel valued and want the company to succeed. When they feel their opinions are valued, even if they are not always accepted, they will feel they have a stake in the organization’s success and will be the eyes and ears on the ground the leadership needs to make the best possible decisions. However, they can only do this if they are comfortable in sharing the insights and expertise you may lack and providing the solutions you may have never considered.

While the leader always maintains accountability and is often the only person in the organization that sees the entire picture, letting go of their ego and being willing to “trust the instruments” and facilitate open and transparent communication throughout the organization will improve the quality and organizational acceptance of their decisions. Employees will understand the rationale and feel invested in the decisions.

Data, whether from processes or from people is the fuel that high performing organizations run on. Don’t let your ego clog the lines and stall the engine of progress.

[1] International Project Leadership Academy. Facts and Figures. 2016. 12 January 2016. <http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=1445>.
[2] A few examples are:

•      International Project Leadership Academy. Facts and Figures. 2016. 12 January 2016. <http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=1445>.
•      Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of change Management, 4, 193-115. 
•      Mirvis, P. H., Sales, A. L., & HackeR, E. J. (1991). The implementation and adoption of new technology in organizations: The impact on work, people, and culture. Human Resource Management, 30, 113-139. 
•      Ferguson, E., & Cheyne, A. (1995). Organizational change: Main and interactive effects. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 101-107.Reichers, A. E. (1986). Conflict and organizational commitments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 508-514. 
•      Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 11, 4859.          

My Leadership Crucible: Caring Enough to Correct

Photo from Ancient Wessex Network

In the barren deserts south of the Dead Sea is a wasteland covered with ancient piles of slag.  Khirbat Hamra Ifdan was one of the industrial centers that fueled the early Bronze Age.  Copper ore was extracted from nearby mines and brought to this site where ancient metallurgists crushed the ore-laden rock, sorted out the ore-rich pieces, and placed them in a cup-shaped clay crucible.  The crucible was then superheated until the copper separated from the rock and other impurities.  The small amount of pure copper was collected, mixed with tin, and formed into bronze tools, ingots, and jewelry; while left-over material or slag was discarded.  This purification process was painstaking and labor intensive, but the end product turned the Kingdom of Moab and later, Israel, into regional powerhouses. 

Due to its ability to turn the ore-laced rock into something valuable by removing impurities, the crucible and the fiery smelting process became symbolic of personal purification in religious and philosophical circles.  Hence, a crucible in a person’s life denotes a time of extraordinary suffering that results in personal a purification that would have been otherwise impossible without that “trial by fire.” 

Most successful leaders have passed through formative crucibles – seeming purgatories, where we suffer, our weaknesses are purged, and, if not broken by the trial, we emerge on the other side better, wiser, and more effective leaders.   I have endured several such transformative periods.  The first occurred over fifteen years ago.

Through a lot of luck and a bit of persistence, I had made it into an interpreters’ program that I had pursued for two years.  I had made it through two thirds of the nine month course, when I was called in to meet with the human resource manager who would determine where I would go after the program.  Rather than telling me that I would be going on to an exciting new assignment, he explained that the teachers didn’t think I had what it takes to be an effective interpreter and recommended I be dropped from the program.  It was perhaps one of the darkest days of my career. 

Because I knew I was not the most capable student in the program and was acutely aware of my shortcomings, I frequently asked my instructors for feedback and suggestions on what I could do to improve.  Each time I was told, “Don’t worry, you’re doing all right.”  These false reassurances made the news all the more devastating.  It wasn’t the truth that I was inadequate that hurt but the possibly well meaning, but nonetheless misleading reassurances, followed by the unexpected revelation of my real standing in the course.  Honest feedback was what I needed most to succeed or at least prepare myself for the inevitable.  That is what I didn’t get.  It hurt that no one had cared enough to counsel and correct me until I was almost beyond help. 

Fortunately, I was able to convince the manager that he should give me a chance to prove myself.  I asked for an evaluation on an interpreting excursion the next day.  To my relief, based on my performance, the manager told me I would finish the program and be assigned to the agency’s overseas office. 

Although I had made it through this trial, my crucible was still not complete.  It continued, but this time with a leader who cared enough to correct.  Within a month, I found myself in Germany interpreting for arms control inspections throughout Europe.  I was assigned to a team lead by a man I still consider one of the most influential people in my life.  He made it clear he demanded the best from his people and would not settle for less.  Despite my experience at the interpreters’ school, I was still young, immature, overconfident, and under-qualified.  Consequently, I made some critical mistakes. 

In contrast to my earlier experience, each and every time I failed to rise to his high, but fair standards, he immediately and plainly pointed out my shortcomings, informed me of the consequences for continued substandard performance, and then provided me ample training opportunities to remedy my shortcomings.  By the time he left our team a year and a half later, I had been able to rise to the standards he demanded.  His praise for my abilities meant much more to me than the empty praise of those who were afraid to point my deficiencies for fear of hurting my feelings.  The foundation he helped me build was the basis of my current success.

As often happens as we progress from follower to leader, I had to learn this lesson from the opposite perspective.  I was placed in charge of a team of extremely talented specialists, one of which, while a phenomenal analyst, struggled in some key areas.  However, despite my desires to never subject someone to what I had gone through, I too hesitated to confront those behaviors that were bringing down the team’s effectiveness in fear of hurting his feelings.  This led to not only personally suffering the consequences of my inaction, but also to my analyst and my entire team failing to reach their full potential.  As his leader, I should have cared enough to set standards, insist they be met, identify where those standards were not met, and impose consequences and remedies for failure.

Since that time, I have learned the value of clearly setting out expectations, tactfully identifying deficiencies, and mentoring those willing to change and capable of rising to the necessary standards.  Those who repeatedly prove themselves unwilling or unable to adapt must be let go or moved to where they can succeed. 

As many leaders, I enjoy praising and awarding excellence in my subordinates but dislike confronting them and meting out discipline when they repeatedly fail to meet stated standards.   From the above crucibles, I have learned the value of clear and achievable standards, paired with fair and predictable consequences for failing to meet them.  I have learned that I must force myself to move outside my comfort zone by identifying and correcting deficiencies clearly and immediately but then afterward, showing an increased concern for their progress by providing the training and guidance they need. 

While a good leader never relishes confronting their team members, they nevertheless do not shrink from identifying and rectifying substandard situations by clear feedback, equitable discipline and caring remediation.  A leader who ignores or tolerates substandard performance and fails to correct shortcomings while issues are still manageable is more destructive to team effectiveness than the despotic manager who, it seems, relishes the opportunity to criticize and belittle.  While the latter frustrates and irritates, the former sabotages progress and development by refusing to take upon themselves the most vital leadership roles of guide, teacher, and mentor.

In his science fiction classic Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein illustrates the importance of confronting signs of non-compliance early.  He points out that the leader that truly cares about his people doesn’t tolerate noncompliance and incompetence.  The true leader points out shortcomings unambiguously and corrects not out of malice, but with the aim of teaching correct principles.  Failing that, he removes those who repeatedly show themselves unable or unwilling to perform to required standards.  Nevertheless, even firing a subordinate is done out of concern for them and the rest of the team.  The incompetent or unrepentant can thus succeed elsewhere or at least no longer jeopardize the team’s success. 

In my life, the most memorable and effective leaders were not those that coddled me or ignored my shortcomings, but those that first of all, set and enforced a standard and then either rewarded success lavishly or imposed fair and consistent consequences for failing to meet those standards followed by giving me the tools I needed to not fail again.

While confronting non-conformance is difficult for an engaged and caring leader, we must not lose sight of the value of frank, fair, and consistent feedback.  While rewarding success builds our people up and reinforces good behavior, this one vectored approach must be balanced with caring but consistent feedback and discipline.  Neglecting this key function, we sow the seeds of failure, complacence and incompetence in us, our teams, and our people. 

Similar to a furnace and crucible, a leader’s main goal should be to take the potential-laden team member and help them purge the limitations holding them back.  This does not have to be unpleasant to those we mentor, but all too often, change requires we endure some discomfort if we are to come reach our true potential.  The principle of “caring enough to correct” calls for us to help those we lead get through this discomfort and to reach the success on the other side.