What I Read – HBR November 2016

Tags

article, change, Harvard Business Review, reorganization, Stephen Heidari-Robinson, Suzanne Heywood

This is what I found interesting in Harvard Business Review, November 2016 issue, in article “Getting Reorgs Right” by Stephen Heidari-Robinson and Suzanne Heywood:

Whole article is fine, but what drew my attention was this (copy from article are marked by Italics):

A McKinsey survey of 1,800 executives identified the most common pitfalls for reorganizations (in order of frequency).

1. Employees actively resist the changes.
2. Insufficient resources – people, time, money – are devoted to the effort.
3. Employees are distracted from their day-to-day activities, and individual productivity declines.
4. Leaders actively resist the changes.
5. The org chart changes, but the people work the same.
6. Employees leave because of the reorg.
7. Unplanned activities, such as an unforeseen need to change IT systems or to communicate the changes in multiple languages, disrupt the implementation.

All of the above are true. But one is missing: Executives do not support the change enough themselves. It seems that mostly they think that simply by saying-so Change will happen… But I guess since they are the ones being asked, none of them would admit their own lacklustre approach to Change.

What I Read – HBR May 2016

Tags

agile, Darrell Rigby, definitions, Harvard Business Review, HBR, Hirotaka Takeuchi, innovation, Jeff Sutherland, understanding agile

Recently I read somewhere, that I should make notes of what I read and review them from time to time. I decided to give it a try, since I read a lot and I think making such notes will be for me a way of remembering best ideas, quotes, or whatever from my books and magazines. I also decided to share those notes with you, in edited form as some have gotten pretty long. Just as a note – in many cases I copied whole passages without noting the page numbers, which is against good reference practices, but of course I will list title and author of a book (or article) where I got the notes from.

I do that with hope that at least some of you will reach for mentioned magazine or book when you will find my notes interesting. Ach, one more thing: small number of notes do not mean that the book or magazine was not good…

This is what I found interesting in Harvard Business Review, May 2016 issue:

Article “Embracing Agile” by Darrell K. Rigby, Jeff Sutherland, and Hirotaka Takeuchi.

[…] By taking people out of their functional silos and putting them in self-managed and customer-focused multidisciplinary teams, the agile approach is not only accelerating profitable growth but also helping to create a new generation of skilled managers.

[…] When we ask executives what they know about agile, the response is usually an uneasy smile […] But because they haven’t gone through training, they don’t really understand the approach. Consequently, they unwittingly continue to manage in ways that run counter to agile principles and practices, undermining the effectiveness of agile teams in units that report to them. These executives launch countless initiatives with urgent deadlines rather than assign the highest priority to two or three. They spread themselves and their best people across too many projects.

[…] Innovation is what agile is all about. Although the method is less useful in routine operations and processes, these days most companies operate in highly dynamic environments.

[…] we have discerned six crucial practices that leaders should adopt if they want to capitalize on agile’s potential.

1. Learn How Agile Really Works

[…] It comes in several varieties, which have much in common but emphasize slightly different things. They include scrum, which emphasizes creative and adaptive teamwork in solving complex problems; lean development, which focuses on the continual elimination of waste; and Kanban, which concentrates on reducing lead times and amount of work in process.

Rest of this point provides a short description of what scrum is… very useful to read it in whole.

2. Understanding Where Agile Does or Does Not Work

Agile is not a panacea. It is most effective and easiest to implement under conditions commonly found in software innovation: The problem to be solved is complex; solutions are initially unknown, and product requirements will most likely change; the work can be modularized; close collaboration with end users (and rapid feedback from them) is feasible; and creative teams will typically outperform command-and-control groups.

3. Start Small and Let the Word Spread
4. Allow “Master” Teams to Customize Their Practices

[…] If a team wants to modify particular practices, it should experiment and track the results to make sure that the changes are improving rather than reducing customer satisfaction, work velocity, and team morale.

5. Practice Agile at the Top

Some C-Suite activities are not suited to agile methodologies. (Routine and predictable tasks – such as performance assessments, press interviews, and visits to plants, customers, and suppliers – fall into this category.) But many, and arguably the most important, are. They include strategy development and resource allocation, cultivating breakthrough innovations, and improving organizational collaboration […]

6. Destroy the Barriers to Agile Behaviors

Research by Scrum Alliance, an independent non-profit with 400,00-plus members, has found that more than 70% of agile practitioners report tension between their teams and the rest of the organization. Little wonder: They are following different road maps and moving at different speeds […] Here are some techniques for destroying such barriers to agile:

• Get everyone on the same page (also those teams which are not working using agile methodologies – RC).
• Don’t change structures right away; change roles instead.
• Name only one boss for each decision. People can have multiple bosses, but decisions cannot […] Other senior leaders must avoid second-guessing or overturning the owner’s decisions. It’s fine to provide guidance and assistance, but if you don’t like the results, change the initiative owner – don’t incapacitate him or her.
• Focus on teams, not individuals.
• Lead with questions, not orders.

Excellent article summarizing what agile actually is and giving good examples of its application not only for software related projects, but also across all organizational levels. Well worth reading in whole – if I could, I would copy it whole here 🙂 The main take away, next to some handy definitions and explanations, is the fact that agile is proven to work in software industry or IT, and now is on the way to transform other industries or functions. As article states in last sentence: Those who learn to lead agile’s extension into broader range of business activities will accelerate profitable growth.

What I Read – HBR March 2016

Tags

Harvard Business Review, HBR, ideas, innovation, originality, start-up

Recently I read somewhere, that I should make notes of what I read and review them from time to time. I decided to give it a try, since I read a lot and I think making such notes will be for me a way of remembering best ideas, quotes, or whatever from my books and magazines. I also decided to share those notes with you, in edited form as some have gotten pretty long. Just as a note – in many cases I copied whole passages without noting the page numbers, which is against good reference practices, but of course I will list title and author of a book (or article) where I got the notes from.

I do that with hope that at least some of you will reach for mentioned magazine or book when you will find my notes interesting. Ach, one more thing: small number of notes do not mean that the book or magazine was not good…

I will start from Harvard Business Review, March 2016 issue:

Article “Start-Ups That Last”, by Ranjay Gulati and Alicia DeSantola; page 58:

“…but as their firms scale, a growing number of people report to a handful of leaders. Founders may think this allows them to remain in command, because all decisions pass through them. But ironically, their organizations spin out of control as centralized authority becomes a bottleneck that hinders information flow, decision making, and execution. A couple of people at the top can’t effectively supervise everyone’s increasingly specialized day-to-day work; in such a system, accountability for organizational goals gets lost. And employees find it hard to remain focused and engaged when they don’t have managerial guidance and processes. They may become frustrated as they struggle for access to decision makers who are juggling many other projects and people. …”

I find this applicable not only to start-ups, but also to all organisations out there.

Article “How to Build a Culture of Originality”, by Adam Grant; page 86:

1. You can get a lot of insight from true devils advocates, not people who pretend to be such.
2. You need to balance culture of cohesion (agreement, which can improve decision making) with dissent (creative disagreement, which prevents culture from becoming a cult).
3. Groups with authentic dissenters generate more – and better – solutions to problems.
4. The more ideas the better – but you need to have good mechanism and judgment in sifting them through.
5. Reward the best ideas, explain why those were chosen so the people will not adapt mentality of not submitting any because no one adapts them.

I guess I saved that bit as I tend to take the role of such a devil’s advocate quite often. I also think that healthy dosis of constructive criticism (and healthy acceptance of such criticism) may save many managers from biases and mistakes they would normally – in company of yes sayers – not see coming. This is the point 2 above.

I like Harvard Business Review Because…

Tags

breaking promise, Harvard Business Review, HBR, promise, values

In September issue of HBR there is a case / article about a guy going off to an executive school paid by a company he worked for. He promised to get back to that company and work there for some time after the school will be over and he will get his degree. As it happens a lot in life, the guy got a job offer from some other company. The case was analysed by some experts, which argued a point if it was OK to break a promise and go accept that new offer. For me, not. No point in arguing anything, I think that whatever those experts say (as far as I can remember, one was in favour) did not agree with my values.

And in this (December) issue of HBR, I found this on page 27:

“…What on earth is happening? When did breaking one’s word become a subject that was actually debatable? When did it mutate into conduct that was acceptable? Does offering a bucket of self-satisfying excuses and incorrect rationalizations for that behavior alter the situation? What are we due for next? Is it OK to steal? Is it OK to lie? Is it Ok to commit a misdemeanor? A felony? Is adultery acceptable?  Right is right. Wrong is wrong.” Gene Bujoll, retired.

Gene, well said. HBR – shitty case, but nice come back with publishing that opinion. That is why I like you.

Custom Made Leaders

Tags

Buckingham, custom made, Harvard Business Review, HBR, leadership, leadership type, program

In June issue of Harvard Business Review I have found an article by Mr. M. Buckingham called “Leadership Development In the Age of The Algorithm” (link to it here). It is an article I was waiting for – I knew it must be out there somewhere, and sha-bum, here it is!

All the schools and scholars all over the world are trying to drop every conceivable leadership quality into one pot, stir it and cook a cake which is then fed to every business (or other) school student. We all knew that this approach did not (as it could really not) work – because people are different. We all like (or prefer) different things, in turn feeling better – or feeling ourselves – when doing those things. Author of mentioned article correctly noticed that and asked himself a question: if we are different, why not tailor leadership training to a particular leadership type? He and his company did some tests and came up with 9 different leadership categories, called “strength roles” (some of them are Adviser, Connector, Creator or Provider) with distinctive differences as per leadership concepts used. Those concepts (not techniques, as the article correctly pointed out) can be shared and used by leaders of the same category. So if we know a good leader from Adviser category, his concepts can be useful (and feel naturally when used) by all other Advisers. If though Adviser will be taught to use concepts of Creator, this may feel unnaturally and so come across to led people. And they will notice.

I like that concept of custom, tailor made leadership program. We should introduce it at schools and workplaces. All of us have some strengths and weaknesses, we should build and reinforce those strengths, not force people to act unnaturally. New leaders would be all that much credible to all of us.