"Everything would be fine if it wasn't for our customers."
"The customers don't know what they want, they change their minds all the time."
"It's crazy, everyone thinks they are the most important customer."
This is sure a new take on "customer complaints." Usually we mean that the customer has complained about a product or service, not that the company has complaints about its customers. That's what these quotes are. Internal service providers complaining about internal customer behavior.
I have the advantage of having consulted in pretty much every industry by now. I've been in life sciences for a long while but earlier in my career I consulted airlines, oil companies, governments, pet hospitals and pretty much everyone else. What I value most is the time I spent with clients that sold their product or service directly to the public. These are folks that understood customer service because they got meaningful feedback. By meaningful feedback I mean that when they didn't serve the customer the customer went away.
That's the problem with internal customers. They can't leave. They do business with internal service providers because they have to. Most of the time they have no other option. What this creates is a service provider who gets used to customers that can't leave. Service providers learn to take customers for granted so much that they begin to say things like the quotes I started with.
I had a room full of internal service providers last week who said, "We need to tell our customers what happens to us when they change their mind. They need to appreciate what we go through. They all feel like whatever they want should be the most important thing."
At that point I shared an analogy that seemed to give the group pause so I'll share it here...
What would you do if you were in a nice restaurant waiting a long time for your order and the chef came out of the back and said the following: "Do you have any idea what we're going through back here. I have to cut vegetables and then I have to cook them. After that, I have to put them on plates, it's crazy. All of you people think you're the most important customer and you need to organize yourselves better so you don't put so much pressure on me. You all tend to show up at the same time and I think you could organize that better. Maybe one or two at a time. Also, if you could sit with the people who are ordering the same thing as you that would be helpful. I know you came with other people but when everyone at a table orders something different....that's just ridiculous. Do you understand?"
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Harry Truman
I'm not big on leadership quotes. The last thing most would-be leaders need is another platitude. That's why I like something Truman said so much. It's the kind of concise practical statement that would never be attractive to the would-be leaders that prefer puffery to productivity.
Truman exceeded expectations by just getting elected. Then he set about accomplishing a lot more than anyone expected while in office. Later, he was interviewed about his approach to leadership. Truman's response has more value for today's would-be leaders than any leadership book ever written. When they asked him to describe his successful approach to leadership he said:
"I make a decision and, if it's wrong, I make another one."
Too often leadership teams in our industry lack action orientation. Value is seen in discussing problems and then deciding to gather more data. The problem is that learning is stunted this way. Without the action no feedback is gained on whether the decision was right or not. The organization doesn't get better and the leader doesn't get better.
None of us work in an idea factory. The ability to execute seperates the strong leaders from everyone else. Execution starts with the willingness to make a decision and, if it's wrong, make another one.
Truman exceeded expectations by just getting elected. Then he set about accomplishing a lot more than anyone expected while in office. Later, he was interviewed about his approach to leadership. Truman's response has more value for today's would-be leaders than any leadership book ever written. When they asked him to describe his successful approach to leadership he said:
"I make a decision and, if it's wrong, I make another one."
Too often leadership teams in our industry lack action orientation. Value is seen in discussing problems and then deciding to gather more data. The problem is that learning is stunted this way. Without the action no feedback is gained on whether the decision was right or not. The organization doesn't get better and the leader doesn't get better.
None of us work in an idea factory. The ability to execute seperates the strong leaders from everyone else. Execution starts with the willingness to make a decision and, if it's wrong, make another one.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Games People Play
There was a grid of 2 X 2 foot squares on the floor created with masking tape and my job was to guide my partner from one end to the other. I was at a meeting of my peers from other sites within one of the biotech giants. We’d been meeting quarterly for about a year when our global leader organized this team building event.
We were divided into pairs and one person from each pair would walk across the grid and the other would be the guide. The guide’s instructions were to look at the answer key and find the path of squares that was deemed “safe”. If the guide didn’t work fast enough or accurately enough and the walker stepped in an “unsafe” square, they had to go back to the beginning.
I got into a crouch by the grid and my partner stood at the start. When the facilitator said go, I pointed my finger at the first safe square. I knew if I stood back and pointed in the general direction that there was room for misinterpretation of which square I pointed at. So, my finger was only a couple of inches away from the square and I pointed at its center. When my partner’s foot reached the square, I shuffled over and pointed at the next one and this is how we made it to the end.
I was pleased with our success but part of me was wondering what the activity was supposed to prove. I didn’t have to wait long for an answer. I noticed that one of my peers was also squatting next to the grid but he did something weird with his hand. Instead of pointing at the square, he had his palm open and facing up and he moved it very slowly from where his partner stood to where he wanted her to step next. At first I thought there was something wrong with him, like maybe he was having a stroke. His movements didn’t seem natural and the approach was slower with more room for error. Then I noticed that his partner, clearly in on the objective of the exercise, had an expression on her face like she’d just won the lottery AND been crowned Miss America. On it went as they crossed the room, him with the bizarre Vanna White gesture to the next square and her with the ecstatic step.
Not for the first time, I thought I’d joined a cult and not a company. Turns out, the object of the game was to demonstrate how people like being invited to do things rather than told. No one said it directly, but I think I played the role of the insensitive ogre in this exercise.
It’s important to note that no one said anything directly about that because no one said anything directly about anything. Inviting people to accomplish something with complete focus on the “how” instead of on the “what” was not just the object of the game for this company, it was the default mission of the company. When your highest priority is coddling, you may eventually get where you want to go, it will just be after everyone else and with lots of detours along the way. You think that approach will help us compete globally? Nope.
The best thing we can do for any performer is to be clear. There is nothing rude or insensitive about saying, “this is what you need to focus on.” It’s a lot more effective than saying, “Say, if you get a chance, and, you know, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble, I mean after you get back from the juice bar, but maybe before your massage, could you possibly make a little product if that’s ok?”
We were divided into pairs and one person from each pair would walk across the grid and the other would be the guide. The guide’s instructions were to look at the answer key and find the path of squares that was deemed “safe”. If the guide didn’t work fast enough or accurately enough and the walker stepped in an “unsafe” square, they had to go back to the beginning.
I got into a crouch by the grid and my partner stood at the start. When the facilitator said go, I pointed my finger at the first safe square. I knew if I stood back and pointed in the general direction that there was room for misinterpretation of which square I pointed at. So, my finger was only a couple of inches away from the square and I pointed at its center. When my partner’s foot reached the square, I shuffled over and pointed at the next one and this is how we made it to the end.
I was pleased with our success but part of me was wondering what the activity was supposed to prove. I didn’t have to wait long for an answer. I noticed that one of my peers was also squatting next to the grid but he did something weird with his hand. Instead of pointing at the square, he had his palm open and facing up and he moved it very slowly from where his partner stood to where he wanted her to step next. At first I thought there was something wrong with him, like maybe he was having a stroke. His movements didn’t seem natural and the approach was slower with more room for error. Then I noticed that his partner, clearly in on the objective of the exercise, had an expression on her face like she’d just won the lottery AND been crowned Miss America. On it went as they crossed the room, him with the bizarre Vanna White gesture to the next square and her with the ecstatic step.
Not for the first time, I thought I’d joined a cult and not a company. Turns out, the object of the game was to demonstrate how people like being invited to do things rather than told. No one said it directly, but I think I played the role of the insensitive ogre in this exercise.
It’s important to note that no one said anything directly about that because no one said anything directly about anything. Inviting people to accomplish something with complete focus on the “how” instead of on the “what” was not just the object of the game for this company, it was the default mission of the company. When your highest priority is coddling, you may eventually get where you want to go, it will just be after everyone else and with lots of detours along the way. You think that approach will help us compete globally? Nope.
The best thing we can do for any performer is to be clear. There is nothing rude or insensitive about saying, “this is what you need to focus on.” It’s a lot more effective than saying, “Say, if you get a chance, and, you know, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble, I mean after you get back from the juice bar, but maybe before your massage, could you possibly make a little product if that’s ok?”
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Castration Isn't Reversible
This is something organizations realize when they've been micro-managing and controlling mid-level managers instead of empowering them and holding them accountable.
Managers grow accustomed to existing in an environment where they are not allowed to make decisions that impact their area. Managers should be REQUIRED to make decisions that impact their area but this isn't the tendency in our industry. Our industry expects managers to wait to be told what to do because of our faith in the scientific pecking order. That's the pecking order of technical expertise and it reflects a belief that the best decisions are made by the highest ranking technical expert. It also believes that any previously made decision is fair game for dismantling if a higher ranking technical experts disagrees.
Organizations that operate this way are everywhere and it's understandable because of the science that makes us who we are. However, we need our managers to be scientific thinkers that are also decisive. When we create an environment that rejects the decisive manager, we create an environment that cannot compete effectively in the commercial sector. Over time, the natural tendency of the manager to treat the organization as if it's her or his business fades away. The manager becomes an organizer of tasks, an expert at slow and steady (mediocre) performance. Where once an organization had a new manager who was a potential difference-maker, they now have just another body going through the motions.
Then one day the organization confronts the result. The FDA points out that random errors seem to happen to this company quite a lot. The parent organization starts to compare the cost of this site to the cost of contract manufacturing options and begins thinking the CMs look pretty good. That's when change comes to the company. It turns to it's mid-level of management and says, "We know we didn't let you make decisions before but now is the time! Let's see that entrepreneurial spirit! Let's see that fight! Let's see what you can do!"
The only response is a vacant stare because .... castration isn't reversible.
Managers grow accustomed to existing in an environment where they are not allowed to make decisions that impact their area. Managers should be REQUIRED to make decisions that impact their area but this isn't the tendency in our industry. Our industry expects managers to wait to be told what to do because of our faith in the scientific pecking order. That's the pecking order of technical expertise and it reflects a belief that the best decisions are made by the highest ranking technical expert. It also believes that any previously made decision is fair game for dismantling if a higher ranking technical experts disagrees.
Organizations that operate this way are everywhere and it's understandable because of the science that makes us who we are. However, we need our managers to be scientific thinkers that are also decisive. When we create an environment that rejects the decisive manager, we create an environment that cannot compete effectively in the commercial sector. Over time, the natural tendency of the manager to treat the organization as if it's her or his business fades away. The manager becomes an organizer of tasks, an expert at slow and steady (mediocre) performance. Where once an organization had a new manager who was a potential difference-maker, they now have just another body going through the motions.
Then one day the organization confronts the result. The FDA points out that random errors seem to happen to this company quite a lot. The parent organization starts to compare the cost of this site to the cost of contract manufacturing options and begins thinking the CMs look pretty good. That's when change comes to the company. It turns to it's mid-level of management and says, "We know we didn't let you make decisions before but now is the time! Let's see that entrepreneurial spirit! Let's see that fight! Let's see what you can do!"
The only response is a vacant stare because .... castration isn't reversible.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Experts vs. Consultants
Remember those logic games from school that defined relationships using circles? A circle containing the word US Presidents would be shown inside the boundary of a circle containing the word Americans. What this picture represented was that all US Presidents are Americans but not all Americans are US Presidents. While engaged in some home improvement last week, I thought about the arrangement of circles for Consultants and Experts.
I was at Home Depot looking to purchase enough tile to finish the floors in a couple of rooms. I found the kind I wanted and just then a Home Depot employee approached and introduced himself as Bob. That's when the fun ended.
Bob was an expert. He told me he had 25 years of experience laying tile. The problem was, I didn't need an expert, I needed a consultant. As an expert, he was really only able to talk about how he would do the job himself.
He told me I shouldn't by the same tile from different lots. He said that the size and color can vary. This meant that I would have to order my tile or go to another store. Both options would cause major delays. Bob also told me that I shouldn't buy the pre-mixed adhesive that I'd used successfully on past tile projects. He said I should get the powdered variety because I could get it cheaper. He glossed over the fact that I would need to buy a special bucket and stiring tool in order to work the powder with water. All of Bob's recommendations started with the phrase, "What I used to do is...." That's the way experts talk. Consultants are differnt.
As a consultant, Bob would have had his tiling experience but he would have been skilled at understanding me, the CLIENT, and the CONTEXT of the situation. Bob would have recognized that I was going to do one tile job. The added cost of special buckets and stiring rods isn't recovered with powdered adhesive if you're only doing one job. Bob also would have heard my strategy to minimize opportunities for error with home improvement projects. He would have heard me say that getting the tile cut and set right was my focus and I didn't want to add complexity by measuring powder and water. He would have realized that pre-mix was even more the right choice.
Bob also would have stepped back and realized that only a select group of people can see the difference in size and color across the same tile from multiple lots. He would have realized that the select group who can see the difference consists of people with 25 years of experience laying tile and no one else. Bob would have realized that his gift of being able to discern microscopic differences in size and color is an irrelevant externality of a long tiling career, nothing more.
Instead, Bob played the expert and I nodded and smiled at all of his sage advice. Then I left his store empty handed and bought what I needed somewhere else.
All consultants are experts, but not all experts are consultants.
I was at Home Depot looking to purchase enough tile to finish the floors in a couple of rooms. I found the kind I wanted and just then a Home Depot employee approached and introduced himself as Bob. That's when the fun ended.
Bob was an expert. He told me he had 25 years of experience laying tile. The problem was, I didn't need an expert, I needed a consultant. As an expert, he was really only able to talk about how he would do the job himself.
He told me I shouldn't by the same tile from different lots. He said that the size and color can vary. This meant that I would have to order my tile or go to another store. Both options would cause major delays. Bob also told me that I shouldn't buy the pre-mixed adhesive that I'd used successfully on past tile projects. He said I should get the powdered variety because I could get it cheaper. He glossed over the fact that I would need to buy a special bucket and stiring tool in order to work the powder with water. All of Bob's recommendations started with the phrase, "What I used to do is...." That's the way experts talk. Consultants are differnt.
As a consultant, Bob would have had his tiling experience but he would have been skilled at understanding me, the CLIENT, and the CONTEXT of the situation. Bob would have recognized that I was going to do one tile job. The added cost of special buckets and stiring rods isn't recovered with powdered adhesive if you're only doing one job. Bob also would have heard my strategy to minimize opportunities for error with home improvement projects. He would have heard me say that getting the tile cut and set right was my focus and I didn't want to add complexity by measuring powder and water. He would have realized that pre-mix was even more the right choice.
Bob also would have stepped back and realized that only a select group of people can see the difference in size and color across the same tile from multiple lots. He would have realized that the select group who can see the difference consists of people with 25 years of experience laying tile and no one else. Bob would have realized that his gift of being able to discern microscopic differences in size and color is an irrelevant externality of a long tiling career, nothing more.
Instead, Bob played the expert and I nodded and smiled at all of his sage advice. Then I left his store empty handed and bought what I needed somewhere else.
All consultants are experts, but not all experts are consultants.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Oobleck
Oobleck is a Dr. Suess term that is also used to describe the non-newtonian fluid you get when you mix two parts cornstarch with one part water. My 8-year-old and I were watching a youtube video of oobleck experiments when it occured to me that most organizations behave exactly like oobleck.
(Before I get into that, you might want to check out the video we watched. There are plenty of oobleck videos but this one is in Spanish and the stars are especially enthusiastic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2XQ97XHjVw
The video demonstrates the behavior of non-newtonian fluids. Whereas a newtonian fluid, like water, provides increased resistance to increased force, non-newtonian fluids are the opposite. The guys in the video can literally run across the top of the pool of fluid but what happens when they slow down? They slowly sink into a gloppy mess.
Organizational change, in my experience, is exactly like this. You must move quickly and keep moving in order to be successful. What often happens instead is that organizations begin a change initiative and then encounter resistance. This resistance is predictable because we're human and humans, generally speaking, resist change. The problem is that when this initial resistance shows up, the initiative pauses. All it takes is that pause and the oobleck of organizational culture takes effect. The lasting image is of the change initiative saluting as it sinks below the surface and out of sight.
In leading a change initiative, remember that you work in oobleck. Keep moving.
(Before I get into that, you might want to check out the video we watched. There are plenty of oobleck videos but this one is in Spanish and the stars are especially enthusiastic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2XQ97XHjVw
The video demonstrates the behavior of non-newtonian fluids. Whereas a newtonian fluid, like water, provides increased resistance to increased force, non-newtonian fluids are the opposite. The guys in the video can literally run across the top of the pool of fluid but what happens when they slow down? They slowly sink into a gloppy mess.
Organizational change, in my experience, is exactly like this. You must move quickly and keep moving in order to be successful. What often happens instead is that organizations begin a change initiative and then encounter resistance. This resistance is predictable because we're human and humans, generally speaking, resist change. The problem is that when this initial resistance shows up, the initiative pauses. All it takes is that pause and the oobleck of organizational culture takes effect. The lasting image is of the change initiative saluting as it sinks below the surface and out of sight.
In leading a change initiative, remember that you work in oobleck. Keep moving.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Illusory Feedback
Here's a math test for you. What is:
1 + -1
Very good, the answer is 0.
You're on a roll so we'll do one more. What is:
-1 + 3
If you said 2 you're right again.
I mention this math because of a couple conversations I've had with managers over the last few months. I was coaching the first manager on giving good feedback. I emphasized the need to be clear and we worked on that point for a few minutes. He said he understood everything I was saying but one of his folks threw a curve ball recently. He said he was giving this person some corrective feedback and the person responded, "now that you've given me negative feedback you're supposed to give me 3 pieces of positive feedback." The manager I was meeting with asked me if I supported that. That's where the second bit of math comes in. I explained that if you want your message of correction to be received it's not going to help you to give a message that's artificially positive.
The first math related to the same thing with another manager. He said he'd actually attended training where the trainer said every corrective feedback should be matched with a positive and vice versa. This is a great approach if your objective is to sit down with an employee and communicate absolutely nothing. The net result will be zero.
I encourage managers before every feedback session to decide which side of the fence they're on regarding the individual they're about to meet with. Either they feel like they're getting mostly what they want from the person or they feel like the person isn't delivering up to the expectations of the managers. The feedback should carry a positive or negative charge depending upon which side of the fence the manager is on.
It's important to note that this isn't year-end review feedback (which is another illusion). The feedback I recommend should be given every couple of weeks and it should refer to the last 2 weeks of performance. A person could get a good boost in one meeting and if they fall asleep for two weeks they should hear about it in the next meeting. Likewise, if someone is mailing-it-in over a period and gets negative feedback, they have a chance to course-correct and get an affirmation of that in 2 weeks time.
This approach builds more agility into the workforce becuase it is incremental. Most managers in our industry don't even meet with their direct reports let alone give clear feedback at an appropriate interval. If you haven't been doing this and you start doing it, you'll see the results in the improved performance of your team within the month.
Good luck.
1 + -1
Very good, the answer is 0.
You're on a roll so we'll do one more. What is:
-1 + 3
If you said 2 you're right again.
I mention this math because of a couple conversations I've had with managers over the last few months. I was coaching the first manager on giving good feedback. I emphasized the need to be clear and we worked on that point for a few minutes. He said he understood everything I was saying but one of his folks threw a curve ball recently. He said he was giving this person some corrective feedback and the person responded, "now that you've given me negative feedback you're supposed to give me 3 pieces of positive feedback." The manager I was meeting with asked me if I supported that. That's where the second bit of math comes in. I explained that if you want your message of correction to be received it's not going to help you to give a message that's artificially positive.
The first math related to the same thing with another manager. He said he'd actually attended training where the trainer said every corrective feedback should be matched with a positive and vice versa. This is a great approach if your objective is to sit down with an employee and communicate absolutely nothing. The net result will be zero.
I encourage managers before every feedback session to decide which side of the fence they're on regarding the individual they're about to meet with. Either they feel like they're getting mostly what they want from the person or they feel like the person isn't delivering up to the expectations of the managers. The feedback should carry a positive or negative charge depending upon which side of the fence the manager is on.
It's important to note that this isn't year-end review feedback (which is another illusion). The feedback I recommend should be given every couple of weeks and it should refer to the last 2 weeks of performance. A person could get a good boost in one meeting and if they fall asleep for two weeks they should hear about it in the next meeting. Likewise, if someone is mailing-it-in over a period and gets negative feedback, they have a chance to course-correct and get an affirmation of that in 2 weeks time.
This approach builds more agility into the workforce becuase it is incremental. Most managers in our industry don't even meet with their direct reports let alone give clear feedback at an appropriate interval. If you haven't been doing this and you start doing it, you'll see the results in the improved performance of your team within the month.
Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
