Sunday, April 26, 2009

A Definition of Change

A transliteration of Schofields Definition of Discipline
The change which makes a team reliable for the future is not to be gained by burying your head in the sand. On the contrary such behavior is more likely to destroy then to make a team. It is possible to look ahead and provide vision in such a manner and such an attitude as to inspire in the team no feeling but an intense desire to accept change, while the opposite manner and attitude cannot fail to excite strong resistance and a desire to maintain the status quo. The one mode or the other of dealing with an opportunity for change springs from a corresponding spirit in the breast of the leader. He who can see and hence project the value of change cannot fail to inspire in others a desire for change, while he who can only see, and hence project, the personal risks of change, especially to the reluctant, cannot fail to inspire sabotage of the change.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Where's the Sale?

RT @GabrielGrimes I've run into the same question again. "What s the difference between Marketing and Selling?"

This question implies there is a gray area between marketing and sales and Gabriel is trying to draw a line between the two.

This question sounds remarkably like the typical ethical dilemma, "what is the difference between right and wrong." Instead of trying to classify right and wrong as two sides of a coin, it is better to consider them as extreme ends of a continuum. At either end things are clearly right and wrong, but between is a giant gray area.

However, in this case the extreme ends of the continuum are not marketing and selling, rather they are marketing and collecting. At one end is the attempt to shape market forces in order to draw attention to the product. At the other end is the transaction exchange, i.e. receiving something of value in return for delivering the product,i.e. "collecting." "Selling" is an optional, interim step, not the end game.

In my terms selling as a one-to-one interaction that results in an agreement for a transaction. The transaction is the sale. In modern times, transactions occur without selling.

The newest social technologies, Web 2.0, take this one step further. There is a new gray area between marketing and customer support. The modern view should be that producers must establish relationships, Web 3.0, with consumers. Periodically this relationship results in a sale. The sale can occur to this particular consumer, or to another influenced by the relationship. In the interim, the producer must ensure customer satisfaction in order to keep the relationship positive and subsequently the influence of the relationship.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Schofield's Definition of Discipline

The discipline which makes the soldiers of a free country reliable in battle is not to be gained by harsh or tyrannical treatment. On the contrary, such treatment is far more likely to destroy than to make an army. It is possible to impart instruction and to give commands in such a manner and such a tone of voice to inspire in the soldier no feeling but an intense desire to obey, while the opposite manner and tone of voice cannot fail to excite strong resentment and a desire to disobey. The one mode or the other of dealing with subordinates springs from a corresponding spirit in the breast of the commander. He who feels the respect which is due to others cannot fail to inspire in them regard for himself, while he who feels, and hence manifests, disrespect toward others, especially his inferiors, cannot fail to inspire hatred against himself.

John M. Schofield, 1879

I am placing this quote in the blog as a reference for some further discussions.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

The Ideal Mentor

The question in the LinkedIn group Linked 2 Leadership by John Bishop was: "Understanding the blind spots – Leader’s weaknesses and mentoring others"

I built a series of fractal models to help leaders identify their weaknesses and blind spots. The ideal Mentor is sufficiently different from you that through their influence, you can find and fix your blind spots. The links are below.

One use of fractals is to identify holes. The technique is to sub-divide an item into components, then make a pattern from the components. The pattern that emerges will have holes. In this situation: the item is you, the components are your skills, the pattern is your outlook towards life, and the holes are your blind spots. However, know thyself should only be considered the first pass. You need to compare yourself to others, or in Robert's terms, "take the other person's view." In fractal terms, you create a new pattern out of two and discover where components from one cover the holes of another.

In this situation, this is where Mentoring comes in. The ideal Mentor would be sufficiently different from you so that you can learn from your Mentor to adjust your outlook towards life (adjust your pattern) and provide vision into your blind spots (learn new skills). This can only happen if your Mentor is sufficiently different in their outlook towards life and skills for you to make a meaningful change.

My models provide you with a default pattern and list of skills. You use the model by marking your skills within the pattern. Your holes are the unmarked items or areas. My models are here ordered from simplest to most detailed:
  1. Leadership Vs. Management
  2. Beyond Leadership and Management
  3. Leadership and Management are just the Tip...

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Don't forget Nothin

The question in the LinkedIn group Leadership Think Tank was: "What do you believe to be the top three (or more) "secrets" of your success?..."

My answer is:
"Don't forget nothin." - a poor rendition of Robert Rogers' 28 "Rules of Ranging"
together with...
"Don't memorize anything..." - Attributed to Einstein

To me this means:
Pay attention to everything.
Determine the first principles involved.
Incorporate these into your knowledge base.

This way, you don't have to memorize facts. You internalize a few key principles. With these you can access the details whenever necessary and also be able to do much more then repetition alone allows.

Friday, March 27, 2009

The Measure of Management

The desire to classify the types of managers came from research for my Ethics Vs. Honor post. In working on that post, I recognized that different types of people view ethics and honor differently. Along those lines, and related to the Leadership Vs. Management debate, there must also be different types of managers. This begs the question, "how do different types of people view management," and directly from there, "what are there different types of management?"

How do you classify the types of management? The typical classification is based on the nature of the various types of managerial control. I have included these below. The key differentiator between leadership and management is that nature of leadership is people and the nature of management is things. Since all Things can be measured, I also felt it was a useful exercise to develop measures for each type of manager.

I have already posted one interesting side effect of this analysis: Leadership = Management. No matter what type of manager someone is, their overall duty is to generate more value from their resources then the resources' separate value. The whole must be more then the sum of the parts. This is remarkably similar to the measurement of teamwork. Hence, the previous post.

Project Management

Control: Project Managers control tasks. Tasks have a beginning and an end.
Measurement: Project Managers should be measured by their affect on scope creep, i.e. a net positive combination of scope, cost, schedule, and quality, i.e. you can have it fast, cheep, or good; pick two.

Operations Management

Control: Operations Managers control ongoing processes. Resources contribute to a flow of activities that generate a stream of results.
Measurement: Operations Managers should be measured by their affect on a flow of resources, i.e. a net positive combination of resource cost and value added by these resources to the finished products.

Capital Management

Control: Capital Managers control assets. Assets provide support to the processes and tasks of an organization.
Measurement Capital Managers should be measured by how the assets enable the generation of value for the organization, i.e. it costs less to maintain then the value it contributes.

Other Types

Obviously these are broad classifications. There are a large number of names of types of managers, e.g. Program manager, Facilities Manager, Financial Manager. If you consider the three basic types above as a triumvirate, you will see that each of these various instance types can be located somewhere in this triangle:


An easy example to look at is Program Management: Program Managers are responsible for an ongoing flow of projects. Therefore Program Management is a combination of Project and Operations Management. A more complex example is Crisis Management: Crisis managers must be able to react quickly to an remediate an extreme external force of change. In order to be able to do this, the must create and maintain contingency plans and resources. So, they are part Capital Managers. Also, they must be able to complete a task, i.e. resolve the crisis. Therefore, they are also part Project Managers. The fact that a Crisis Manager must act under extreme duress and under short deadlines masks the nature of their control.

Change Management

It is fair to argue that Change Management does not fall in the triangle. The argument is that all managers are responsible for Change. "The only constant is change." My position is that since Change is a responsibility, Change is a a leadership activity. Change is different then change management. Since "The Change" is a task, Change Management is a type of Project Management. More on Change in a future post.

I can see additional post possibilities coming from this discussion. Are there these types of management because there are these types of people, or vice-versa: a chicken or the egg causality dilemma. Also, do people become these types of managers because they are these types of people, or do people become these types because they are brought up under these types of management: a nature versus nurture debate.

To help me get this post organized, I originally posted this question on LinkedIn. Donald Davies, Juan GarcĂ­a, Charlie Tian, Harold Hunt, Pravin Upadhyay, Gerry Scullion, Bernard Gore, Mukund Toro, and Bryan deSilva contributed to the discussion in the Question and Answer forum. Anthony Reardon contributed to the discussion in the group, Leadership Think Tank.

Monday, March 9, 2009

Leadership = Management

A leader realizes more value from the combination of people into a team then the individuals can realize independently.

A manager realizes more value from the combination of resources into a product then the resources are worth, separately.

Therefor leadership = management. I don't abide by this, but the parallels are eerie.