May
25
Good leaders balance advocacy and inquiry to resolve conflict
Filed Under Leadership Practices | 1 Comment
Striving towards a vision and bringing about successful change is one of the hallmarks of leadership. However, vision equals change and change is often accompanied by conflict and tensions within and between teams. The leaders ability to effectively resolve this conflict and get people to move forward, acting to bring the vision into today is the result of great leadership. Unless we learn to productively deal with conflict, our change efforts will result in failure. One of the best tools to help with resolving conflict is the art of balancing advocacy and inquiry. What do we mean by advocacy and inquiry?
- Advocacy: is about how ideas are presented and explained. It’s primarily, one-way communication. When communication is one-way it becomes difficult for the the listener to understand the reasoning which supports the ideas being presented. This makes it unlikely, that people will commit themselves to any meaningful course of action. Before people will commit to a course of action they need to understand the reasoning behind the ideas. Advocacy is about making your point, taking a stand in an attempt to influence others, supporting your viewpoint with a relational argument, whilst remaining open to alternative views.
- Inquiry: is about how questions are raised and answered. Inquiry allows people to inquire into one another’s reasoning and understand the conclusion they have reached. Inquiry help us to understand what others are thinking and the reasoning behind their viewpoints.
Advocacy alone is insufficient. Likewise, inquiry alone is insufficient. Without a balance, people do not commit to action, they remain neutral. Learning to balance advocacy and inquiry increases likelihood that others will commit to take action. To gain a better understanding of the differences between advocacy and inquiry the following matrix, illustrated below, which I have adapted from “The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook” provides a great overview of the various ways of dealing with conflict.
The above matrix shows that their are dysfunctional forms of advocacy (politicking and dictating) and inquiry (withdrawing and interrogating) which we need to be careful to avoid.
How to balance advocacy and inquiry
It’s important to understand when to use advocacy and when to use inquiry. Mark Gerzon in his book “Leading Through Conflict” provides the following guidelines to help leaders in combining these two very different styles:
“The general rule is this: inquiry precedes advocacy. If you (1) are uncertain about having reliable, complete information; (2) have not yet engaged all the relevant stakeholders; and (3) doubt that you have sufficient votes, power or other support to put your plan into action, then it is time for inquiry not advocacy. However, if you (1) have access to all the necessary information, (2) have obtained input from all the necessary people, and (3) have mapped a clear road to implementing a viable plan, then go ahead. Advocate your ’solution’ to the issue or conflict, and begin to rally everyone behind you.”
Balancing advocacy and inquiry enables constructive two-way communication and learning. “I state my views, I inquire into your views, and I invite you to state your views and I inquire into your views.”
When balancing advocacy and inquiry we expose our reasoning and encourage others to challenge and probe our argument. Having a viewpoint is important as much as being open to learning about the viewpoints of others. Some useful tips for improving advocacy and inquiry from “The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook” includes:
- State your views providing the assumptions and data you used that led to your view. - “Here’s what I think and how I got there”
- Always seek to make your reasoning explicit. - “I came to this conclusion because….”
- Keep your viewpoint in context, what’s your purpose, who will be affected, how and why.
- Provide concrete examples. - “To get a clearer picture as to what I am talking about imagine you’re…”
- Encourage others to explore your thinking, assumptions and data without becoming defensive. - “What do you think about what I have just said?… What can you add?”
- Ask other to explain their thought process without interrogating or making people defensive. - “How did you arrive at this view?”
- Ask questions that help to gain insight into why people have the views that they do. - “Can you help me understand your thinking here?”
- Explain how your questions help to clarify you concerns and assumptions.
- Test what others are saying by asking or examples.
- When advocating, keep listening, remaining open to different viewpoints.
Leaders often make the mistake of relying too much on advocacy to get their message across. Time pressures also make it more likely that leaders default to as means of getting commitment to their vision and to drive action. Usually leaders want to be the first to provide answers and they push their views too strongly, not leaving enough room for discussion and debate. How about you? This month why not try to balance advocacy and inquiry in your conversions, you’ll be amazed at the results.
Technorati Tags: Conflict, Communication, Advocacy, Inquiry, Meetings, Collaboration, Relating, Politics, Leadership, Management, Business
Mar
24
Context, Purpose, Drama and Conflict: The secret sauce of great meetings
Filed Under Uncategorized | 3 Comments
Patrick Lencioni author of the numerous books including "Death by Meeting" wrote an interesting article "Avoid ‘Death by Meeting’" which provides some great insights on creating an effective meetings. Patrick describes the two primary reasons meeting are ineffective as..
- Meetings lack drama. Which means they are boring.
- Most meetings lack context and purpose.
Drama and Conflict
Great meetings need what Patrick calls drama he says that "The key to making meetings more engaging - and less boring - lies in identifying and nurturing the natural level of conflict that should exist." Conflict keeps us engaged and interested, encouraging us to participate and contribute to the discussion. A leader’s role is to ask questions that matter so as to encourage engagement around the key issues.
Context and Purpose
In addition to drama meetings need context and purpose, "Unfortunately, no amount of drama will matter if leaders don’t create the right context for their meetings and make it clear to team members why the meeting is taking place, and what is expected of them. To create context, leaders must differentiate between different types of meetings. Too often, however, they throw every possible conversation into one long staff meeting. This creates confusion and frustration among team members who struggle to shift back and forth between tactical and strategic conversations, with little or no resolution of issues."
Effective leaders take a four pronged approach to effectively address context and purpose, they create and sustain the following four meetings.
- The Daily Check-in: is a schedule-oriented, administrative meeting that should last no more than five or 10 minutes. The purpose is simply to keep team members aligned and to provide a daily forum for activity updates and scheduling.
- The Weekly Tactical: is what most people have come to know as staff meetings. These should be approximately an hour in length, give or take 20 minutes, and should focus on the discussion and resolution of issues which effect near term objectives. Ironically, these work best if there is no pre-set agenda. Instead, the team should quickly review one another’s priorities and the team’s overall scorecard, and then decide on what to discuss during the remainder of the meeting.
- The Monthly Strategic: is the most interesting kind of meeting for leaders, and the most important indicator of a company’s strategic aptitude. It is the appropriate place for big topics, those that will have a long-term impact on the business.
- The Quarterly Off-Site Review: is an opportunity for team members to step away from the business, literally and figuratively, to reassess a variety of issues: the interpersonal performance of the team, the company’s strategy, the performance of top-tier and bottom-tier employees, morale, competitive threats and industry trends. These can last anywhere from the better part of a day to two full days each quarter.
Creating the right meeting eco-system or "social architecture" is critical to effective leadership. Ensuring that we have the appropriate levels of conflict and that each meeting has the right focus, the right conflict and purpose, is essential for great performance. How are your meetings? Do they have the right amount of conflict and drama? Do you have an eco-system where you have daily check-ins, tactical and strategic meetings?
Technorati Tags: Meetings, Social Architecture, Management, Business, Leadership, Purpose, Context, Conflict, Drama, Communication
Apr
22
Moving Beyond Debate: Start a Dialogue
Filed Under Uncategorized | 3 Comments
I posted previously about the importance of leading through conversation. Leadership conversations are those difficult conversations we have about exploring who we are, what we value, what we stand for and where we are going. They’re about breaking new ground and exploring together the future that we want to create. Often the staring point for these type of conversations is a clear understanding of our current reality. In my experience seeing current reality as it is as opposed to how we wish is were is, without becoming defensive and rationalizing away what we find, is a very difficult conversation. I believe that effective leadership conversations occur when we learn. When leading conversations, it’s important that as leaders we encourage a specific type of conversation, a conversation that Mark Gerzon refers to as dialogue.
Mark Gerzon author of “Leading Through Conflict: How Successful Leaders Transform Differences into Opportunities” wrote a great article on HBS Working Knowledge titled Moving Beyond Debate: Start a Dialogue which captures the difference between debate and dialogue and provides a good foundation for building great leadership conversations. As Mark points out, people prefer dialogue over powerpoint!
As I worked in more than a hundred organizations or communities over the past decade, I kept track of which form of discourse my clients most often wanted. They did not want more speeches and presentations. They did not want more debates between two know-it-alls, each of whom was sure they were right and the other person was wrong. They did not want yet another “exchange of views” that skirted difficult issues and papered over problems. What they yearned for was deep, honest, inclusive, and respectful dialogue.
Key insight….. effective dialogue is built on trust!
Trust is the foundation of great dialogue. It’s trust that allows people, who each have different world views, beliefs and frames of reference to engage in productive dialogue. Julio Olalla says that ”Trust is the precondition for coordinated action“. Trust makes conversation possible and where there is trust defensiveness is reduced and learning can begin. As highlighted in the article:
“….polarized debate (which is rampant in both corporate and civic life) does not raise the level of trust; conversely, genuine dialogue (which is rare) often does.”
Trust increases a teams creativity. This allows people to explore new territory and bridge different worldviews:
Our goal now is to build the trust necessary to create alliances between adversaries (bridging) so that they can catalyze new approaches to, and potentially breakthroughs in, the conflict (innovation).
Trust is built by engaging in dialogue which is described in the article by the following table:
|
Debate |
Dialogue |
| Assuming that there is a right answer, and that you have it | Assuming that many people have pieces of the answer |
| Combative: participants attempt to prove the other side wrong | Collaborative: participants work together toward common understanding |
| About winning | About exploring common ground |
| Listening to find flaws and make counter-arguments | Listening to understand, find meaning and agreement |
| Defending our own assumptions as truth | Revealing our assumptions for reevaluation |
| Seeing two sides of an issue | Seeing all sides of an issue |
| Defending one’s own views against those of others | Admitting that others’ thinking can improve one’s own. |
| Searching for flaws and weaknesses in others’ positions | Searching for strengths and value in others’ positions |
| By creating a winner and a loser, discouraging further discussion | Keeping the topic even after the discussion formally ends |
| Seeking a conclusion or vote that ratifies your position | Discovering new options, not seeking closure |
In discussing the above table Mark makes the following observations:
Notice how debate is a powerful strategy for advocating a fixed position, while dialogue is far better for inquiry, building relationships, and creating innovations……While debate is useful for making decisions and taking votes, dialogue is the key to renewal. The power of debate is that two polarized voices are free to speak. But the power of dialogue is that these voices can actually be heard.
One of the benefits of engage in dialogue is that leaders are able to gain higher levels of commitment those involved in dialogue. As Steven Covey observed “No involvement, no commitment“.
An organization or community can develop the clearest, most inspiring plans. But if those involved do not feel heard and engaged, and if their concerns are not taken into account through genuine dialogue, those plans will not be well executed.
Dialogue is what effective conversation is all about. The interesting part is that there seems to be so little dialogue happen in business today. We’re so busy rushing to get things done that we fail to slow down and make time for meaningful dialogue. The consequences are an increasing lack of meaning and purpose in organisations (see previous posts here and here). We may have gained efficiency, but at what cost? It seems to me that too many businesses have lost their soul in the process!
“I never saw an instance of one or two disputants convincing the other by argument.” —Thomas Jefferson
Technorati Tags: Conversation, Communication, Management, Collaboration, Leadership, Business, Business, Learning
Mar
29
How to improve your effectiveness when leading from below
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
With organisations under pressure to constantly produce short-term results there is a need to have leaders at all level within an organisation. Leadership today is not about position or authority, it’s about influence and responsibility. And those who are leading from below, rather than from the top of an organisation have a unique set of challenges. Middle and lower management need to deal with the day-to-day operational issues, whilst at the same time focusing on bringing about the necessary strategic change. With this in mind the Wall Street Journal has published a great article with the following insights on improving a leaders effectiveness when leading from below.
- Make the decision to be a leader. “….In every case of successful leadership from below that we have studied, the manager made a conscious decision to move beyond the service and governance roles, without waiting to be told to do so…. [how?] ……. First, they reorganized their group to make themselves less essential to the provision of services or the exercise of governance. This began to free up time and energy for leadership…. Second, the managers we studied opened themselves up to influences from outside the company. In many companies, middle managers have been trained to focus on internal rather than external signals…… To take on a leadership role, managers needed to listen to the signals coming from outside — customers, competitors, suppliers, neighbors, the media. Then they could begin thinking about what those signals meant for action inside the company.“
- Focus on influence, not control. “Every successful case we have found of leadership from below involved a basic shift in thinking: The managers did their job with their colleagues — not to them or for them. People simply react more enthusiastically to being enlisted in a common cause than they do to being ordered around…… [how?] ….Adopt the perspective of the people you’re trying to influence; don’t make them adopt yours….. Expose others to your information; don’t hoard it….. Aim to influence existing work processes; don’t build new ones…… Don’t worry about being proved right….. Keep things clear and simple…… Keep a sharp focus.“
- Work on your “trusted adviser” skills. “You have to earn the right to influence people. People have to want to talk with you, and value what they hear from you. This requires more than being seen as a technical expert. It requires being seen as a trusted adviser…..[how?] ….. The trusted adviser has skills that turn conversations into meaningful discussions that make people want to seek you out. Listen more than you talk; ask questions that broaden people’s perspective, instead of telling them how to think or what to do. Without violating confidences, share what others have seen and done in similar circumstances.”
- Don’t wait for the perfect time, just find a good time. “There is never a perfect time to take the risks of leading from below. When times are good, everyone is too busy and no one seems bothered by the need to do things differently. When times are bad, everyone is too busy (or too scared) and there are too many other demands….. [how?] …. look for situations where the complacency that pervades most companies has been disturbed. In those situations, there will be less resistance to change. There may even be an active desire for new approaches. Mergers, acquisitions and divestitures all break the existing patterns in the way a company operates.“
I think these are really good insights, some of which I already use with effective results….
Technorati Tags: Upward, Management, Leadership, Skills, Business, Influence
Oct
23
Eight principles that support a collaborative system
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
In an article The Philosophy Behind Our Systems by Emily and Dick Axelrod they propose that:
Systems succeed or fail, based upon the philosophy behind them.
I think that this as true of leadership, here are some of the philosophies that The Axelrod Group build into the collaborative systems they design.
- Principle 1: A compelling purpose creates interest. The organizational task you’re trying to accomplish must have depth and purpose, and this depth and purpose must be made clear to everyone.
- Principle 2: Public information and decision making creates trust. Information is valuable only when shared. Thus, all information needed for discussion must be public. This includes all of the information developed and decisions made during the change process. There cannot be information that some have and others do not.
- Principle 3: Involve the whole system to understand the whole system. When many stakeholders dialogue, they begin to understand each other and the larger system. As they learn how they fit into the larger whole, new possibilities emerge.
- Principle 4: Create a safe enough environment. Allowing employees to express fear and doubt is key to moving forward. To do so, though, requires bravery.
- Principle 5: Involve the whole person. We have a dominant learning style. Some of us are auditory learners, others are visual learners, and still others are kinesthetic learners. When we convene people, we design the process to reach everyone through his or her preferred learning style. When we use only one style, we run the risk of not reaching important contributors.
- Principle 6: Have a future orientation. Ron Lippit’s research about groups concluded that when people focus on what they want to create, they become excited and energetic. When they focus on problem solving, they become lethargic. Robert Fritz identified that when people clearly understand both the present state and the future they want to create, structural tension develops, and they move towards that preferred future.
- Principle 7: Egalitarian spirit builds trust and community. The answers are everywhere and in all of us. Egalitarian spirit means working together in a way that blurs the privileges associated with roles and titles. It does not mean denying legitimate power or authority, but rather evaluating input on the basis of its worth, not the position of the person offering it.
- Principle 8: Co-creation builds ownership and commitment. Ownership is the taking hold of an issue, solution, strategy or course of action, and making it your own. When you own something, you sustain it and see it through to the end. When we make a commitment, we promise to perform, produce, and perpetuate a course of action.
How well do these principles reflect your work environment?
Technorati Tags: Leadership, Management, Business, Collaboration, Philosophy, Participation
Aug
14
How to Make Collaboration Work: Powerful Ways to Build Consensus, Solve Problems, and Make Decisions by David Straus describes the principles of collaborative problem solving in organisations. In the book, David describes collaboration as:
“the process people employ when working together in a group, organisation, or community to plan, create, solve problems, and make decisions.”
The need for collaboration in organisations has never been greater, this book provides an excellence foundation for leaders wanting to seeking to improve collaboration in their organisations.
David Straus has spent more than 30 years practicing collaboration. He studied architecture at the Harvard School of Design in 1965, and in 1969 started Interaction Associates which has become a recognised leader in organisational development, group process facilitation, training, and consulting. He is also the coauthor with Michael Doyle of “How to Make Meetings Work” which has sold over 600,000 copies.
Overview
The book is divided into three parts, I) the fundamentals, II) the principles of collaboration and III) putting it all together.
Part I: The Fundamentals
This part of the book provides a foundation describing the ‘why’ of collaborative problem-solving. Collaborative problem solving may take longer, however it results in increased buy-in making implementation more effective. Since many solutions fail at implementation this is a huge benefit.
Part II: The Principles of Collaboration
The five principles of collaboration provides a sound practical foundation, the five principles as described in the book are:
1) Involve Relevant Stakeholders
The benefits of this principle is described by David:
“When the full range of differing interests and points of view is involved in solving a problem or making a decision, the solution is likely to be much more comprehensive and creative than if a small group of like-minded individuals acted on its own. The inclusion of all stakeholders also naturally creates a broader base of support for the solution and increases the likelihood that it will actually be implemented.”
There are four types of stakeholders that should be included, in different ways, in any collaborative initiative:
- Those with the formal power to make a decision.
- Those with the power to block a decision.
- Those affected by a decision.
- Those with the relevant information of expertise.
The book the goes on to describe how to involve the relevant stakeholders using the “Rings of Involvement”.
The Rings of Involvement
2) Build Consensus Phase by Phase
David states that a groups reach consensus on a decision when:
“every group member can agree to support the decision. Each person may not think it’s the very best decision, but he or she can buy into it and actively support its implementation.”
The key idea behind “building consensus phase-by-phase” is that:
“you can’t reach consensus by going for it directly you have to work up to it gradually.”
The book goes on to describe what consensus means, the various ways consensus can be reached and what to do if you can’t reach consensus.
3) Design a Process Map
This principle recognises that there is no one right way to solve problems and therefore we need to design a problem solving process map, unique to the organisational context, to guide the collaborative effort. A process map is a tool that is used to guide the collaborative exercise helping the stakeholders understand the journey they’re on, an example of a process map is illustrated below:
An Example Process Map
4) Designate a Process Facilitator
For a collaborative meetings to be successful, they need a process facilitator, someone who is committed to ensuring that the group is interacting constructively and working towards solving the problem. The four functions of facilitators discussed in the book are:
- the facilitator as a process guide.
- the facilitator as a tool giver.
- the facilitator as neutral third party.
- the facilitator as process educator.
Each of these roles are discussed in detail.
5) Harness the Power of Group Memory
This is a simple, but powerful principle, group memory is described as:
“a record of the ideas raised and decisions made at a meeting, written on large sheets of paper and posted in full view of group members”
This simple principle is often neglected in meetings resulting in the following dysfunctional behaviours:
- Repetition and ‘wheel spinning’
- Lack of a level playing field.
- Associating ideas with people.
- Loss of focus.
- The limitations of words.
- Information overload.
- Disruption by late comers.
- Vague or misunderstood arguments.
- The failure of memory.
Each of those behaviour are described in detail.
Part III: Putting it all Together
This part of the book explores what would happen if we applied the principles of collaboration to; leadership, organisations and communities. The book suggests that collaborative leadership, organisations and communities are more productive and are more fulfilling for people who live and work in them.
In Summary
I found Part II: “The Principles of Collaboration” that makes up the bulk of the book the most valuable. Many leaders find that collaborating to solve problems overwhelming, difficult and frustratingly slow. This book provides a practical approach to resolving these issues, making collaborative problem solving a practical alternative to traditional problem solving approaches. I found the book insightful, it would certainly be of benefit to people who work as project managers, strategic planners, managers, leaders and consultants. I feel that this book provides a good foundation to collaborative problem solving.
Technorati Tags: Collaboration, Problem-solving, Facilitation, Management, Leadership, Book, Book Review, Meeting
Aug
6
The Practice of Facilitative Leadership
Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Facilitation is a key leadership practice in the fast paced, complex and changing environment we live in today. The Systems Thinker Newsletter discusses the importance of adopting a facilitative leadership style, in their article, “The Art of Facilitative Leadership: Maximizing Others’ Contributions” by Jeffrey Cufaude.
Leadership traditionally has been thought of as “doing the right thing” while management has been defined as “doing things right.” Contemporary leadership combines these two distinctions with an emphasis on “doing the right thing . . . right.” As Jim Collins and Jerry Porras noted in the seminal work, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (Harper Business Essentials), no longer can effective leaders frame choices in dualistic either-or frameworks; rather they must learn to embrace the and, considering both what needs to be done and how that choice can best be implemented. But no one individual, however talented or knowledgeable, can single-handedly lead an organization to success. In order to advance their organizations’ efforts, leaders must be able to actively engage others so their talents and contributions are fully leveraged.
Facilitative leadership can be summarized in six major themes:
- Facilitative leaders make connections and help others make meaning. Facilitative leaders listen for and seek to make (or help others make) the connection between what is occurring in a conversation and what has occurred in other places or at other times….. Facilitative leaders also seek to connect comments made by various individuals in a meeting.
- Facilitative leaders provide direction without totally taking the reins. When group members do not share ownership of decisions and their outcomes, they are less likely to follow through on commitments. Too often, individuals abdicate their responsibility to the leader; that is, they fail to acknowledge that ensuring a group’s effectiveness is the responsibility of all members. In order for groups to realize their full potential, every individual must be concerned with the good of the whole. For this reason, facilitative leaders more often ask rather than tell groups what they need to be doing and help them move forward rather than control their movement.
- Facilitative leaders balance managing content and process. Individuals using a facilitative approach are concerned with both what the group is discussing or deciding and how they are actually doing it. They appreciate and understand that the team may need to use different processes to achieve different desired outcomes. An important part of these efforts involves thoughtfully considering how the group might reach a certain result.
- Facilitative leaders invite disclosure and feedback to help surface unacknowledged or invisible beliefs, thoughts, and patterns. Call it what you want-the dead cow on the table, the elephant in the middle of the room, or the skunk smelling up the place-most groups have certain topics they need to discuss in order to move forward on key decisions and efforts. Facilitative leaders work with individuals and groups to identify and discuss the important issues they may be unaware of or unwilling to address. These may be issues that are perceived as being too “hot” or fraught with potential conflict to be brought into the open.
- Facilitative leaders focus on building the capacity of individuals and groups to accomplish more on their own, now and in the future. Facilitative leadership is not just about the immediate task. It is also about helping a group or team learn together so they might become more productive in the future….. This long-term definition of success helps keep facilitative leaders from assuming too much responsibility for a group.
- Facilitative leaders operate from a position of restraint. Because facilitative leaders want to maximize others’ contributions, they tend to operate first from a position of restraint, carefully measuring what, if any, action they need to take.
Professional literature often draws rigid lines between leadership and management, seeming to suggest that one is right and one is wrong. In reality, organizations need individuals who both do the right thing and are capable of doing things right. They need people who can help individuals and groups do the right things right-the very nature of facilitative leadership.
Technorati Tags: Leadership, Management, Facilitation, Collaboration, Teams, Teamwork
Jun
13
Research Reveals Collaboration Is a Key Driver of Business Performance Around the World
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Research by Verizon Business, a unit of Verizon Communications, a leading provider of advanced communications and information technology (IT) solutions, sponsored by Microsoft, found the following:
Collaboration is a key driver of overall performance of companies around the world. Its impact is twice as significant as a company’s aggressiveness in pursuing new market opportunities (strategic orientation) and five times as significant as the external market environment (market turbulence).
“As a general rule, global companies that collaborate better, perform better. Those that collaborate less, do not perform as well. It’s just that simple.”
The “Meetings Around the World” study surveyed 946 information technology and line-of-business decision-makers from a cross section of 2,000 small-to-medium, midmarket and global companies in the U.S., Europe (France, Germany and the U.K.) and Asia-Pacific (Australia, Hong Kong and Japan). The researchers created a collaboration index to measure a company’s relative “collaborativeness” based on two main factors:
- An organization’s orientation and infrastructure to collaborate, including collaborative technologies such as audio conferencing, Web conferencing and instant messaging
- The nature and extent of collaboration that allows people to work together as well as an organization’s culture and processes that encourage teamwork
The study, conducted in March, found that the high impact of collaboration on a company’s overall performance was consistent across the, Europe and Asia-Pacific, and across the six key vertical industries that were examined: healthcare, government, high technology, professional services, financial services and manufacturing.
Of all the collaboration technologies that were studied, three were more commonly present in high-performing companies than in low-performing ones: Web conferencing, audio conferencing and meeting-scheduler technologies.
Collaboration helps information to flow within organisations, crucial information, such as, what team members are busy with and how they are doing it, what they’re learning, how competitors are performing and how customers are behaving. It’s the sharing of this information increases the collective learning and competitiveness of organisations. I personally feel that a collaborative environment is preferable over a competitive environment. Internal competitive environments tend to create a whole lot of undesirable side effects:
- Internal competition re-enforces departmental and division sub-cultures, creating ’silo mentality’. This makes organisation rigid, hinders learning and the sharing of knowledge.
- Internal competition places an emphasis on the differences between departments and divisions.
- Internal competition creates an internal focus, rather than having a focus on customers and competitors within the market place.
Are you fostering an internal work environment that is team-based and collaborative?
Technorati Tags: Collaboration, Communication, Technology, Management, Leadership, Research, Team, Teamwork, Business
Dec
12
Ed’s Path of Leadership: Excellence, Initiative and Impact
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
I found this post from Ed Brenegar from Leading Questions very interesting….. Here are some snippets from the post that caught my eye:
EXCELLENCE
“Leadership is first and foremost a quality of an individual…….So, the first step along the path to leadership is to recognize that leadership is a product of character, not just skills and techniques of style.”
INITIATIVE
“leadership is focused upon the action of the leader. Leadership requires actions. Without action there is no leadership, and yet to often the “leader” does not act, and his
passivity stands in contrast to the other members of the organization. Leadership action is most clearly defined in the personal initiative that a leader must make. This action takes place in three
areas - with people, through ideas, in organizational structures.”“People: A leader initiates toward people to establish collaborative relationships that allow for the same leadership initiative to develop in the other. The character of the relationship is marked by honesty, respect and trust. The collaborative nature of the relationship develops when both individuals recognize that there is a mutuality or sharedness to their relationship.”
Ideas: A leader initiates toward people using ideas as a tool for not only communicating, but for establishing purpose, focus and a vision for the relationships………It is the leader’s responsibility to initiate the conversation that establishes a common understanding of what the purpose and goals of the organization are.· And it is the leader’s responsibility to act as a interpreter of the vision.· Ideas without communication are dead, and communication that does not lead to action is self-indulgent.· As a result, the initiative that a leader takes is
to constantly move from the abstract to the concrete, from the conceptual to the practice, from the idea to action.”Organizational Structure: A leader initiates within an organizational structure or setting. The purpose of this structure is not organizational perpetuation, though sustainability is a by-product. Organizational structures exist as a vehicle for enhancement and fulfillment of the collaborative nature of human relationships.
IMPACT
The focal point of leadership is impact. In other words, leaders focus on creating change so that individual and organizational purpose can be fulfilled……Organizations are a reflection of their people. If they lack the character of excellence, so will the organization.
Technorati Tags: Strategy; Leadership; Management; Teams
Jul
12
Implications of Poor Collaboration within Organisations is Weak
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Research by the Hay Insight, Hay Group’s survey research division found that Companies Risk Greater Employee Turnover and Lower Productivity Without Improved Teamwork.
“Hay Insight employee opinion research confirms that most organizations today are struggling to establish effective collaboration/teamwork and communication across departments. The current research is based on findings from our database of approximately 1.2 million employees in more than 400 organizations worldwide.”
More specifically, the findings suggest that:
- 54% of employees feel that their company has an atmosphere that encourages cooperation and the sharing of ideas and resources across the organization.
- 49% of employees stated that their company had a generally cooperative atmosphere (i.e., various parts of the company working well together).
- 48% of employees rated the teamwork that exists between departments as either “good” or “very good.”
- 33% of employees responded favorably when asked about the level of communication between departments within their organization.
Mark Royal, a senior consultant with Hay Insight, summarises the findings stating that:
“A lack of cross-functional teamwork creates lower levels of productivity and growth and makes it much more difficult for organizations to operate efficiently or achieve their strategic objectives….. What’s more, by making it more difficult for individuals to carry out their responsibilities, employees are frustrated in their current positions and job turnover is much higher.”
Technorati Tags: Communication, Team Leadership, Management, Research, leadership, Collaboration
-
Welcome to The Practice of Leadership!
-
Contact Me
-
What I support...
