All Posts in Organizational Effectiveness

|In: Industry Commentary|Last Updated:

Consultants collect team-building tools. There’s the “make a square out of these parts” exercise (solution — team members have to swap parts). There’s the penny exercise — everyone gets a penny (for their thoughts, of course) and has to relate a personal anecdote from the year the penny was coined (“1951 … I was conceived.”)

One year, I participated in “Match the secret to the team member,” so often that I didn’t need the Internet to eliminate my right to privacy — by the end of the year I’d even had to reveal that I’d played Glockenspiel in my high school marching band.

These are just ice-breakers. When you want to get hard-core about team building, nothing compares to personality profiling tools. Myers-Briggs, DISCO, Forte … you could choose one for each team member and have tools left over.

Don’t get me wrong — these things do have value. People tend to see the world through their own eyes. Lacking a degree in psychology I can only speculate as to why. My guess is that it’s because connecting someone else’s optic nerves to our own visual processing centers is too hard.

Unfortunately, content to use only our own eyes, we take the next illogical step and conclude that the way we think is the only valid one. That attitude leads to cliques, not to effective teams — when everyone thinks the same, whether two people or ten focus on a problem, the range of solutions they develop will be about the same.

Personality profiles help frame discussions of how different thought patterns complement each other in crafting optimal designs and solutions. With IS and Marketing interacting with increasing frequency, the importance of appreciating diversity of thought can’t be overstated.

Regrettably, that’s rarely where the conversation stops.

Instead, team members commonly use their personality profiles as a stereotyping tool. Having learned that there are just sixteen kinds of human being (or eight team roles, or four determinants of personality, or what-have-you), team members use each others profiles to build ad hominem arguments during disputes (“Well of course you think that — you’re a Perceiver!”) and excuses for themselves (“That’s not a natural act for me — I’m low-empathy.”)

The worst part of some of these tools is that they’re built on forced-choice selection of false dichotomies. Are you a driver or an analytical? Yes, I am … depending on what the circumstances require.

Okay, that’s the second-worst part. The worst part is that these tools should be opening people to new possibilities — new ways of thinking about things. They ought to be expanding horizons, and instead they have the exact opposite effect.

There’s another version of this “scientific stereotyping” that’s even more pernicious. You don’t have to look very far to find books and articles explaining how to manage Generation X’ers, the difference between male and female leadership styles, or how to motivate the vertically challenged (Hint: Don’t play Randy Newman over the intercom).

Let’s follow this logic: I have a 27-year-old team member. She works in my area, we work together on a regular basis, and I meet with her one-on-one every two weeks. To understand what motivates her … I know — I’ll read a book written by authors who have never met her!

Works for me.

Want to motivate a twenty-something employee? Want to understand a new female manager’s leadership style? Do you have an African-American on your team and you aren’t sure what he needs to succeed?

Here’s an advanced leadership technique, hitherto known only to Zen masters living at high altitude in remote regions, brought back to the United States by a courageous consultant since assassinated by the cult charged with protecting the secret:

Get to know your employees. Empathize with them. Ask them what’s important to them. Treat them as individuals.

I know it’s more complicated than administering a Myers-Briggs test and reading a book, but if you master these techniques you’ll be a far more effective leader.

But then, I have to think that way … I’m an INTP.

Comments

|In: Organizational Effectiveness|Last Updated:

The Gartner Group calls it the “Zero Latency Enterprise.” Regis McKenna’s new book is titled Real Time.

McDonald’s asks “Want fries with that?”

Although McDonald’s doesn’t dominate the fast food business the way Microsoft dominates the desktop, it’s been stunningly and consistently successful over the years, even though its food is about as good as Microsoft’s software (but don’t push the metaphor, please – I’ve never found a bug in a Big Mac).

One reason for McDonald’s success is that a long time ago it realized that customers don’t care that much about flavor. Speed matters a lot – McDonald’s customers want their food in real time, with zero latency between ordering and eating. They want a clean restaurant to eat in. They don’t want to spend a lot. They want to keep the kids happy.

And oh, by the way … actually eating the food shouldn’t be unpleasant.

I have a lot of respect for Regis McKenna, and have even gained one or two useful insights from the Gartner Group. You can learn a lot from McDonald’s, though, which figured it out long before RM or GG, and you can learn it for a lot less money. Not only that, you can get a Happy Meal in the bargain. For example:

  • Training: McDonald’s doesn’t leave things to chance – Hamburger U may sound funny, but it’s one of the reasons eating at McDonald’s doesn’t lead to unpleasant surprises. Is the training you give your leaders as effective as Hamburger U? If not, why not? The products you deliver are a lot more complicated than a Breakfast Burrito.
  • Leverage: People get all gooey about how the plains Indians used the bison so efficiently, but McDonald’s puts them to shame. When McDonald’s buys a cow, the entire cow – skin, meat, bones and hooves – gets put to productive use. In IS, leverage comes from reuse. Do you create libraries of reusable subroutines or objects? Do you require developers to learn what’s in it?
  • Procedures: There are lots of ways an employee could assemble a Quarter Pounder, but there’s only one way a McDonald’s employee does assemble a Quarter Pounder. When it comes to your core processes – tasks employees do over and over again – do your employees do things by the numbers? Or do they waste time trying to figure out the solutions to problems that have long-since been solved?
  • Willingness to customize: My youngest, Erin, asks for a fish sandwich with “… only the bun, the fish, and the sauce, please. Nothing else.” And that’s what she gets. We spend a lot of time in IS worrying about enterprise-scale problems, but the single biggest difficulty we have is helping small constituencies with specialized needs. Do you know how to help a small group solve a small problem, or do you tell them, “That violates our standards,” or “We won’t solve it for you and we won’t let you buy the tools you need to solve it yourselves, either”?
  • Hiring old people: Think there’s a labor shortage in IS? Compared to the food industry, you have it easy. McDonald’s hires old people. It hires young people. It hires recent immigrants with poor language skills. It even hires the cognitively challenged. It meshes its staffing needs with their scheduling limitations, it helps every new employee find a way to succeed, it pays enough to attract them all, and it makes each McDonald’s a decent place to work, too. Meanwhile, lots of IS shops practice age discrimination, screen out anyone without a computer science degree, and never consider hiring high school students to work the help desk part-time, even though they know PCs better than most “IS professionals” and would kill for the job, besides.
  • Killing bad ideas: The Arch Deluxe didn’t sell, and McDonald’s unceremoniously took it off the market. What really bad idea is still floating around your organization because nobody is willing to put a bullet into it?

And then there’s the issue that started this column, speed. Anything that might slow down a McDonald’s employee in delivering an Egg McMuffin to a customer isn’t there in the first place.

Comments