Great article in the WSJ on how we will view work in the future:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203803904574429151858232582.html

I am helping a client select a Performance Management tool. It has occurred to me that the performance review exercise can be quite meaningless if not given the proper thought and attention. In fact, now I understand why so many manager are so apprehensive and stressed about writing performance reviews. In order to make the review process more meaningful, it is important for the reviews to be customized for each department or in some instances each role. The person who initiates and manages the process should be the department manager as opposed to an HR manager. However, the initiative will not be taken by a manager unless she is convinced that the review process will enhance her bottom line in some way.

In my engagement with my clients, there is almost always a period where there is tension. The cause of the tension can be from multiple sources. In my view, there are two main sources. The tension usually emerges after the initial engagement or what I like to call “the honeymoon period”. Most clients are initially excited about the prospect of the change that they think that I can help them with. They think that I can give them answers that they could not come up with themselves based on my wisdom and experience.

Of course, the relevant experience that I bring to the table in the relationship is my coaching experience. I rarely bring any subject matter expertise about the client’s industry or job function. So the tension emerges from the client’s misunderstanding of what coaching is. If this is the source of the tension, my shortcoming at that point is usually that I was unable to properly explain the nature of coaching to the client.

Another source of tension between the client and I is the work related to the change that the client engaged me to help him with. The destination is appealing to the client, but when there is ambiguity in our thinking during the coaching process, he gets frustrated. This situation usually emerges when we are exploring options and the client wants to jump to solutions. In fact, a lot of the time, I also get frustrated with the ambiguity and start to get tense.

In my view, this tension is unavoidable most of the time. In order to mitigate the risk of damaging the relationship with the client at these sensitive stages, I warn the client of the imminent tension ahead of time. This manages both of our expectations and reduces the feeling of uncertainty in the relationship. However, it does not avoid the inevitable; meaningful change comes with work, which is pleasurable, satisfying and at the same time, uncomfortable.

In order for a person to be coachable she has to be at a point where she is looking for movement. She must be dissatisfied enough with her current state or she should have an intense desire to reach her future state.  Above all, she has to be convinced that shifts in perspective can occur and that these occurrences can produce positive outcomes.

Project Managers think through projects all the time. However, people who are not PM’s nor intend to be can benefit from the basic framework of Project Management.

• What are my objectives?
• What are my assumptions?
• What are my risks?
• What is my high level timeline
• What external events is my project dependent upon?
• Who are the stakeholders? (If the project fails, who will be held responsible? If it succeeds, who will take the glory?)

When explaining the fundamentals of project management to managers, it is a challenge to specify what should be a project and what should not. Sometimes, it is hard for managers to discern between a task and a project. Some tasks require extensive planning. A rule of thumb that I use is that if you have five or more related tasks, they are probably better of being viewed as a small project. The probability of success is higher is these tasks are viewed as a project. The number of 5 used in my rule of thumb is not scientific. However, it has worked well for me in terms of defining projects.

What is the right level of clarity when communicating a message? I want to be understood but I don’t want to oversimplify things. What is the right level of detail to communicate at? The answers to these questions make or break a message.

I have come across geniuses in a variety of fields. Many of them have been very poor communicators. Specifically, they jump from topic to topic without closing the loop on any one thought.  Many leaders suffer from the same issue. They don’t have the time, patience or know how to dot the i’s and cross the t’s on a thought before moving on to the next one.  Then they wonder why the people that work for them cannot follow instructions or are constantly asking for their help.

Oftentimes, a Leader (capital L) is frustrated with her leaders. Usually it is because she is more organized, proactive and motivated than the people she leads. She walks into meetings with the answers. Her leaders never leave a meeting with her without an answer. She directs people with specific and explicit instructions.  She points out her leaders’ mistakes in each meeting. Yet, her leaders don’t respond. This is the main cause of the Leader’s frustration. The missing link is the realization that leaders are not the only ones who need to change their mindset. The Leader is just as much a contributor to the lack of organization, proactivity and motivation as the leaders are.

A team can consist of very smart individuals and still fail. If the team members are proficient at the skills needed to perform a task but are not able to understand each others’ thinking styles, they are likely to fail or carry out a project that does not meet its success criteria.  For example, one of my clients has recently put together a project team. Each member represents a different discipline. Their goal is to implement a new software system that is integral to the company’s business. Each member is extremely knowledgeable and skilled at their respective functions within the team. However, they are unable to get the project off the ground.

The networking expert has a tactical, analytical approach. The business analyst has a strategic outlook. They have discussed the project many times but are not able to establish any next steps to move the project forward. They go off on their own after the meeting and work on tasks based on their thinking styles. However, their tasks never converge into a cohesive plan. Unless, they understand and agree upon the level at which they need to approach the project, strategic or tactical, they will not make progress.

Leaders of small to medium sized companies are often better at performing almost all of the functions in their company than their employees. Many times, this is due to the fact that the leader has more “skin in the game” than anyone who works for him or her.  Furthermore, they often expect the people that they hire to carry out the functions to be just like them in terms of process and thinking.  This leads to increased dissatisfaction and frustration of the leaders with their employees.

Often, this dynamic leads to employees being in a constant state of awe of the leader and  adopting a belief that they will never be as proficient as the leader in carrying out their functions in the company. Of course, this scenario leads to a situation where there is a stagnation in the leaders ability to lead and the employees’ ability to do their job better than the leader can.

In order to address the stagnant situation, much reflection and realization is required on both sides, the leader and the employees. However, the initiation to break the stalemate must come from the leader.