Victus pro Scientia Opus -- Food for the Knowledge Worker

Fenway Magic and Turning Around a Team

The Red Sox are inspiring people all over New England and beyond.  Consistently high performance, a team ethos we haven't seen at Fenway in years, gut-wrenching late-inning drama, and a genuine personality (see also: #fearthebeard) have made them compelling to watch, especially when one considers the well-documented depths to which they fell in 2012, and that only six months ago, a bruised city turned to them for inspiration in the wake of the tragedy on Patriot's Day.

So, how did they turn things around so quickly?  I was fortunate to be able to work with my colleague Nancy Settle-Murphy, an expert in teamwork and organizational development (truth be told, I did little more than fact-check baseball information and flesh out a few metaphors) on an article that examines this "worst to first" phenomenon in more depth.  Enjoy!

Tip of the Week: Windows Search Advanced Query Syntax

I have espoused David Weinberger's views and approach to storing information for quite some time ("Everything is Miscellaneous"), and as I get more used to Windows 7 and Office 2010, I'm finding that I'm using metadata and searching more than ever to quickly find content stored on the web, my organization's network, and my own computer.

I recently came across an excellent article from Microsoft about Advanced Query Syntax.  It captured my interest, and I expect to use it frequently to make my search queries more precise in the future.

The article contains query syntax to limit results by:

• common file properties (e.g., author)
• date ranges
• file size
• data store
• assorted file types (contacts, e-mails, calendar entries, documents, media)

So if I want to find, for example:

• PowerPoint presentations
• longer than 20 slides
• stored as attachments to my last week's e-mail messages,

I could use Windows Search, right from the "Start" button, to enter:

"store:mapi isattachment:true modified:lastweek slides:>20"

and get those precise results (see below). 

This precision will save me so much time that this article, for me, achieves "print-worthy" status, and will be tacked to my office wall for frequent reference.  I hope you find it similarly useful.

 

Tappers vs Listeners

 
[photo credit:  "Morse Telegraph Key" posted to Flickr by public.resource.org]

 
Last week, I came across an article that resonated with me because of things I see all the time as a consultant. 

Many times, as consultants, we fall into traps that diminish our effectiveness.  One of these that I saw very nicely represented in a blog article referencing a book called "Made to Stick:  Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die."

The concept was simple:  researchers performed an experiment with two groups of participants, tappers and listeners.  Each tapper was required to listen to a song, then to tap out its rhythm to a listener who had to guess the song without hearing the melody.  Even with the simplest of songs (e.g., "Happy Birthday to You"), the tappers expected the listeners to guess the song they were tapping 50% of the time.  The listeners only guessed the songs right 2.5% of the time.

As a team of technology consultants working with clients, we have a melody in our heads. We're working with technologies that we're comfortable and experienced with, we are deeply vested in the Microsoft community (and jargon), and we have a consistent approach to how we approach engagements:  implementations, migrations, training, architecture, etc. 

Our clients don't have our melody in their heads.  They are just getting to know us, just learning to trust us, just orienting us to their business and how their teams work.  On top of that, I find myself surprised by how often our clients' team members are getting to know one another in their first meeting with us.

The post was a great reminder to me about the importance of:

1. Spelling things out.  Our clients don't know the shorthand we use when we talk to one another, so we need to take extra care to ensure that our ideas come through clearly in our written and verbal interactions with clients.
2. Listening more and investing extra effort in building trust with the client.  We may understand their business problems by the time we're engaged on a project together, but do we know what motivates all our stakeholders?  Whether it's financial incentives, prestige, or other things that provide individual motivation, we have to invest the time and listen to what our clients care about.

So, a note to myself for the next kickoff meeting, presentation, or design session:   tap less and listen more.

We Have Clients.

No, this post is not to celebrate recent sales wins.  It is an echo of a blog post I read by Mike Myatt, where he delineates between customers (who buy goods and services from us) and clients (with whose care we are charged) in clear and emphatic fashion.

After attending a terrific Executive Education course, "Leading Professional Services Firms," in late 2008, I was struck at the time by how consistently the professors and attendees used the words "firm" and "clients," rarely used the word "company," and never used the word "customers."  As I did a little research on this point, I came to realize that it's less of a semantic exercise and more of a mind-set among service providers.

I have since pushed myself and my colleagues to not only choose these words carefully when describing our business, but also think about our behaviors as being client-service oriented, with a long-term focus on looking out for the people and the businesses who value our expertise and trust us to help them. 

We've commissioned several client testimonial videos which I hope you'll see soon on our website, and the clients' feedback warmed my heart, not just because the solutions we delivered to them were high-quality, but because they feel as though they've been well-served. 

[ed. note:  I've been remiss in not blogging more lately, and could give you a litany of excuses that you would likely have about as much interest in hearing as I do in enumerating.  The good news is that I haven't stopped thinking and reading about a lot of the themes you've come to expect if you read this blog, and there is a vast trove of pent-up content in my queue.  I'm working on making time to more consistently get it out there.  Thanks for reading, and for your forbearance.]

A Refresher on Ritual -- Managing Your Day in 18 Minutes

[Hill & Knowlton Clock, originally uploaded by MarkHillary]

In the "Attention Economy," as it's been called, how we allocate our (scarce) time across many competing (abundant) things calling for our attention may be the single most important skill to have.

I am generally fairly well-organized, but I find that at times like these, as I sprint/limp (choose your metaphor) toward a week's vacation, I occasionally get overwhelmed by all the things that need to be done, and lose focus on my priorities.

An article  I read today by Peter Bregman  in his "How We Work" blog served as a good reminder of the trick to time management and focus:  Ritual. 

Consistently and deliberately work toward specific goals, and use a process to keep focused on them. Here are the three simple steps Bregman prescribes:

1. Plan your day before you turn on your computer (my biggest challenge!).

2. Stop periodically to refocus.

3. Review your day at the end (again, after you've turned off the computer).

Not rocket science, huh?   I don't generally get that excited about books or consultants that try to tell me how to live my life, but as I get older and more self-aware, I find that there are indeed some best practices that I need to be reminded of occasionally. This is clearly one of them.

Being motivated but prone to procrastination, I plan on re-doubling my commitment to these steps, just as soon as I get back from my vacation. :)

Metrics That TRULY Matter: Combat Analytics

The recent passing of the iconic Vietnam-era Defense Secretary Robert McNamara brought to mind an article  I read by Tom Davenport in a Harvard Business Publishing blog about analytics in the combat theater in Afghanistan.

Mr. Davenport summarizes an approach called "Combat Analytics" that is being used to assess progress toward the American military's objectives in Afghanistan, and how difficult it is to identify metrics about counterinsurgency activities that are directly reflective of the situation on the ground.  It's a fascinating summary of the issue, and it focused on the frequent disconnect between broad measures (e.g., at a national level) and the very specific things commanders need to measure "how the civilian population is faring at a local level."

I'll leave aside the obvious enterprise vs department vs individual metrics corporate analogy for now, and state for the record my surprise at the degree to which the architect of these combat analytics uses "economic and political/social indicators to see if [the commanders'] strategy is working in their regions."  A fascinating read, and a great reminder of how valuable meaningful metrics, presented well, can be life-changing (or life-saving).

Lagniappe:  An interesting supplemental report on the topic, "The Uncertain Metrics of Afghanistan (and Iraq)" can be found here.

On-Line Social Stratification: Different = Bad

I recently had the opportunity to hear danah boyd of Microsoft Research speak at a Mass Technology Leadership Council (MTLC) event about social media.  Although the principal themes of the event were supposed to be about ROI on Social Media, Ms boyd's remarks were the highlight of the day for me.  Her topic of study (through her work for Microsoft, Harvard University, Cal-Berkeley, and others) is the intersection of technology and society, mostly in the form of how young people use social media, and her remarks provided useful insights into how tomorrow's information worker regards social media technologies.

Several weeks after the MTLC event, I happened upon a transcript (actually, her crib notes) of Ms boyd's remarks from a later presentation to the Personal Democracy Forum in New York.  It captured and built on some of the themes we heard at the earlier event, and provided some timely updates to social media use cases (#iranelection, Michael Jackson's death).

The single most resonant point in Ms boyd's remarks was one that not only applies to Internet-based social media sites, but also much more broadly:

"One thing to keep in mind about social media: the internet mirrors and magnifies pre-existing dynamics."

She uses this point to underscore social stratification in on-line communities along lines of age (teens don't Tweet), socio-economic status (Facebook vs MySpace), race, sexual preference, etc., but it also applies to smaller communities.  It's critical for us, as those who help information workers effectively implement and use these technologies, to keep this in mind as we look to social media and on-line communities as ways to bring people together within an enterprise.  We heard plenty of "Mom and apple pie" sentiments of this type at the recent Enterprise 2.0 Conference, e.g., "It's about culture, not tools," "It's 90% sociology, 10% technology," etc., but seeing this point borne out in the larger Internet environment and supported by broad, rigorous research really brings it home.

A good rule of thumb in practice seems to be:  if your people won't pick up the phone to call one another to ask for or offer help, a well-engineered implementation of SharePoint, Lotus Notes, SocialText, Jive, etc. although useful for many things, is not the solution to your collaboration problem.

Putting More "ME" in "TEAM"

As someone who works every day with teams, some as long-lasting as a consulting practice team and some formed and dissolved as quickly as it takes to create a presentation, I always find it interesting to read research about what makes teams succeed or fail.

In the May, 2009 issue of Harvard Business Review, senior editor Diane Coutu interviewed (note: subscription or purchase required) Richard Hackman, a Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology at Harvard University and expert on teams.

I found Professor Hackman's insights on team dynamics fascinating, and expect to use them as both a participant and a leader of teams.  Some of the key insights I took away follow:

1.  Dissent is important.  An important role on the team is that of the deviant, defined by Hackman as someone who challenges the status quo, the person willing to incur personal cost to say things that nobody else will, the person who won't hesitate to say, "Why are we doing this at all?"  As the summary in another HBR article (from 2007) states, "The absence of conflict is not harmony, it's apathy."  Having social norms that encourage healthy dissent and lively debate, and an environment where people can feel comfortable hashing out ideas is critical.  Note:  Dissent is different from discord, which is divisive and corrosive.

2.  Don't underestimate the cost of newness.  There is significant research (by NTSB, NASA, and others) about the effects of inexperience in working together on team performance.  Plan for the "forming" stage in the group development lifecycle of forming --> norming --> storming -->  performing.  Leigh Thompson's work, such as her book "Making the Team," is worth reading for more detailed guidance. 

3.  Teams aren't always the answer.  In truly creative endeavors, too many participants may be more of a hindrance than a help.  Authoring this blog post would have taken longer to coordinate, and the key themes and message would have been diluted, if I had to develop them with a team.  Hackman challenges team leaders to find "the balance between individual autonomy [frequently the reason why people get into the consulting business] and collective action." This is one of the core challenges for any team leader in a creative field such as design, software development, etc.

I completed the article with:

• a renewed commitment to better define my teams' mission, boundaries, and members' roles;
• thoughtfulness about which tasks are best-suited to a team, and which to individual contributors;
• a desire to get the assistance of my partners in committing resources to organizational support, structures, and coaching to help all of our teams perform better; and
• a new book to add to my reading list:  Hackman's "Leading Teams."

Blog Rally to Help the Boston Globe

[originally based on Paul Levy's idea -- I'm happy to contribute, and to be counted among the bloggers offered the chance to amplify this message]

We have all read recently about the threat of possible closure faced by the Boston Globe.  A number of Boston-based bloggers who care about the continued existence of the Globe have banded together in conducting a blog rally.  We are simultaneously posting this paragraph to solicit your ideas of steps the Globe could take to improve its financial picture.

We view the Globe as an important community resource, and we think that lots of people in the region agree and might have creative ideas that might help in this situation. So, here's your chance.  Please don't write with nasty comments and sarcasm:  Use this forum for thoughtful and interesting steps you would recommend to the management that would improve readership, enhance the Globe's community presence, and make money.  Who knows, someone here might come up with an idea that will work, or at least help.  Thank you.

As an inveterate reader, media junkie, blogger, thinker, and citizen, my visualizing Boston without the Globe is sad and scary.  I think of the role that the media plays as a check and balance to those in power (the famous line attributed to Jimmy Breslin about the media's role being "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" comes to mind), from government to church to corporations to higher education, and know that Boston needs a world-class daily newspaper.  So, how would YOU propose to save, improve, re-direct or otherwise enhance the Globe?

Demotivators

I have a desk calendar from Despair.com, a purveyor of darkly funny "demotivator" posters. They have hit a nerve with many people, in much the same way that the TV show "The Office" succeeds in portraying a dark, parody of post-modern, white-collar America (or the UK, depending on your choice of show).

Jim Collins famously gave perhaps the simplest and most salient advice a manager could ever ask for:  "Hire motivated people, and don't de-motivate them."  An article I recently read in the on-line edition of the Harvard Business Review, "Don't Use Smart Technologies to Do Dumb Things," cast that advice in the light of technology, providing some excellent examples of instances where technology, badly deployed, de-motivates team members, erects barriers and creates divisions in an organization.

A terrific piece of advice from the article's author, Susan Cramm, paraphrased, is to "implement technologies that simultaneously serve individual and business interests." 

Easy to say, hard to do. From asking extra questions in the discovery process to doing more extensive stakeholder analysis ("who has a stake in this business problem?  how does the solution change their daily routine for the better?") to creating testing scripts for varied user roles, it's a difficult but necessary step to creating lasting value.  I'll work hard to take this to heart in both the creation of solutions with clients, and in the formulation of processes within our firm itself.