“3C+1L”: The 4 basic qualities of an exceptional team member.

November 23, 2013

Can you describe an exceptional team member in five words?

Quite hard isn’t it. However, I believe it can be done.

THE QUALITIES OF AN EXCEPTIONAL TEAM MEMBER

A good team member should be:

  1. Caring
  2. Curious
  3. Courageous and
  4. a Good Listener

Let’s see why these qualities form the basis of today’s peak performing workforce.

600px-Working_Together_Teamwork_Puzzle_Concept

SKILLS FOR A WORLD OF COMPLEXITY

As mentioned before here,the complexity of today’s team structures make it hard to have universal standards.

Teams come in many sizes and have varying interests and targets. They can be self-organizing, rigidly structured, matrix, adhoc etc.

Thus, you would employ your team depending on the unique qualities required each time.

For contemporary teams though, one thing is for certain:

One size doesn’t fit all.

In saying this, I believe that there may be some underlying qualities that EVERY supervisor, team leader or manager would want their team members to have.

I call these the “the 3Cs and 1L of an exceptional team member” and they are:

1. CARING

Good projects are those that meet the requirements in time and quality and also over-deliver. Those that, as marketing gurus would put it, delight the customer and aim to do more than just satisfy the stated needs.

Practically, what this means is that, taking advantage of good listening skills, you develop what is required (what is required can be describe as the stated needs) but at the same time also prepare for the unasked question, the remark that will inevitably be made. Then build this solution into the project or have the answer ready to go.

Caring enough to endeavour to reach an exceptional outcome is a great quality to have in every team.

Caring enough to consider alternatives, contingencies and ask questions is the key to successful task and project deliveries.

This means that the team member desires to do exceptional work, works on the skills required to take his/her work onto the next level and finally aspires to become what Seth Godin so eloquently described in his great book Linchpin (a book that is highly recommended. A visual summary can be found here).

2. CURIOUS

As mentioned and elaborated on here, innovation and continuous learning are qualities that will be essential for the workforce of the future.

Innovation means that teams are curious enough to ask the right questions, clarify the essential facts, look outside the organization for best practices and bring new ideas to the table.

A guide to a simple but effective method of innovation can be found here and here.

The most important question to ask

in the 21st century is not Why but

Why not?

3. COURAGEOUS

In the past century, especially considering the era of the Ford product lines, obedience was a quality that was highly regarded. Obedience in the sense that workers needed to blindly follow orders. This makes sense when the expectation was to work in factory process lines doing repetitive tasks over and over.

Well, we changed century since then and now, the common denominator is not blind obedience anymore but thinking, creating and “contributing” (as Peter Drucker would suggest).

Process work becomes more and more automated. This is because computers and robots can perform transactional /process work much faster than you and I can, at a fraction of the cost.

So, the right question to ask now is: “What is the value that each team member brings if process work becomes more and more extinct?”

As discussed here innovative thinking, having new ideas and also having the courage to challenge the status quo are qualities that are and will be much in demand in the 21st century.

So, if you have hesitations speaking up, I am afraid that in the near future there will be very few positions left, if any, that would not include the courage to articulate your ideas as a key skill.

Of course, speaking up means that you provide a meaningful, respectful, positive contribution to the organization towards securing the organization’s success.

4. GOOD LISTENING SKILLS (active listening)

Team work’s inherent requirement is to be able to effectively collaborate. Active listening is one of the cornerstones of collaboration.

From simply specifying the deliverables to “selling” the final project outcome, today’s organizational culture requires this essential skill.

Especially, considering the risk and repercussions of conflict in a team environment, which is notoriously emergent when deadlines are tight and/or stakes are high, good listening skills is something every team should have in abundance.

For an analysis on Conflict Management and reference of active listening as a very effective tool towards conflict resolution see the Harvard Law School’s special report here.

For me, these are the four underlying qualities which are the sine que non for every team member.

What do you think?

Image courtesy of Flickr user lumaxart of http://www.lumaxart.com

 

Filed under Leadership, Team Development Series Tagged with , , , ,

12 Essential Tools to maximise Productivity, Profitability, Employee Retention and Customer Satisfaction!

November 16, 2013

In previous posts (here and here) I explained how by using the concept of (Net Promoter Score) NPS you can establish  whether your notion of running a great Team / Organisation can be measured by this simple feedback loop.

But, how can you tell which areas you need to improve on when your internal NPS score is low?

Let’s look at a simple and practical method to do just that.

East Stroudsburg University

THE METHOD

The method I am suggesting is a simple 12 questions survey as detailed in Marcus Buckingham‘s books, “First Break All the Rules” and “Now, Discover Your Strengths”.

The survey was developed by the Gallup Organisation after their 25 year study of more than 1 million employees and 2,500 business units. What they found was a strong correlation between positive answers to this 12 question survey questionnaire and the below key business outcomes:

  • Productivity
  • Profitability
  • Employee retention and
  • Customer Satisfaction

THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION’S 12 QUESTION SURVEY:

    1. Do I know what is expected of me at work?
    2. Do I have the materials to do my work properly?
    3. At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?
    4. In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for good work?
    5. Does my supervisor or someone at work seem to care for me as a person?
    6. Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
    7. At work, do my opinions seem to count?
    8. Does the mission of my company/department make me feel like my work is important?
    9. Are my coworkers committed to doing quality work?
    10. Do I have a best friend at work?
    11. In the last six months have I talked with someone about my progress?
    12. This last year, have I had opportunities at work to learn and grow?

                                                                                                   Marcus Buckingham, First Break all the Rules

QUESTION CLUSTERS

As you have probably distinguished the above 12 questions form 4 distinct clusters:

  1. Questions 1 and 2 -> “What do I get as an employee?”
  2. Questions 3 to 6 -> “What do I give as an employee?”
  3. Questions 7 to 10 -> “Am I in the right place to make the greatest possible contribution?”
  4. Questions 11 and 12 –> “How can we all give as a group?”

NECESSARY CAVEAT:

As with any such survey, running a productive culture survey means that you have established trust within your Team so that the survey outcomes are useful.

The survey can be run anonymously. This is recommended especially, the first time you run it as this can be used as a benchmark.

Thereafter and provided that you have worked on overcoming any trust issues, it is recommended to seek eponymous feedback so, you can discuss specifics with the respondents afterwards.

 

[Image courtesy of East Stroudsburg University / www.flickr.com]


Filed under Continuous Improvement, Leadership, Team Development Series Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

What can a jungle story teach us about leadership?

November 9, 2013

Leadership is one of these words which, when you ask someone to define it, you usually get a vague answer or a platitude.

This is because people feel what Leadership is when it is present but otherwise, they find it very hard to describe it in words.

In such complex subjects I have found that storytelling has much to offer.

Drriss & Marrionn

A compelling story about leadership comes from Stephen covey’s classic book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

If you have not read the book, it certainly has much to offer. If you have read the book, I am sure you will enjoy remembering this excerpt as much as I do.

STEPHEN COVEY ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

The story goes like this:

“You can quickly grasp the important difference between the two if you envision a group of producers cutting their way trough the jungle with machetes. They’re the producers, the problem solvers. They’re cutting through the undergrowth, clearing it out.

The managers are behind them, sharpening their machetes, writing policy and procedure manuals, holding muscle development programs, bringing in improved technologies and setting up working schedules and compensation programs for machete wielders.

The leader is the one who climbs the tallest tree, surveys the entire situation, and yells, “Wrong jungle!”

But how do the busy, efficient producers and managers often respond? “Shut up! We’re making progress.”


I find this an excellent example of what the difference of management and leadership is all about. The story is both thought-provoking and self-explanatory.

So, next time anyone asks you “how would you describe leadership” maybe you can tell them a jungle story about the leader that both knew where the team was supposed to be and had the courage to cry “Wrong jungle!”

What is your leadership story?

[Image courtesy of Drriss & Marrionn / www.flickr.com]

Filed under Leadership, Team Development Series Tagged with ,

Logical Fallacies: Avoiding Common Negotiation Pitfalls

November 3, 2013 1 Comment

This is my full article contribution as published in TheSource e-news earlier this week.

Fail to prepare and prepare to fail! Negotiation is often 90% preparation and 10% execution and so we have enlisted senior procurement professional George Vrakas to give us his top tips on avoiding common negotiation pitfalls.

When you use logic as your approach to conduct a negotiation, the human element of the process still needs to be considered, and thus you need to be able to identify and avoid common errors in reasoning (the so-called logical fallacies) to ensure a successful outcome.
Here are George’s top 6 tips on dealing with the most common logical fallacies:

medium_8437944449

1) AD HOMINEM (go against the person not the argument)

Definition: This is encountered when someone tries to counter a claim or a position by attacking the person rather than addressing the argument.

Example: “The current system is ineffective; the vendor who implemented it was only bothered about saving costs.”

Attacking the vendor because of their alleged motives does not address the issue. What is meant by “ineffective”? What were the specifications we gave the vendor? What can be done about it? Is the system used properly? What you need to remember is that character flaws are not evidence of the validity of an argument.

2) FALSE DICHOTOMY (either/or)

Definition: This is encountered when someone reduces the possibilities in a negotiation to a simplistic dilemma i.e. it is “either black or white.”

Example: “Japanese car makers must implement green production practices, or Japan‘s carbon footprint will hit crisis proportions by 2020.”

This is a logical fallacy because it assumes there are only two options: either Japan implements green production practices or Japan will have a disastrous carbon footprint. This logic fails to consider that there may be other reasons that contribute to the carbon footprint. It also limits our thinking e.g. focusing solely on green production we may miss out on another solution such as the increase of use of public transport.

3) SPECIAL PLEADING or ADHOC REASONING (the rules don’t apply as I am special)

Definition: This is encountered when someone suggests that he/she has special privileges that do not or could not apply to others.

Example: In 1996, Steve Jobs exercised a special pleading when he, misquoting Picasso, stated that “good artists copy, great artists steal,” and continued, “we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

Subsequently, Apple went on with a lawsuit against HTC for allegedly infringing on 20 of Apple’s patents. Thus, this is a logical fallacy because what Steve Jobs implied is that Apple can “copy” or “steal” ideas as good artists do, but HTC cannot.

4) APPEAL TO AUTHORITY (It is correct because he/she said so)

Definition: This is encountered when someone appeals to an “authoritative” person or agency to support one’s claims. i.e. “Manager X believes Y, Manager X speaks from a position of authority, therefore Y is true.”

Example: The Swissair airline was once so financially solvent it was called the “Flying Bank.” However, they began to believe they were invulnerable and as a result of failing to question poor decisions and gross mismanagement, and the airline eventually went bankrupt.

This case strongly implies a case of “groupthink.” Instead of looking at the data and the shifting conditions, Swissair executives seem to have been persuaded that top management knows best, and so, did not challenge this notion until it was too late.

5) NON SEQUITUR (It doesn’t follow)

Definition: This is encountered when someone reaches a conclusion which does not necessarily follow the premise of the argument.

Example: “This is new, therefore it is better.”

The fact that something is new and shiny does not mean that it will be better. New processes are generally an enhanced version of older ones, but before you make a decision, you will still need to investigate on whether: a) there is value in changing; b) the process is suitable for your specific needs; c) there are no inherent flaws etc.

6) APPEAL TO TRADITION (If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it)

Definition: This is encountered when someone claims that because something has been done in a particular way for a long time, this is the correct way of doing it.

Example: “We do not need a new ERP system. We have been doing alright using excel spreadsheets for years!”

Quite simply, there is definite value in looking to change the ways we go about things – new technologies (e.g. ERP systems), new processes (Six Sigma, Lean, TQM), the list goes on. Appealing to tradition is particularly prevalent during change management processes when people who are resistant to change raise this argument again and again.

The above six logical fallacies are just a small sample of the wide variety of bad reasoning out there. However, these are a good start on the journey to establishing integrity in logical arguments during a negotiation.

Now, put them to the test in your next negotiation!

[Image courtesy of Les Haines / http://www.flickr.com/]

Filed under Effective Negotiation Tools series, General, Procurement Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →