Showing posts with label solutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label solutions. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Monday, January 6, 2014
Surprising “woo-woo” solutions for becoming a better leader
For years, I laughed in the face of “woo-woo” stuff that the
gurus of self-improvement have touted. Like many leaders, I tend to be a
practical soul, driven by the external world and drawn to taking
action. “Work hard and you get ahead,” the mantra of my upbringing, my
Midwest location, and my soul has served me well.
More than a decade ago, I made the choice to work with leaders who were high potential — designated for bigger and better things in their organizations. These leaders are driven in a way that puzzles and sometimes concerns even me, though I share many of their traits. They are smart, fast-paced and fully aware of the limited number of spots available for only the very best leaders at upper levels in their complex and large organizations. They work hard. Often, I see “normal life” outside of work forsaken for the long hours, stress and the service they feel called to give to their company.
I’ve not seen statistics, but I have a sense that the divorce and break up rate is higher in this group of leaders than it may be elsewhere. Declines in health may be seen sooner or later. They struggle between what their company demands and their desire to spend time with families and friends. I’ve heard some of them say, “This company will take everything I give to it.” It’s true that many give everything they have.
And sometimes, there is nothing left for them. Things fall apart. Stress and long hours take a toll on broken families, illness and mental or emotional breakdowns.
So now I embrace the gurus who speak of having a life that is fully self-sustaining and supporting. I’ve seen the best and the worst of leadership through the eyes of those who live it, and I know that the choices a leader makes about how they spend their time impacts everything. When a choice (conscious or unconscious) is made to forgo self-care for the good of the organization they work at, it will affect their leadership. When they don’t notice that long hours and stress are taking their toll on their bodies and their minds, the way they lead cannot possibly be “great” in a sustainable way.
And then they may fail; not just as a leader, but in all areas of their life. Things can come crashing down.
I’ve come to realize that eventually, “giving your all” for work in a way that obliterates the other important areas of life (family, friends, healthy habits, spirituality, etc.) will likely catch up to you. Maybe not today, tomorrow, or next week, but eventually. If you want to make an impact on the world, you need to pay attention to what you are doing to yourself.
So do a check-in with yourself on a regular basis:
Health: Am I getting enough sleep? Am I eating well feeling healthy? Do I get enough exercise?
Friends and family: Do I make and schedule time to be with those I love and those who love me? Is my life outside of work gratifying and energizing? Is it enough to keep me grounded?
Downtime and vacation: Do I have enough downtime to recharge my batteries and be the best leader I can be? Do I take all of the vacation my company provides? Can I unplug and enjoy the moments I’m away from work? Are there hobbies/pursuits outside of work that I pursue that are interesting and fulfilling to me?
Intellectual: Am I doing what I need to do to keep myself intellectually stimulated? What do I need to stretch my brain and “sharpen the saw” beyond what I’m doing now?
Spiritual pursuit: Is my spiritual life where I want it to be? What’s missing in this arena, and how might I pursue my spiritual journey in new and challenging ways?
This isn’t just “woo-woo” stuff. If you want to be the best leader you can be, you need to also take care of your life outside of work. When you do, you’ll find that you will be a more effective leader; things get done well in less time, with less stress and with more care.
Mary Jo Asmus is an executive coach and a recovering corporate executive who has spent the past 10 years as president of Aspire Collaborative Services, an executive-coaching firm that manages large-scale corporate-coaching initiatives and coaches leaders to prepare them for bigger and better things.
More than a decade ago, I made the choice to work with leaders who were high potential — designated for bigger and better things in their organizations. These leaders are driven in a way that puzzles and sometimes concerns even me, though I share many of their traits. They are smart, fast-paced and fully aware of the limited number of spots available for only the very best leaders at upper levels in their complex and large organizations. They work hard. Often, I see “normal life” outside of work forsaken for the long hours, stress and the service they feel called to give to their company.
I’ve not seen statistics, but I have a sense that the divorce and break up rate is higher in this group of leaders than it may be elsewhere. Declines in health may be seen sooner or later. They struggle between what their company demands and their desire to spend time with families and friends. I’ve heard some of them say, “This company will take everything I give to it.” It’s true that many give everything they have.
And sometimes, there is nothing left for them. Things fall apart. Stress and long hours take a toll on broken families, illness and mental or emotional breakdowns.
So now I embrace the gurus who speak of having a life that is fully self-sustaining and supporting. I’ve seen the best and the worst of leadership through the eyes of those who live it, and I know that the choices a leader makes about how they spend their time impacts everything. When a choice (conscious or unconscious) is made to forgo self-care for the good of the organization they work at, it will affect their leadership. When they don’t notice that long hours and stress are taking their toll on their bodies and their minds, the way they lead cannot possibly be “great” in a sustainable way.
And then they may fail; not just as a leader, but in all areas of their life. Things can come crashing down.
I’ve come to realize that eventually, “giving your all” for work in a way that obliterates the other important areas of life (family, friends, healthy habits, spirituality, etc.) will likely catch up to you. Maybe not today, tomorrow, or next week, but eventually. If you want to make an impact on the world, you need to pay attention to what you are doing to yourself.
So do a check-in with yourself on a regular basis:
Health: Am I getting enough sleep? Am I eating well feeling healthy? Do I get enough exercise?
Friends and family: Do I make and schedule time to be with those I love and those who love me? Is my life outside of work gratifying and energizing? Is it enough to keep me grounded?
Downtime and vacation: Do I have enough downtime to recharge my batteries and be the best leader I can be? Do I take all of the vacation my company provides? Can I unplug and enjoy the moments I’m away from work? Are there hobbies/pursuits outside of work that I pursue that are interesting and fulfilling to me?
Intellectual: Am I doing what I need to do to keep myself intellectually stimulated? What do I need to stretch my brain and “sharpen the saw” beyond what I’m doing now?
Spiritual pursuit: Is my spiritual life where I want it to be? What’s missing in this arena, and how might I pursue my spiritual journey in new and challenging ways?
This isn’t just “woo-woo” stuff. If you want to be the best leader you can be, you need to also take care of your life outside of work. When you do, you’ll find that you will be a more effective leader; things get done well in less time, with less stress and with more care.
Mary Jo Asmus is an executive coach and a recovering corporate executive who has spent the past 10 years as president of Aspire Collaborative Services, an executive-coaching firm that manages large-scale corporate-coaching initiatives and coaches leaders to prepare them for bigger and better things.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Innovation Isn't an Idea Problem
by David Burkus
When most organizations try to increase their innovation efforts, they always seem to start from the same assumption: "we need more ideas." They'll start talking about the need to "think outside the box" or "blue sky" thinking in order to find a few ideas that can turn into viable new products or systems. However, in most organizations, innovation isn't hampered by a lack of ideas, but rather a lack of noticing the good ideas already there.
It's not an idea problem; it's a recognition problem.
When most organizations try to increase their innovation efforts, they always seem to start from the same assumption: "we need more ideas." They'll start talking about the need to "think outside the box" or "blue sky" thinking in order to find a few ideas that can turn into viable new products or systems. However, in most organizations, innovation isn't hampered by a lack of ideas, but rather a lack of noticing the good ideas already there.
It's not an idea problem; it's a recognition problem.
Consider some well-known examples from history. Kodak's research
laboratory invented the first digital camera in 1975 but didn't pursue
it. Instead they paid virtually no attention as Sony developed a
different prototype and stole the future of digital photography out from
underneath them. Xerox developed the first personal computer, but
didn't invest enough in the technology and allowed Steve Jobs and Apple
to snatch the opportunity away. The US Navy rejected 13 submissions
from William S. Sims regarding an innovative new firing method. It
wasn't until Sims appealed to President Theodore Roosevelt that his
improved method was recognized.
These aren't just fun examples of smart people and established companies being hilariously wrong, they actually reflect a bias we all share — a bias against new and creative ideas when we're faced with even small amounts of uncertainty. That's the implications of a study published last year by a team of researchers led by Wharton's Jennifer Mueller. The research team divided participants into two groups and created a small level of uncertainty in one group by telling them they would be eligible for additional payment based on a random lottery of participants. The researchers didn't give many specifics around how their chance for additional payment would work, just that they would find out once the study was completed. It was hardly an earth-shattering proposition, but it was still enough to yield some feelings of uncertainty within the group.
The participants were then given two tests. The first test was designed to gauge their implicit perceptions about creativity and practicality. Participants were shown two sets of word pairs and asked to select their preferred phrase. The pairings were created by combining words that reflected creativity (novel, inventive, original) or words that reflected practicality (functional, useful, constructive) with words that conveyed a positive (good, sunshine, peace) or a negative (ugly, bad, rotten). So in each round, participants would chose their preference from phrases like "good original" or "bad practical." The second test was designed to explicitly survey their feelings toward new, creative ideas. In this test, participants were simply asked to rate their feelings toward creativity and practicality on a scale from 1 to 7.
The researchers found that those exposed to a small amount of uncertainty said they valued creativity, but actually favored the practical word pairings over the creative pairings. In a follow-up experiment published in the same paper, participants in the uncertainty condition were even presented a prototype for an innovative new running shoe and rated it as significantly less viable than the control group.
If such a negative bias against creativity is present in times of uncertainty, it might explain why so many notable innovations were initially rejected. The implications for today are particularly relevant, as few executives would claim that they're not working in an uncertain industry. The same uncertainty that triggers the need for companies to innovate may also be triggering executives to be rejecting the discoveries that could help them gain a competitive advantage. The ideas that could keep company alive are being killed too quickly.
One possible solution to this "idea killing" problem is to change the structure ideas have to move through. Instead of using the traditional hierarchy to find and approve ideas, the approval process could be spread across the whole organization. That's the approach Rhode Island-based Rite-Solutions has taken for almost a decade. Rite-Solutions has set up an "idea market" on their internal website where anyone can post an idea and list it as a "stock" on the market, called "Mutual Fun." Every employee is also given $10,000 in virtual currency to "invest" in ideas. In addition to the investment, employees also volunteer to work on project ideas they support. If an idea gathers enough support, the project is approved and everyone who supported it is given a share of the profits from the project. In just a few years, the program has already produced huge gains for the company, from small incremental changes to products in whole new industries. In its first year alone, the Mutual Fun accounted for 50 percent of the company's new business growth. More important than the immediate revenue, the idea market has created a culture where new ideas are recognized and developed throughout the entire company, a democratization of recognition.
In addition, it's a system based on the assumption that everyone in the company already has great ideas and the market just makes them better at finding those ideas. It's not an idea-solution; it's a recognition-solution.
These aren't just fun examples of smart people and established companies being hilariously wrong, they actually reflect a bias we all share — a bias against new and creative ideas when we're faced with even small amounts of uncertainty. That's the implications of a study published last year by a team of researchers led by Wharton's Jennifer Mueller. The research team divided participants into two groups and created a small level of uncertainty in one group by telling them they would be eligible for additional payment based on a random lottery of participants. The researchers didn't give many specifics around how their chance for additional payment would work, just that they would find out once the study was completed. It was hardly an earth-shattering proposition, but it was still enough to yield some feelings of uncertainty within the group.
The participants were then given two tests. The first test was designed to gauge their implicit perceptions about creativity and practicality. Participants were shown two sets of word pairs and asked to select their preferred phrase. The pairings were created by combining words that reflected creativity (novel, inventive, original) or words that reflected practicality (functional, useful, constructive) with words that conveyed a positive (good, sunshine, peace) or a negative (ugly, bad, rotten). So in each round, participants would chose their preference from phrases like "good original" or "bad practical." The second test was designed to explicitly survey their feelings toward new, creative ideas. In this test, participants were simply asked to rate their feelings toward creativity and practicality on a scale from 1 to 7.
The researchers found that those exposed to a small amount of uncertainty said they valued creativity, but actually favored the practical word pairings over the creative pairings. In a follow-up experiment published in the same paper, participants in the uncertainty condition were even presented a prototype for an innovative new running shoe and rated it as significantly less viable than the control group.
If such a negative bias against creativity is present in times of uncertainty, it might explain why so many notable innovations were initially rejected. The implications for today are particularly relevant, as few executives would claim that they're not working in an uncertain industry. The same uncertainty that triggers the need for companies to innovate may also be triggering executives to be rejecting the discoveries that could help them gain a competitive advantage. The ideas that could keep company alive are being killed too quickly.
One possible solution to this "idea killing" problem is to change the structure ideas have to move through. Instead of using the traditional hierarchy to find and approve ideas, the approval process could be spread across the whole organization. That's the approach Rhode Island-based Rite-Solutions has taken for almost a decade. Rite-Solutions has set up an "idea market" on their internal website where anyone can post an idea and list it as a "stock" on the market, called "Mutual Fun." Every employee is also given $10,000 in virtual currency to "invest" in ideas. In addition to the investment, employees also volunteer to work on project ideas they support. If an idea gathers enough support, the project is approved and everyone who supported it is given a share of the profits from the project. In just a few years, the program has already produced huge gains for the company, from small incremental changes to products in whole new industries. In its first year alone, the Mutual Fun accounted for 50 percent of the company's new business growth. More important than the immediate revenue, the idea market has created a culture where new ideas are recognized and developed throughout the entire company, a democratization of recognition.
In addition, it's a system based on the assumption that everyone in the company already has great ideas and the market just makes them better at finding those ideas. It's not an idea-solution; it's a recognition-solution.
David Burkus
David Burkus is the author of The Myths of Creativity: The Truth About How Innovative Companies and People Generate Great Ideas. He is also founder of LDRLB and assistant professor of management at Oral Roberts University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)