Government Executive - Authors - Jackson Nickerson

How to Think Strategically as a Leader

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:00:00 -0400

What is strategic thinking and how can I get better at it?—Anonymous

In our rapidly changing world, strategic thinking is a tent pole of leadership. Good strategic thinking can help resolve challenges. But bad strategic thinking almost always makes the situation worse. Outside of dictionary definitions, strategic thinking has resisted an agreed upon definition in the context of organizational leadership, and no universally accepted path for getting better at it has been identified. So, your two questions indeed are challenging.

The BusinessDictionary.com definition of strategic thinking is “the ability to come up with effective plans in line with an organization’s objectives within a particular economic situation.” Other definitions range from metaphors (“finding the dots and connecting the dots”) to mathematics (such as the theory of games) to the abstract (“mental process, at once abstract and rational, which must be capable of synthesizing both psychological and material data”).

But strategic thinking, especially with respect to organizational leadership, can be defined in a more actionable way. It involves four fundamental processes:

Recognizing. When is a situation strategic? While many indicators exist, three are particularly important: 1) much is at stake, 2) the cost to reverse decisions is high, 3) outcomes are not certain. There is no doubt that the Ebola pandemic is strategic: many lives are at stake, the lack of early intervention cannot be reversed, and how many globally will be affected is uncertain. But when did the issue become a strategic issue? When only a few people in West Africa were sick? When the rates of infection to an epidemic? When the epidemic becomes a pandemic? Given prior knowledge of the disease and experience with the disease, the issue became a strategic one for the United States and the world long before the current Ebola outbreak was identified in March 2014.

Formulating. Diagnosing the challenge, problem or opportunity is critical. Who are the stakeholders? What information and knowledge do they have? What is in their best interest? What is the real challenge? You want to formulate the challenge from all relevant perspectives, but also to take a step back and reformulate to come up with an overarching diagnosis. How and why are these formulations connected? What is the big picture? Is there an even bigger long-run picture? For instance, beyond the obvious and immediate root causes of the biological and medical aspects of Ebola, why might it be difficult for West African countries to contain the virus? Why might family and village members not only refuse to report sick individuals but also hide the deaths of family members from the authorities, both of which could accelerate the pandemic? What are the logistical and distribution challenges of medical aid and support reaching affected communities? How might citizens, communities, political and regulatory institutions, and economic interests around the globe respond in different ways to a perceived pandemic as it grows in geographic scope and magnitude? Responses to these and other questions can provide a more comprehensive formulation of the challenge.

Solving. A comprehensively formulated challenge shines a bright light on where to look for solutions. Einstein once wrote: “The formulation of the problem is often more essential than its solution.” Nonetheless, comprehensive and feasible solutions are not always easily found. Approaches have to be analyzed, compared and contrasted. Treatment, quarantines, appropriate burials, education of citizens and health care workers, travel screenings and perhaps travel bans are surely all to be considered. But solution elements that address other aspects of the root causes about reporting the sick, hiding death, and other factors that contribute to accelerating the pandemic also need to be considered if the problem is to be tackled in a comprehensive way.

Deciding. A strategic decision is not to be taken lightly. Can actions be taken to reduce uncertainty, lower the stakes, or reduce the costs of potential reversal? Is the timing right? Sometimes a decision can’t be delayed or reducing the risk comes at too high a cost. What is the downside risk? How can the downside be mitigated while still capturing the upside? In many instances, though, responding to pressure to decide quickly can lead to far worse outcomes than delaying the decision until after the options and risk management are worked through.Some decisions, like screening and isolating flight arrivals from West Africa, may be seen as actions too costly for societies to take until the epidemic reaches their shores. In fact, many decisions involve trade-offs between arresting the epidemic and causing panic.These trade-offs can change over time. Revisiting decisions in an ongoing way is an important aspect of strategic thinking (you can track information about the Ebola epidemic here).

While the Ebola epidemic is an obvious application of strategic thinking, the same four fundamental processes can be used for any strategic issue ranging from investing in a new information technology system to ending homelessness for veterans.

Strategic thinking is difficult, but two key ideas may help.

First, instead of trying to improve all aspects of your strategic thinking at once, try improving each of the four processes one at a time. Stop and think about recognizing strategic situations. Focus on formulating the challenge in a comprehensive way from all relevant perspectives before trying to come up with solutions. (Warning: You will likely find it difficult to keep from jumping to a solution and then developing a formulation to support your solution.) Come up with different approaches before analyzing, comparing, contrasting and deciding.

Second, act and reflect. Reflecting on the decisions you implement is central to learning. Conduct after-action assessments. Ask others to review what you did well and what you could have done better. Adopt a growth mind-set and seek out new ways of thinking, especially from good strategic thinkers.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

Will the New Manager Be a Bully Too?

Jackson Nickerson — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:00:00 -0400

I am a fairly new second-level supervisor at a small office (20-30 people). The supervisor of the largest branch I oversee just left. The sigh of relief was palpable. She hid it well from me, but I'm now discovering (and employees are finally telling me) about bullying tactics, moodiness and generally poor leadership. How do I stay engaged and ensure that her replacement treats employees well while not micromanaging or breathing down her neck?--Anonymous

Knowing whether a new hire is going to fit your requirements for the position and the organization’s culture is not easy. The situation surely becomes more difficult when the prior leader had more weaknesses than were visible. It is all too easy to become gun-shy and fearful that the new leader will fail, which may lead to micromanaging that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. What can you do?

Allow me share my SECRET for increasing the likelihood of success for new supervisors:

Selection. First and foremost, hire a supervisor that fits the leadership culture you are trying to support or develop. Figure out, write down and make concrete the culture you desire for your organization. Post the cultural expectations as part of the job description, if you’re allowed. If not, share them with every candidate and ask whether they are willing to commit to supporting those expectations. If so, then their integrity will be on the line. Of course, so will yours because they will hold you accountable for the same expectations.

Expectations. Discussing leadership culture during the hiring process is a good first step at setting expectations. Discuss expectations again when the person begins work. In addition to ongoing conversations about your culture and how the new hire can contribute to it, demonstrate your own commitment to the expectations. You might consider having a new supervisor shadow you for a few days to see how you respond to challenges. Be creative and find other ways to demonstrate your thinking and commitment to the leadership culture.

Coaching. Setting expectations may be easy compared to maintaining them during an employee's tenure. Things happen. Challenges emerge. Cultural violations abound. Cynicism breeds easily. One way to combat these obstacles is through coaching. This is less about telling people what to do and more about asking what they've done well and what they could've done better. Using a growth mind-set for figuring out how to improve and support the organization’s culture is one way to invest in the maintenance of expectations.

Reflection. The idea of reflection should be central to not only coaching but also employee assessment. Ask people if they performed their job or tasks, and they naturally will respond in the affirmative, leaving no room for reflection or improvement. Ask what they did well and what they could have done better, and you are encouraging a growth mind-set. Questions should not be only about the set of tasks in a person’s job description, but also how they have acted with respect to the organization’s values and contributed to strategic initiatives. This provides a richer assessment of the individual’s accomplishments and potential while setting expectations.

Exits. Depending on which statistics are quoted, 40 percent to 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. Poor match quality is challenging not only for marriages but also for organizations. We shouldn’t think of employees in terms of good or bad. All too often poor performers merely have poor match quality with their position. In the long run, if match quality is low, your organization and the employees will be better off if you part ways. But in the short run, such parting is painful because finding a better match may be costly, difficult and time-consuming. Nonetheless, if you demonstrate to workers your commitment to a leadership culture then you'll want to help poor performers either get better or find better match quality elsewhere.

Trust. If trust flows throughout your organization, then bad news (and good news, too) is shared with you. If information about the prior supervisor didn’t make it to you until after her departure then you need to invest in growing trust—easy to say, but difficult to accomplish. Create opportunities for one-on-one conversations, so you can get to know people and solicit their advice on how to support the leadership culture.

The SECRET to avoiding micromanaging while staying engaged and ensuring good leadership is to be thoughtful about the culture you want to engender and then invest in the actions needed to achieve it.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

Navigating the Tricky Transition From Peer to Manager

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:54:50 -0400

What would you discuss in your first meeting as new manager and your first one-on-one with employees if promoted within group of co-workers?—Anonymous

One of the more difficult transitions in professional life is being promoted to manage a group in which only yesterday you were a fellow team member. The discontinuity in the team’s relationships can greatly improve the work environment, send the organization spiraling downward, if your prior peers undermine you in your new position, or land your group’s performance somewhere in between. How can you navigate the tricky shoals of shifting from peer to manager, especially in the early going?

Congratulations on your promotion. It indicates that you were successful in your prior job and that upper management perceives that you have potential to be a leader. Yet learning how to be a manager is not as easy as it may seem. Now you are formally responsible for your team and how it engages with the rest of the enterprise. Indeed, perhaps the most difficult challenge about entering management is adopting this enterprise perspective.

Before meeting with your team members, meet with your manager, mentors and other managers with whom you have pre-existing relationships to begin learning the ins and outs of the position from those who have gone before you. Ask them how they navigated the transition from peer to manager. Ask how they avoided mistakes and, if they didn’t, what they would do differently. You might also want to discover what is fun and rewarding about being a manager as well as what are likely to be your biggest challenges. The more you learn vicariously from others the more likely you will avoid early fumbles.

Next, meet with your team members one-on-one. Think about asking four questions:

1. Ask about their expectations of you. Asking is easy, listening and understanding is the hard part. Use open-ended questions. Check in every minute or so by rephrasing to ensure that you understand. Make them feel like they have all of your attention. Asking about their expectations will signal that you care and their opinions matter, which is a first step to building trust.

2. Ask about their expectations of the entire team. What has gone well from their perspective, and what can go better? How can the team’s performance improve while making the job more interesting and the team better? With these questions you are signaling that you want to resolve issues and barriers that might make jobs unpleasant while improving performance.

3. Ask them what makes for a great manager and a poor manager. You might think that you already know what your co-workers might say or that they will not answer seriously. Asking the questions signals that you want to learn from them and that you are willing to strive to be a great manager. You might be surprised by their responses.

4. Express your appreciation for meeting with you and for their responses. Explain that you are learning and will need their support. Ask if they will be willing to support you in this new position. A “yes” response is a commitment you can draw on later. A response of “sure” or “OK” might indicate that the lack of commitment, which is important to know upfront.

Don’t expect to know how to be a great manager right from the beginning. Let your superordinates and subordinates know you are eager to learn and you will think carefully about how fulfill the responsibilities entrusted you.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

Why Government Needs More Enterprise Leaders

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:00:00 -0400

At a recent conference an old friend asked me a question: “What is the key difference between leading in government and private enterprise?”

The question is difficult to answer. Government and private enterprise differ in so many dimensions: purpose, human capital, finance and funding, operations, incentives, procurement and purchasing, organizational structure, measurements of success, the role of Congress versus a board of directors.

But it all boils down to one key, yet obscure, difference: adjustment costs. What are adjustment costs, why do they matter, why are they different in government compared with private enterprise, and how do these differences affect leadership in the government?

The 1945 article “The Use of Knowledge in Society” by Austrian-born economist Friedrich Hayek offers a unique perspective on the costs and benefits of different institutions. In comparing the capitalist and communist economies, Hayek said society’s economic problem isn’t the efficient allocation of resources, but rather “one of rapid adaption to changes in the particular circumstances of time and place.”

Our world experiences all sorts of changes—what I refer to as shocks—that call for rapid adaptation of the economic system. Advancing scientific knowledge, radical as well as incremental innovations, changing weather patterns, great recessions, shifting politics and political revolutions, shifting immigration patterns, morphing terrorist threats, dwindling resources and the discovery of new ones all are part of an ongoing stream—some might even say a flood—of shocks. The problem is: How can organizations and institutions rapidly adapt to these shocks?

The cost and time spent adapting to shocks—or adjustment costs—is where government and private enterprise differ most.

Firms can adjust much faster than government. A business leader can recognize a shock, decide on a major reorganization in response and implement it in as little as a few months or as long as two to three years, depending on the size of the firm and extensiveness of the changes. In government, an equivalent decision and reorganization might take three to 10 years and cost an order of magnitude more.

Private enterprise has much lower adjustment costs than government for two main reasons:

A chief executive, with agreement from the board of directors, can quickly reallocate decision rights. The executive could centralize decision-making to address poor reliability or decentralize it to increase innovation. Such a switch can occur quickly, even in a single board meeting.

Failure to adjust puts the chief executive’s tenure and the firm’s market position at risk. Companies that adapt faster and have lower adjustment costs can displace slower firms.

Government has much higher adjustment costs and little competition. Reorganizing decision rights such as budget and decision authority can take years and tremendous effort at multiple levels of government. Often, the need has to become quite pressing before Congress will even consider reorganizing authorities, which delays adaptation. It would take years of working through the multitude of committees overseeing various authorities and then through both houses of Congress and the president. All these steps must be achieved before implementation even begins, which is itself a slow process.

Politicians face pressure at the polls, but a government that is slow to adapt is unlikely to face much competition from organizations with lower adjustment costs. Even with well-meaning politicians, outstanding leaders and the best public servants, government is structured to lag substantially behind current needs. This lag leads to crisis after crisis, while political actors find plentiful opportunities to make hay about government’s slow responsiveness, ineptitude and failure to adapt.

The Veterans Affairs Department’s health care debacle illustrates how high adjustment costs can play out. After more than a decade of war, demands for veteran health care have shocked a system that could not sufficiently adapt under current authorities. Only after management failures became a high-profile crisis did Congress take up the issue and begin the long process of adjusting the department’s structure and oversight.

High adjustment costs have profound consequences for government leadership. Government needs enterprise leaders—people who are able to recognize shocks and collaborate across the silos of government and coordinate existing authorities. Enterprise leaders don’t act to protect their turf—their authorities and decision rights. Such parochial self-interest would add to the adjustment costs and foster conditions that lead to the next crisis.

Through collaboration and coordination, agencies can do better to adapt to shocks and tackle wicked problems without resorting to costly and time-consuming reallocation of authorities and budgets. One great example is the collaboration between the Housing and Urban Development Department and VA to end veteran homelessness. Using each agency’s existing authorities, leaders found new methods to substantially reduce veteran homelessness.

Hayek’s argument has currency today when comparing government and private enterprise. When economic shocks call for rapid response, the key difference is the adjustment costs that create profound consequences for leadership. Government’s adjustment costs are comparatively high, but enterprise leaders can speed adaptation to changing circumstances.

Duce a mente
(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

How to Win Over The Idea Killers

Jackson Nickerson — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 16:00:00 -0400

Q: How can I get other people to implement my ideas? —Anonymous

Good ideas aren’t a rare commodity. They come up all the time, often in response to a problem, challenge or opportunity. If implementing your idea falls entirely within your realm of authority, then it may require some sweat equity and other resources, but otherwise execution shouldn’t be too difficult. If you come up with a new way to manage the processing of forms, for example, and you are the only one involved in that task, then implementing your idea should present few barriers.

But for most ideas, implementation requires other people. Superordinates, subordinates, customers and complementors all may be needed. Some, if not many, of these individuals may resist execution for a variety of reasons. It may not be in their best interest, or they think they have better ideas, or they don’t want to put in the extra effort. Resistance to change is particularly vexing when you don’t have authority over these resistors. So, how can you get other people to implement your ideas?

Here are four approaches:

Convincing

Perhaps the most common approach, convincing draws on psychological techniques like listing more ideas than necessary and conceding on the ones that don’t matter, using “we” and avoiding “I” in your proposals, providing an explanation with research and statistics to support your ideas, and pointing out the need for change from various perspectives. These techniques attempt to convince people while trying to avoid raising their ire.

Even if you are viewed as trustworthy, trying to convince those who believe your idea is not in their best interest or who don’t want to take on more work can meet resistance.

Socializing

Instead of just convincing others, you can socialize the idea as a means to get them to contribute their own thoughts on how to advance and improve it. The hope is that the opportunity to contribute will lead to acceptance.

But socializing can take a long time, during which resistors can enact their own strategies to delay or prevent implementation. Often, decisions don’t get made because each modification to the proposal leads to round after round of conferring.

Critical thinking

The phrase “critical thinking” has many definitions. At Brookings Executive Education, we focus our critical thinking curriculum on developing processes to formulate challenges. While proposing solutions and trying to convince people can lead to political reactions and resistance, sharing a comprehensively formulated problem creates a different pathway. Assessing value and for whom becomes easier and more transparent. Any idea, not just yours, can be evaluated against the formulation and potential value. It allows others to assess whether an idea fully tackles the challenge and generates enough return on investment.

Using critical thinking skills can help you solve the right problem the first time, but it has some challenges. You still may need to convince and socialize; although if done well, these steps might be much easier than otherwise. Perhaps more challenging is investing in critical thinking processes in the first place, which require training and practice.

Team Formulating

Instead of tackling the problem by yourself, a more productive way may be to engage a team. By involving those likely to be affected by a future solution and asking them to help formulate the challenge, the team will jointly own the problem. Team members also can co-create the solution, which reinforces their ownership. Such ownership typically leads to rapid implementation as long as you help move barriers out of the way.

Formulating with a team takes both time and technique. The time investment upfront to co-create the formulation will seem unusual to most people used to leaping to a solution and, as a consequence, suffering the challenges of implementation. But that investment can pay dividends by dramatically reducing the time needed for implementation. The technique aspect refers to the processes and facilitation needed to guide the team. Few people are trained in such techniques, so adopting this paradigm may not be easy.

With these approaches in mind, you might be starting off with the wrong question. Instead of trying to convince and socialize to get your ideas implemented, work with others to think critically and formulate the challenge in a comprehensive way. Such an approach may require some training, but people are more willing to implement ideas when they co-create and own them than when the ideas are seen as belonging to you.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

Jackson Nickerson, a professor at Washington University’s Olin Business School in St. Louis, is a senior scholar in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and director of Brookings Executive Education.

]]>

To Bonus, or Not to Bonus

Jackson Nickerson — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 14:24:25 -0400

Bonuses in government are in the news, again. The House recently voted to eliminate performance bonuses at the Veterans Affairs Department in response to the scandal regarding patient wait lists that ultimately led to the resignation of Secretary Eric Shinseki. Two reports—one by the VA's inspector general and another by the VA secretary—suggest that employees may have manipulated wait times in order to meet employee performance goals needed for bonuses.

While some have pointed to poor leadership and a corrupt culture as explanations for this behavior, I would like to explore another potential cause: the role of performance bonuses in government. Bonuses are common enough in for-profit businesses to suggest that they play an important role in providing useful incentives for shaping worker behavior. But are bonuses for achieving performance targets an appropriate way to provide incentives in government?

To explore this issue, let’s turn to economics. A tenet of economics is that people will strive to achieve performance targets in response to incentives, which is the foundation of the principal-agent theory. In the theory’s simplest form, a “principal” (in this case, Congress or senior leadership) sets an objective, offers a reward for achieving the objective, measures whether the objective is met, and provides a payment if ”agents” achieve the objective.

This common-sense idea depends on a number of critical assumptions. Let’s work through these assumptions to see if they hold in a government context. The simplest version of the theory assumes that:

The principal specifies objectives that can be achieved.
The principal measures efforts or outcomes accurately and precisely.
The principal pays out the bonus if earned.
The agents choose to put in effort only for the purpose of achieving the objectives.

If these assumptions hold, then both the principal and the agent are better off: the principal gets the desired performance outcome by encouraging the agent to work harder than might otherwise happen if only a salary is paid, and the agent makes more money than might otherwise be the case. On first blush, using bonuses seems like a good idea.

Yet in many instances, especially in government, these assumptions do not hold.

First, the political process makes it difficult to specify an appropriate set of objectives. Not only must Congress figure out what objectives in fact are achievable, it must specify all the objectives to be achieved. Achievable objectives require either detailed knowledge of the job and person’s ability, or a way to experiment and actively adjust the incentive as they learn what is achievable. Congressional leaders, even with best intentions and the best staff, rarely can access enough knowledge to figure out appropriate and achievable objectives.

More importantly, most jobs have many objectives, and specifying all of them (think about all the specific objectives needed for a business to make a profit) waters down the impact of any single incentive so that it becomes meaningless. Instead, if incentives are provided for some objectives and not others then the former will be achieved whereas the latter likely will languish for lack of a reward.

Or as anyone who has worked in sales knows, workers quickly learn how to game the incentive system to their advantage, which requires the principal to keep changing the incentive structure in futile attempts to get the desired behavior. With the time it takes to respond to such needs, Congress can never keep up with such gaming.

Second, to pay out bonuses, objectives must be measured. All too often some objectives are easy to measure while others are difficult. For instance, measuring profit or stock price is relatively easy but measuring ethical behavior is difficult.

Incentives encourage agents to focus on what is easily measured and put less effort into the objectives that are more difficult to measure. Indeed, large bonuses lead to accomplishing easy-to-measure objectives whereas difficult-to-measure objectives will fall by the wayside as workers shift their attention from one (like behaving ethically) to the other (like earning the bonus).

Measuring the objectives for government jobs, especially for senior leaders, is inherently difficult. Unlike businesses, aggregate measures like profit and stock price are not available in the government. Without simple aggregate measures, objectives promulgate, increasing both the number of measures and their variance.

Third, can the government promise bonuses and then follow through? Sometimes yes, and as we have learned through the experience of shutdowns and congressional votes, sometimes no. In the private sector, employees can take contracts to the courts to resolve disputes. Government employees don’t have access to the same means for resolving such disputes. Without expectations of payment, no additional effort will be forthcoming.

Fourth, agents have more choices than working hard to achieve their goals. If they can earn more by gaming the incentive system, then some will. If it is easier to cheat with a low likelihood of getting caught and punished, then some might. If agents come to expect that they have a “right” to a bonus because they receive the bonus all the time and the principal makes it practically impossible to achieve it or takes it away, then jealously can be sparked.

Jealously is among the most dangerous of emotions and is associated with anger, rage and feeling threatened. These emotions can cause agents to take extreme actions, even justify unethical behavior in the name of righteousness, if they believe a right or possession has been taken away or they are being treated unjustly.

Blaming leadership and culture for bad behavior may not be wrong, but it may not tell the whole story. Government is different from business and even from not-for-profit organizations. Borrowing best practices from one domain—like bonuses in business—and grafting them onto another—like bonuses in government—can have problematic and deeply troubling consequences.

Government leaders need to understand these differences and guard against adopting “best practices” from business when doing so can harm lives, reputations and the value that we as citizens rely on from our government. Performance bonuses for government employees are one of those so-called best practices that are bad for government.

Duce a mente
(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

4 Ways to Improve Accountability in Your Office

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 16:00:00 -0400

Q: I am trying to figure out how to address accountability in my office. In the Culture Climate Survey, staff identified accountability of leadership as an issue. In the past, leaders either avoided problems or tried to address them after they became far too serious. This is a very sensitive issue because when leaders are held accountable, it is often done in private. Every now and then, often when it is too late, a leader is transferred to another office or agency. How do we assure our staff that their leaders are being held accountable beyond posting office values on the walls and without exposing the details of what’s being done?—Anonymous

Thank you for emailing me your question! Accountability is in the news for many reasons. From low scores in the Climate Culture Survey to the resignation of Veterans Affairs Department Secretary Eric Shinseki, accountability is a hot topic in Washington. In this age of austerity, “accountability” (or the lack thereof) is the word most commonly used when something has gone poorly.

Organizationally, troops on the front line commonly are held accountable, often in a way in which their colleagues know about it. But are leaders held accountable? Sometimes actions like the resignation of Shinseki are high profile and easily observed. But in other instances, measures taken in the name of accountability are behind closed doors or not seen by the troops. How can the troops know that leaders are being held accountable instead of being let off the hook?

Accountability has two components. One involves blame. When something goes wrong, the public, politicians, leaders and managers want to hold someone accountable by punishing the guilty. In other words, accountability occurs after the fact.

The other component of accountability involves responsibility, leadership and engagement. It is an attitude that people adopt because they believe what they do creates value for others, and therefore they take responsibility for organizational outcomes. They perceive that leaders support their efforts by helping them remove barriers impeding the mission. People also perceive that they have reasonable influence over the evaluation of their work and that the rewards and consequences are fair. In such an environment people choose to be accountable.

If accountability, especially for senior management, is viewed as an issue in your office then what can you do improve it? Here are four suggestions:

Formulate the real problem. I suspect accountability concerns represent an indicator or symptom of a bigger issue or set of issues. Calls for accountability are like canaries in a coal mine. They are indicators of a pervasive problem, such as lousy leadership, a corrupt culture or organizational pathologies. It would be quite rare for an organization to score highly on all dimensions of the Culture Climate Survey except for accountability. From your question, it sounds like you may have stepped into a role that involved some leadership problems in the past and you are trying to turn the workforce’s expectations around. Dig into the organization’s history so you understand the path it took to arrive at its current state.

Demonstrate your credible commitment to a leadership approach that differs from the past. A credible commitment is one in which you put something valuable, like your reputation, on the line. If you want people to engage and accept personal responsibility then you must do the same in a public way. You must take responsibility for what your team has done poorly or a project that has not gone well. When you take full responsibility, you can then investigate why things happened and work with your team to take steps to make sure the situation does not happen again. Of course, if good things have happened you want to celebrate the team and give employees full credit to demonstrate how you are supporting them.

Set clear expectations for individuals and the organization. If expectations are understood across the organization, then it becomes easier for people to be accountable. Such broad understanding puts their reputation at stake. All too often, leaders incorrectly assume people know what they should be doing. Even if people know what they should be doing, changing demands, short-term pressures and firefighting can cause individuals and groups to quickly lose focus and drift. Set expectations and keep everyone focused.

If employees consistently fail to deliver and accept accountability, help them find a situation in which they can commit. That may mean changing responsibilities in their current job, and other times it may mean helping them seek out opportunities in other organizations. In proposing the latter, do so respectfully and consistently, irrespective of a person’s position.

A workforce that chooses to be accountable likely will respond favorably to climate culture surveys.

Duce a mente
(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

How to Lead Change From the Lower Ranks

Jackson Nickerson — Tue, 27 May 2014 09:00:00 -0400

Q: Recently, you answered a question about how to spur innovation as a manager. I have the same question, but I am just a secretary. I have used available forums to try and introduce basic best practices but have not had success. I would like to increase efficiency and improve the culture here at work. Any suggestions or encouragement would be appreciated.

—Anonymous

Thank you so much for your email. I am appreciative of readers who are courageous enough to email me in response to a column!

Let me begin by saying that there is no such thing as "just" a secretary. All too often that job title—as well as some others—gets a bad rap. Such a position, if done well, can be a pivotal enabler for not just the employee’s supervisor but also the entire organization.

All public servants, no matter their rank and position, have the potential to create value for America. In the language of business, everyone has a role to play. Some roles may have greater impact and some lesser. Nevertheless, all are important. If creating value is not possible in a certain position, then it should be eliminated.

I love the fact that you want to help advance the culture of your organization. Leading need not come only from the top, with directions and instructions handed down the chain of command. Even those with military experience know leadership needs to come from every level of the organization to achieve effectiveness, efficiency and excellence.

The challenge is when people in formal leadership positions stymie subordinates who try to lead. Instead of empowering staff members, they stifle them. Instead of moving barriers out of the way, those leaders fabricate them. Such behaviors are indicators are of a leader seeking control and compliance instead of commitment and caring. What can you do to innovate and advance your organization’s culture if you are under such a yoke?

Since you are willing to be an informal leader, my advice is similar to what I offered before, but with a few twists. Here are three things to consider:

First, start with you. Shape your own mind-set. How can you ask yourself questions that will change your mind-set? What can you do differently to increase the value you provide to others? Can you ask others to help you discover new opportunities? Focus initially on defining the challenge, opportunity or problem before jumping to a solution. Once you confirm that resolving the challenge will create value, then and only then, start thinking about approaches.

If you come up with a valuable idea, especially if it involves you rewiring only your tasks and activities, then find a way to do it. After a few successes that others can see, experience and acknowledge, start asking incrementally bigger questions. Formulate challenges that may need to involve a few more people, but not too many more—you want to achieve success without the need for too much time and too many resources.

Start small and local to your position. As you succeed, slowly grow in magnitude the challenges that you choose to tackle. With positive attitude and positive outcomes you likely will stimulate others to follow.

Second, an important technique for leading a cultural shift from the lower levels of an organization instead of from the top is something called “appreciated inquiry." Ask your colleagues about their stories of success. Ask them to tell you about when and how they innovated. Discover the challenges they faced and how they overcame those challenges. Then show your appreciation for what they have done.

Find opportunities to share these narratives with others. Doing so will not only create mutual appreciation and build trust, but it also will have a profound impact on your colleagues. By telling these stories and appreciating others you will capture their attention and focus their mind-set on creating their own stories of innovation. A successful spiral of appreciation about even small innovations will naturally lead to people wanting to do more so they will have new stories to tell and new sources of appreciation.

Third, in some instances my advice will not work and could work against you. If your superordinates and colleagues feel threatened by such actions, then your environment may be toxic beyond your control. While I like to think toxic leaders are relatively small in number, they do exist. If your colleagues put you down and your superordinate does not support you in your efforts, then you might not be in the right organization. Even in a time of austerity, opportunities to transfer or find new positions in the federal government exist. Seek out appreciative and innovative leaders and groups that will bring out the best in you. Otherwise, if you stay in a toxic organization it is only a matter time before, as the saying goes, the frog boils.

My advice is to stay positive. Continually seek out new ways to create value. Uncover stories of innovation. Be appreciative. Become a local source of positivism, not just for yourself but also for your organization. If that doesn’t work, find another organization.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

How to Lead Change When You’re a Middle Manager

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 09 May 2014 16:00:13 -0400

Q: How can I lead change across my agency or across agencies when I don’t have the authority to do so? --Anonymous

Whether it is developing new information technology systems, designing new risk-based systems of regulation, or building new electronic Freedom of Information Act systems, leading change to build new organizational capabilities is a constant if not increasing demand in the federal government. The task of building these capabilities falls to those in the middle of the government, mid-level and senior executive leaders, who typically do not possess the full set of authorities needed to command construction and adoption of new capabilities. How can you lead change within your agency or across agencies and other organizations when you lack authority?

My new book, Leading Change from the Middle: A Practical Guide for Building Extraordinary Capabilities, (available at Brookings Institution Press, April 2014, and at Amazon.com) offers one approach for leading change without authority. The approach is based on three central ideas and is illustrated by two government case studies. Here are the three ideas to consider:

Who are my stakeholders? Identify and classify all relevant stakeholders into four categories: superordinates, subordinates, customers and complementors/blockers. As the names suggest:

· Superordinates represent all those in the direct line of authority above you in the organization—your boss, your boss’ boss, etc.—who will have an interest in the capability.

· Subordinates are those who work directly for you or who will be contracted to support you.

· Customers can be inside or outside of your organization and are those individuals who will benefit from the new capability.

· Complementors/blockers are individuals outside of your immediate chain of command from whom you will need support, but who also can stop your project in its tracks.

Tailor your approach. Stakeholders all require different approaches to communications, strategies, tactics and sequencing (referred to as CoSTS). Here are the CoSTS needed to engage each stakeholder group:

· Superordinates can be engaged by the set of CoSTS called “agree-in.” For you to succeed, you will need to converse with your superordinates to seek agreement in five key areas. Have an initial as well as ongoing conversations with your superordinates to explore the sources and nuances of the project’s timing and objectives, verify the stakeholder landscape to ensure you have not missed anyone, investigate superordinates' role and support so that you know how far you can push without losing support, figure out the best way to secure resources and develop an approach for ongoing communications.

· Subordinates require a different set of CoSTS. “Bee-in” asserts that you should never ask for “buy-in” from your subordinates. Asking for buy-in implicitly means that the person wasn’t important enough to be involved in decision making, yet you need them to grant you authority. Bee-in is different. It works by creating commitment within your team that leads to empowerment. To do so, you ask your subordinates to first formulate the challenge, verifying their formulation of the challenge with stakeholders. Then, the team develops an approach to tackle and resolve the challenge. The team again consults stakeholders to verify that they too believe the solution works. If the team formulates the challenge and develops the solution, not only will they own both the challenge and solution, they also will own the implementation. Bee-in provides detailed guidance to achieve this outcome.

· While not appropriate for subordinates, the label “buy-in” does offer four useful CoSTS for engaging customers. Ultimately, customers pay for the use or output of capabilities with their time and treasure. Even internal customers may have high payments of time in learning and using a new IT system. Buy-in’s first strategy is to invite customers into the bee-in process—engage customers with the team so that they co-create the capability. If doing so is not feasible, then either engage lead users and opinion leaders in the bee-in process or research what the customers value. No matter how you discover the customers’ value function, it is important to market and advertise to help shape perceptions of the capabilities’ value to customers.

· “Allow-in” represents the most crucial set of CoSTS because complementors/blockers often are the most challenging of stakeholders. Allow-in introduces five CoSTS that will keep complementors from becoming blockers, convert blockers to complementors and help you get around immovable blockers. The first approach is to invite them into the bee-in process. If they choose not to participate then a second approach is to engage them with buy-in through creating value for the complementor so that they will support your project. A third approach is to engage in a “gift-exchange”--doing something for them with the expectation that they will do something for you. These first three CoSTS provide different ways to create value for complementors. The final two approaches, which are to be avoided if at all possible, are to rely on coalition building and, ultimately, authority to twist blockers’ arms or to go around them altogether.

Keep stakeholders happy. The third and final idea focuses on keeping stakeholders from experiencing disrespect, envy, anger, and fear (DEAF). If the embers of these emotions are fanned then the flames of stakeholder emotion will make them DEAF to your change efforts. Becoming DEAF increases the likelihood that stakeholders will become blockers and actively resist or undermine your leadership.

These three ideas and the CoSTS they represent combine to form what I call “leading at the crossroads of change.” Building extraordinary capabilities is the desire of practically every attempt at innovation and leading change. Yet, few succeed, in part, because most approaches to leading change are designed either for the top or the bottom of the organization, not for the middle. I believe that these three ideas can help you increase your likelihood of successfully building extraordinary capabilities when leading change from the middle.

Duce a mente (May you lead by thinking)

]]>

Are Your Workers Just Checking the Box?

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 09 May 2014 10:35:07 -0400

How to lead them off the path of least resistance and inspire innovative thinking.

Q: I find that many on my team take the path of least resistance. I want them to think a little harder and more critically about the tasks in front of them. How can I, as a leader, get my team to think outside the box and perhaps spur some innovation?

—Anonymous

Time is fleeting. You have 20 things to do today and it is noon with only four items accomplished. How will you finish the rest along with responding to the 100 urgent emails you received today?

If these or similar thoughts are streaming through your head on a regular basis, then it may be no surprise that your employees take the path of least resistance. Who wouldn’t under the daily barrage of pressures to get things done? People often don’t want to think outside the box because they are too busy trying to keep the box from closing in and crushing them. How then can a team leader spur innovative thinking?

If your employees are under pressure, then not only are they looking for a quick way to check the box, they likely have developed a mind-set that may be difficult to change. It is easy to rely on existing routines to get things done quickly and punch the next item on the list. In this deep groove, people resist responding to requests for innovative ideas.

To be candid, I am no expert on the psychology of changing mind-sets. Nonetheless, I have worked to change my own, as well as other people’s, with some degree of success. Here’s
one approach.

GET THEIR ATTENTION

First, recognize that changing a mind-set is like competing for a brain’s scarce resource—attention. This competition is between the way the brain currently thinks (processing beliefs, feelings and values) and the way you would like it to think (being creative and innovative to add value). To influence people’s mind-set you have to be willing to compete for their attention.

ASK YOURSELF QUESTIONS

Second, capture attention by asking questions. Those seeking to improve happiness, for instance, ask questions with positive assumptions behind them. For example, asking “What has my team done recently that I can appreciate?” assumes employees have accomplished something of value. The mere act of authentically asking this question causes your own brain to allocate some of its limited attention, at least for a while, to search for an answer.

Winning the competition, though, requires you to ask such questions every day. Moreover, asking first thing every morning primes the brain to keep reconsidering the questions throughout the day. The more you ask yourself these types of appreciative and positive questions the more you are changing your mind-set.

ASK THEM QUESTIONS

Third, you can work to change the mind-set of others in a similar way. Ask questions that encourage your team to think outside the box. Or engage in activities like innovation competitions focused on specific challenges that will stimulate new ways of approaching tasks. If narrowly constructed and discussed daily, such challenges can fundamentally transform mind-sets.

For example, you could ask: How can we create new value for our customers? How can we increase quality and lower costs? How can we make our job easier yet deliver more value? What pain for our organization can we discover today and work to remedy? A little training and illustrations of successful answers can go a long way toward helping people think more clearly about what these questions imply.

Discover the questions that work for your team, and encourage employees to ask themselves those questions every morning. If they think outside the box, find a way to reward them. This may be as simple as expressing your appreciation or acknowledging their contribution during a meeting. Asking questions that capture their attention and rewarding new mind-sets offer at least one path to getting your team out of its box.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

Have a Question?

The Adviser is your chance to seek answers to public sector management challenges. No question is too big or small, complex or simple. Submit your questions at govexec.com/adviser.

]]>

4 Ways to Get Your Ideas Implemented

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:00:00 -0400

Q: How can I get other people to implement my ideas?—Anonymous

Good ideas are not a rare commodity. They come up all the time, often in response to a problem, challenge or opportunity. If implementing your ideas falls entirely within your realm of authority, then implementing it may take some sweat equity and other resources. But otherwise, execution should not be too difficult. For instance, if you come up with a new way to manage the processing of forms and you are the only one involved in that process, then implementing your idea should present few barriers.

But for most ideas, implementation requires other people. Superordinates, subordinates, customers and complementors all may be needed. It is all too easy for some if not many of these individuals to resist execution for a variety of reasons. For instance, implementing the idea may not be in their individual best interest or they might think they have better ideas or perhaps they simply don’t want to put in the extra effort. Resistance to change is particularly vexing when you don’t have authority over these resistors. In such instances, how can you get other people to implement your ideas?

Here are four different approaches to getting other people on board when you do not have sufficient authority.

1. Convincing. Perhaps the most common approach, convincing draws on psychological techniques like listing more ideas than necessary and conceding on the ones that don't matter, using "we" and avoiding "I" in your proposals, providing an explanation with research and statistics to support your ideas, and pointing out from various points of view the need for change. These techniques attempt to convince people while trying to avoid raising their ire.

Sometimes these approaches work. But too often they don't. Trying to convince someone that your idea is good can fall into a few traps. If you are not viewed as trustworthy, then attempting to gain acceptance with convincing techniques usually fails. Even if you are viewed as trustworthy, convincing those who believe your idea is not in their best interest or convincing them to take on more work can lead to resistance.

2. Socializing. A related approach is to develop a proposal and then share it with others to read, adjust and modify. Instead of just convincing others of your idea, you can socialize the idea as a means to get them to contribute their own thoughts on how to advance and improve on it. The hope is that the opportunity to contribute leads to acceptance.

While socializing can lead to acceptance, it has two weaknesses. First, it can take a long time, during which resistors can enact their own strategies to delay or prevent implementation. Second, not only does socializing take time, but also there is no natural end point to it. Final decisions often do not get made because each modification to the proposal can lead to round after round of conferring.

3. Critical Thinking. The phrase "critical thinking" has many definitions. At Brookings Executive Education, we focus our critical thinking curriculum on developing processes to comprehensively formulate challenges. Whereas proposing solutions and trying to convince people can quickly lead to political reactions and resistance, sharing a comprehensively formulated problem creates a different pathway. Once a challenge is formulated, assessing the amount of value and for whom it is created becomes easier and more transparent. Any idea, not just yours, can be evaluated against the formulation and potential value. Doing so allows others to assess whether your idea as well as their ideas fully tackle the challenge and generate enough return on investment.

Using critical thinking skills can help you solve the right problem the first time, but it has some challenges nonetheless. You still may need to convince and socialize; although if done well, these steps might be much easier than otherwise. Perhaps more challenging is investing in appropriate critical thinking processes in the first place, because becoming skilled in critical thinking requires training and practice.

4. Team formulating. Instead of tackling the problem by yourself, a more productive way may be to engage a team to co-create a formulation and solution. By involving those likely to be affected by a future solution and asking them to help formulate the challenge, the team will jointly own the problem. They also can co-create the solution, which reinforces their ownership. Such ownership typically leads to rapid implementation as long as you help move barriers out of the way.

Formulating with a team takes both time and technique. The time aspect refers to the investment upfront to co-create the formulation, which will seem unusual to most people used to leaping to a solution and, as a consequence, suffering the challenges of implementation. Yet, spending time up front can pay dividends by dramatically reducing the time needed for implementation. The technique aspect refers to the processes and facilitation needed to guide the team. Few people are trained in such techniques. So, adopting this paradigm may not be easy.

With these alternative approaches in mind, I think you might be starting off with the wrong question. Instead of trying to convince and socialize, work with others to think critically and formulate the challenge in a comprehensive way. Such an approach may require some training, but people are more willing to implement ideas when they co-create and own them than when the ideas are seen as belonging to you.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

Adopting Best Practices Can Be a Bad Idea

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:00:00 -0400

Q: I have been tasked with developing a national quality assurance review program for auditing services. Can you share with me best practice metrics to evaluate these programs? Currently, regional offices and service centers are using similar metrics but with different processes for evaluating quality assurance programs.—Anonymous

Often, challenges across the federal government seem eerily familiar. If other agencies and departments have already tackled a similar challenge and have implemented a great solution, why not seek out these solutions and adopt them?

The idea of copying best practices to improve performance is not new. Indeed, it is discussed in almost every corner of government. From military logistics to education reform, look to other governmental and business entities for approaches that work. Yet, all too often, adopting best practices lowers performance instead of improves it. When is it a good idea to seek out and copy best practices, and when is it not?

Consider the goals of designing an automobile that is both safe and powerful. One way to accomplish these goals might be to purchase a Volvo, a car known for safety, and put into it the engine of a Corvette, known for its power. At first glance, inserting a high performance Corvette engine (my metaphor for a best practice capability) into a Volvo might lead us to expect an awesome car in terms of both safety and power. In actuality, the combination most likely would end up as a clunker that probably wouldn’t work or, at best, would break down easily.

Both the Corvette and Volvo are systems. Each module within the system is designed and tuned to work together and complement each other to yield a particular kind of high performance. For the Corvette, system modules like the engine, transmission, frame, axles, suspension, electronics, steering and most other aspects of the car are highly interdependent. Great performance, in this case relating to acceleration, speed and handling, requires all of these interdependent modules to be optimally designed and work together. The same is true for the Volvo, although optimization of safety and fuel efficiency within a particular cost range lead to an entirely different system.

Taking a best practice capability from one highly interconnected system and inserting it into another undoubtedly will lower performance, if the combined system works at all. Like Mary Shelly’s famous 1818 novel Frankenstein, combining modules from different systems can lead to a wretched capability. When, then, does seeking out and copying a best practice capability make sense?

I advise identifying and possibly copying best practices in four situations.

Substitutable. In some instances, a capability is modular and independent, meaning that it has few interactions and constraints with other modules in the system. In other words, the capability can be adopted without requiring mutual adjustment in other parts of the system. In most cases, a car owner can improve power performance (e.g., acceleration) by using high-octane instead of low-octane gasoline without changing any other part of the system. As an illustration in the federal government, executive leadership programs are relatively independent and modular. Switching to a superior program can improve overall performance of the agency while not requiring mutual adjustment to ongoing operations and other modules in the system.

Superb. If a new capability offers a dramatic increase in performance and value, then copying it may be worthwhile even when many interactions are present. But adopting a capability likely requires redesigning of the rest of the system. Hybrid engine technology offered high gas mileage performance, but only after the entire automobile was redesigned. In the federal government, standardized software may offer so much value (i.e., lowering software development, acquisition and maintenance costs) that it justifies the cost of redesigning business processes needed to optimize the software.

Stuck. Sometimes you have no choice. Approximately 7 percent of all health care costs are for sustaining life for those with kidney failure. Dialysis and kidney replacement affect the human body in many ways. In such a situation, adopting best practice may not be great, but it offers the only way to sustain life for many. The same may be true for some software systems. Off the shelf modules don’t fit the needs well, but designing and developing a custom solution is an order of magnitude more expensive. In this case, you may be stuck with adopting the best practice capability even though the value it can create for your agency is limited.

Solutions. In almost all instances, it is useful to seek out best practices for research, not for adopting them. Explore in detail what problems led to the development of the capability. Take away a deeper knowledge of both the nuances of the problem as well as ideas and approaches that led to the specific solution adopted. Just because FedEx and UPS are known for their leading-edge logistics capabilities, for example, does not mean that U.S. Transportation Command should copy these best practices. Instead, studying the underlying problems these firms solved and learning about their specific approaches will help U.S. TRANSCOM designers better understand and optimally resolve their own unique logistics challenges.

Best practices are capabilities designed and developed to solve specific problems that often are part of a complex and nuanced system. Copying a module from one system to put in to another system runs the risk of turning your desire for a high performance organization into a Frankenstein with the performance of a clunker. Always seek out best practices, but be skeptical about copying and adopting them.

Please share your own experiences and ideas for stimulating outside-the-box thinking or ask your leadership questions in the comment section below.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

How to Battle Boss Envy

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:42:48 -0400

Q: Your competitor is an in-house candidate who, if you are selected, will be very disappointed, will report to you and may file a grievance. How would you handle the situation?

—Anonymous

Even in the most collaborative organizations, employees sometimes compete against each other. Promotions, prestige and pay raises are scarce assets that people naturally compete over. After a winner is declared, some people may be sore losers who seek out retribution not only against the boss who didn’t promote them, but also against the person who won the competition. If you expect to be the winner, how can you manage the situation to reduce if not eliminate the likelihood of retribution?

Social comparison is part of human nature. We all compare ourselves to others, especially to “salient referents” who are close in age, education, position and ability. These social comparisons in a work setting can lead to an awkward dynamic when one person is promoted and others become their subordinates.

I know of an organization in which seven supervisors worked together for many years. They all were effective at their jobs and had similar experience, abilities and performance records. When their manager retired, one was promoted to manage the others. Within six months, this new manager left the organization because of sabotage tactics by the remaining six supervisors—his prior friends—who thought they deserved the position. Hiring the next manager from the outside led to few complaints and no sabotage, and the organization’s performance returned to its prior level.

This problem arises because of envy and because people tend to have an inflated view of their capabilities. Envy is an emotion that can stimulate anger when someone desires what another possesses. The emotion is particularly strong when people perceive that they are as deserving, or even more so, than the salient referent. When promotions are based, at least in part, on subjective measures of performance, it is easy for people to assume that they were more deserving than the person promoted.

Who is to blame when a staff member is passed over for promotion? To those on the losing end, the answer is certainly not themselves because they believe favoritism must have been at play. To counter this injustice, envious workers often seek ways to get back at the organization, even if these actions are costly to themselves. They might shirk responsibilities, for instance, by taking it easy at work to compensate for the promotion they did not receive. Or they might engage in office politics to lobby to improve their position or to undermine the person promoted.

Managing the situation is difficult, and there is no surefire way to resolve it so that everyone is better off. Nonetheless, there are three strategies that can help.

1. Work with the hiring manager

before making promotion decisions to remove subjective measures of performance. If objective measures are available, then people can compare, calibrate and correct their otherwise inflated view of their capabilities. While those not promoted may still feel some envy, they are less likely to perceive the situation as unfair. Moreover, they may be more willing to find ways to improve themselves so that they can be promoted next time. This strategy, however, may not be feasible if the nature of the work precludes objective performance measures or influencing the manager to change the evaluation policy is impossible.

2. Shape workers’ expectations

so they believe that they, too, can be promoted soon. If employees expect that working hard will lead to promotion in the near term, then they are more likely to create value for the organization rather than destroy it. But creating these expectations hinges on the organization’s growth, so that more positions become open, and on a commitment to promote from within. Such policies encourage employees to make investments in training and development. Unfortunately, it is difficult to create such policies and expectations when most agencies are shrinking.

3. Distance yourself from your former peer group. Envy is sparked because referents are salient, but this is changeable. A recently promoted manager can try to differentiate himself from salient referents. The trappings of position and constraints on socializing offer some expectation that the new manager is no longer a salient referent. But the longer prior relationships have lasted, the less likely this distancing will work. If the manager cannot distance himself, then another approach is to distance the envious worker. Helping that person find a position elsewhere can change the individual’s referent group. The strategy may not be feasible, however, if there is a large number of workers with similar frustrations or if workers exploit grievance procedures to stay in their position.

These strategies could prove difficult at best in this age of austerity in the federal government. But there is one other approach to consider. Seek out a promotion elsewhere in your agency. If you are promoted to a position in another group, envy is unlikely to be a problem. If you are a manager, help your best employees find positions in other groups and seek out quality applicants from outside your group. While it is difficult to see a good employee move on, you not only are helping that person succeed, but also the co-workers who didn’t get promoted.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

****

Have a Question?

The Adviser is your chance to seek answers to public sector management challenges. No question is too big or small, complex or simple. Submit your questions at govexec.com/adviser.

]]>

How to Break the Routine and Spur Innovation

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:06:31 -0500

Q: I find that many on my team take the path of least resistance. I want them to think a little harder, more critically about the tasks in front of them. How can I, as a leader, get my team to think outside the box and perhaps spur some innovation? — Anonymous

Time is fleeting. You have 20 things to do today and it is noon with only four items accomplished. How will you finish the rest along with responding to the 100 urgent emails you received today?

To be candid, I am no expert on the psychology of changing mind-sets. Nonetheless, I have worked to change my own as well as other people’s mind-sets with some degree of success. Here’s one approach.

Please share your own experiences and ideas for stimulating outside-the-box thinking or ask your leadership questions in the comment section below.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

Where Will Government’s Next Leaders Come From?

Jackson Nickerson, Brookings Executive Education — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:00:00 -0500

The need for new executive leaders in the federal government is growing as baby boomers retire, but the willingness of up-and-coming managers to become leaders may be diminishing. Why would people choose to become a leader in the federal government, especially when it requires the ability to move, the possibility of political attacks, a lot of work with constrained pay and other barriers at every turn?

The need to replenish executive leaders in the federal government is no longer an issue for the future. The exodus is in full swing, and the need is here and now. Where will the new crop of executive leaders come from?

One source of new leaders is outside government. People who have had a career in private enterprise may want to expand their commitment to public service. With jobless rates still high, the federal government could offer a path to gainful employment. The shrinking military also might provide a substantial reservoir of leaders willing to enter civilian public service. Yet leading in the federal government, especially in the current political environment, is no cakewalk. Why would anyone want to step into an executive leadership role?

One standard set of responses is that people are willing to assume the mantle for gains in power, pay or prestige. These three rationales have one common denominator: narrowly defined self-interest. These rationales suggest people will step into executive roles only if they receive remuneration to compensate for the costs of leadership. Some even think those who aspire to leadership do so to capture the perks while attempting to sidestep the costs of actually leading.

When I am asked, ‘Why lead?’ I tell people to start from a broader perspective. Instead, I ask them, “What is the secret to living a full and complete life?” This may sound like a question that has no answer or requires a philosophical debate. Yet time and time again, although the language may differ, people arrive at remarkably similar responses.

To sum up the responses: The secret is that living a full and complete life requires striving to create value for others. The operative word “striving” means creating value for others is no easy feat. Leaders have to struggle, work hard and even battle to create value. Indeed, a deep investment in education, personal development and experience often is needed before someone is ready to lead.

Creating value ultimately involves serving others. This can range from products and services that people purchase to the provision of public goods and services that benefit recipients such as low-income families.

While the desire to live a full and complete life has a notion of self-interest, the true source of its motivation comes from community interest, the desire to serve others in ways that are perceived as beneficial. Herein lies at least one important moral basis for choosing to lead.

Leadership of this kind (one variant is called servant leadership) requires choosing the domain in which value is to be created, understanding the perspectives of all stakeholders and formulating challenges from all perspectives. Trade-offs and conflicts between the benefits to the many versus the costs to the few can and do arise. Such issues can make creating value even more challenging. Choosing a course of action requires creativity and wise leadership, so the situation can be addressed in all of its complexity. It is in these contexts that the word “striving” can be more clearly understood.

If striving to create value for others is central to your life, then seeking an executive leadership position in the federal government is a singular opportunity. The U.S. government has the standing and resources to change the world. I can think of no other organization with the same unique potential to create value for others.

Of course, changing the world through public service can involve struggle, hard work and battles. Success is not guaranteed. Funding, internal and external politics, territorial battles and byzantine rules and regulations present tremendous challenges. These and other impediments could affect the supply of leaders. But the federal government can attract potential leaders by emphasizing the opportunities to create value for others.

In President Kennedy’s immortal words that called so many baby boomers to service, “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” Perhaps it is time to hear this clarion call once again.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

You're In Charge, But Who Said Never Let ’em See You Sweat?

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:00:00 -0500

How does a leader address self-doubt? It arises is all types of situations but particularly in those in which he or she feels inexperienced with a topic or subject matter. -- Anonymous

Self-doubt is not an uncommon feeling when making decisions. Many leaders face such concerns; even experienced ones often don’t always know if they are making the right decision. Such doubt can intensify when making decisions in unfamiliar territory. But what can you do to address it?

First, let’s ask whether it is bad or wrong to suffer from self-doubt. Does it indicate that you are an inferior or bad leader? Are you worried about being a fraud who will soon be found out when people learn that your decision was a bad one?

Occasional self-doubt is an important indicator of a successful and reflective leader. It is all too easy for leaders to be seduced by the power of their position and the deference that comes with it. This seduction can lead to biased and overconfident beliefs that the boss is always right. Reflective self-doubt is a positive indicator that your knowledge and expertise has limits, which is most useful when confronting new challenges.

That said, self-doubt is problematic if it invades every challenge -- big or small --and keeps you from making decisions. If this insecurity affects even decisions that easily fall within your expertise and experience then it may signal some other psychological issue.

An often difficult decision, for example, is to fire a poorly performing employee who also is toxic to the team. If the leader hasn’t been involved in firing employees before, then self-doubt naturally arises: “Am I making the right call for the organization? Am I being too harsh? What responsibility do I have for the welfare of the individual, especially when I hired the person?” If the leader has experience with similar situations and has seen what happens to a team when a toxic worker is not let go, then self-doubt should be diminished or even absent from the decision. If the leader with relevant experience lacks the confidence to make the “right” decision, allowing the team to suffer for years, then he likely should seek counseling for a deeper problem.

What can you do to address self-doubt that arises when dealing with decisions for which you don’t have much experience and knowledge? Here are two strategies that can help leaders think more clearly and thoroughly:

Frame the situation that requires a decision. Reach out to your employees and other stakeholders -- especially those likely to have different views from your own -- and ask them two simple questions: How would they characterize the situation and how could they approach it differently? The first question provides perspective for your own assessment -- perhaps an earlier rush to judgment may have clouded your creativity. The second question requires the stakeholders to be creative and come up with a different way of looking at the situation, which may spark different ways to approach your decision. Understanding the situation comprehensively from other points of view will give you confidence that you are working on the right problem.
Share your formulation of the situation with others and then ask them to offer recommendations to resolve it. The point is not to take a poll on which decision is best. Instead, ask why they recommended a particular solution. Listen carefully to their logic to see whether you missed anything in your own analysis. This logic can cause you to re-evaluate your decision and help you be confident that you have thoroughly considered all relevant perspectives.

Addressing self-doubt requires courage, in part because many people are afraid to admit to it. In fact, some people believe that even the hint of such a disclosure shows weakness. On the contrary, taking these steps shows strength of character and self-esteem. Engaging others demonstrates to your team that you think before you act, you want to learn from others to expand your expertise, and that you want to get decisions “right.” Aren’t these leadership qualities to which we all want to aspire?

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

How to Build Skills Without the Budget

Jackson Nickerson — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:35:00 -0500

Q: Training dollars in my department recently dried up. My team and I have hit a wall in terms of personal and team development. Without the money to pay for training, what are ways we can work together to continue to develop our careers and skill sets? —Anonymous

As the age of austerity casts a long shadow on the federal government, training budgets continue to diminish if not disappear entirely. At the same time, workers are being asked to produce the same output or more, but with fewer resources. Doing so requires continuous innovation and advancement of skills and capabilities. Without funding for training, how can you help members of your team improve their expertise so they will be ready for career advancement when opportunities arise?

Developing individuals, a team or a large organization typically takes place during three kinds of activities:

Classroom Instruction

This type of educational experience introduces new knowledge, concepts and thinking. Without a training budget, this is the type of infusion of new knowledge that is held back from
organizations.

Applied Knowledge

You can advance your expertise by working on—and solving—difficult problems that are just beyond, but not too far beyond, your existing capabilities. Exploration, creativity, and trial and error provide the crucible for not only coming up with an acceptable solution, but also developing deeper and broader expertise in the problem’s domain. In essence, tackling progressively more complex problems develops functional new knowledge and expands your skills.

But there is a risk. Tackling problems with complexity far beyond your existing knowledge base is like trying to bridge a canyon that is too wide for the existing building materials. When problems are too difficult, then solutions are not found, frustration builds, confidence diminishes and you lose the desire to keep trying. Yet without new problems to solve, you get bored, lose focus and performance suffers. Maintaining the right balance of challenging problems, but not too challenging, is difficult.

Deconstruction and Examination

This approach involves tackling recurring problems, but in a different way. You can treat a chronic problem as something more complex than you have represented it in the past. Look at it from different perspectives. Reframe it. With a new representation of the problem in hand, then try solving it in a new way. Because you already have past solutions to fall back on, the risk of frustration, diminished confidence and lost desire is minimized. Solving the problem in its new form will expand your expertise and may even improve innovation and productivity.

Without a training budget and the new knowledge that comes with it, you still can help your employees advance their expertise by using this approach. If the team’s task is to produce a large annual report, for instance, ask what problem the report is intended to solve. Who uses the report and for what purpose? What value can the report create? What data is needed, in what format, and from whom? These questions likely will lead to a more complex formulation of the challenge, which in turn may lead to an innovative solution. Even if it doesn’t lead to an innovation, your team will learn from the exercise and build expertise. It is kind of like going to the gym for your regular workout, but using common weights for a new exercise. Doing so can strengthen a different set of muscles that can expand your capabilities.

If you are fortunate enough to have some training budget then your focus should be on getting a higher return on that investment. You can do so by making sure those who receive training use the new knowledge to tackle more complex challenges than they are used to. Solving problems that couldn’t be solved before the training is a great way to demonstrate return on investment. Who knows, such results may even lead to an increase in your training budget.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

Have a Question?

The Adviser is your chance to seek answers to public sector management challenges. No question is too big or small, complex or simple. Submit your questions at govexec.com/adviser.

]]>

4 Ways to Boost Morale—Even When Incentives Are Scarce

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:00:00 -0500

I’ve never seen morale this low in my 13 years of government service. What are some fun and creative ways my office can boost morale and try to have a good time?--Anonymous

There is no doubt that morale in the federal government is low. The Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey provides at least one quantitative way to measure issues like morale. The 2013 survey indicates a drop in every governmentwide measure of employee satisfaction, compared with the results of the previous year’s survey.

In reading the survey, I was drawn especially to the Employee Engagement Index Trends (Page 48), which indicate that the governmentwide score (64) is the lowest in four years. If this was a test score, then the government would receive a “D” for engagement. While some agencies are better (receiving a C) and some are worse (receiving an F), the overall measurements paint a gloomy picture for morale.

If the problem is well-known then what can you do as a leader to boost morale? Are fun and creative ways available to help?

Morale describes enthusiasm, confidence and loyalty toward a job or organization. Good morale typically is associated with an esprit de corps and a positive psychological outlook and well-being that make a job and a community more enjoyable. This is good not only for the individual, but also for the organization.

Morale is important to an organization because of its association with performance, productivity, attendance and retention. A variety of studies indicate that a drop in morale lowers performance, degrades productivity, increases absenteeism, and makes it difficult to attract and retain the most talented employees. The converse also is true -- high morale benefits the organization in many dimensions

Improving low morale is a challenge for any organization, but it’s especially challenging for the federal government. With political polarization, budget battles and increasing pressures on public servants, improving morale among federal workers is difficult. But it’s not impossible.

One approach is to think about fun and creative things to do to boost morale, But that could head you in the wrong direction. Morale declines when people feel alone and hopeless, like they are facing an abyss with no support and no escape. Fun and creativity alone are unlikely to change these feelings. Morale improves when people repeatedly are reminded and shown that others care about them and that the abyss will not swallow them up. While I am sure many different approaches can help, I have found four actions particularly effective, especially in a government context in which incentives, competition and gifts are constrained and highly regulated.

Listen to employees and inquire about their ideas, concerns and opinions. Ask them what would make their environment better, happier and more productive given that the broader environment is beyond your control. Discover those things that you can do together to make your environment a bright hilltop in an otherwise overcast landscape.
Look for positive actions, conversations and outcomes among your colleagues and subordinates. Everyday people do great things, whether it’s adroitly handling a difficult conversation, making a gracious decision to support a co-worker, or serving the public well. Invest in discovering these positive efforts.
Appreciate your colleagues and employees. You can do so by thanking them for their positive efforts. You can recount their efforts -- their stories -- to others, which not only provides recognition but also sets the standard for what should be the norm. A “thank you” and stating that you appreciate their contributions and leadership let’s them know they are not alone in an abyss.
Lead by listening, looking and appreciating, and encouraging others to do the same. Be wisely optimistic. Realistically recognize the difficulties of the moment, but also highlight what the team is doing and why it matters -- and assure folks that the dark clouds eventually will lift. When community members show mutual respect and esteem for each other and their contributions to the mission then morale will grow bright, even if the broader environment is hostile to morale.

Fun and creative ideas will naturally surface if morale is improving. These four actions are based on the idea that morale is strongly affected by the immediate relationships around you. If those relationships are positive and supportive then even on the darkest of days your office and your team can be a bright spot that rises above the gloom.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

]]>

What to Do When You Become Your Co-Workers' Boss

Jackson Nickerson, Brookings Executive Education — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:36:00 -0500

Your competitor is an in-house candidate who, if you are selected, will be very disappointed, will report to you and may file a grievance. How would you handle the situation?—Anonymous

Even in the most collaborative organizations, employees sometimes compete with one another. Promotions, prestige and pay raises are scarce assets that people naturally compete over. After a winner is declared, some people may be sore losers who seek out retribution not only against the boss who did not promote them, but also against the person who won the competition. If you expect to be the winner, how can you manage the situation to reduce if not eliminate the likelihood of retribution?

Social comparison is an inherent part of human nature. We all compare ourselves to others, especially to “salient referents” who are close in age, education, position and ability. These social comparisons in a work setting can lead to an awkward dynamic when one person is promoted and others become their subordinates.

This problem arises because of envy and because people tend to have an inflated view of their own capabilities. Envy is an emotion that can stimulate anger when someone desires what another possesses, like a recent promotion. The emotion is particularly strong and enduring when people perceive that they are as deserving, or even more so, than the salient referent. When promotions are based, at least in part, on subjective measures of performance, it is easy for people to assume that they were more deserving than the person promoted. The promotion is seen as unfair and playing favorites.

Who is to blame when a staff member is passed over for promotion? In the mind’s eye of those on the losing end, the answer is certainly not themselves because they believe favoritism must have been at play. To counter this injustice, envious workers often seek ways to get back at the organization, even if these actions are costly to themselves. They might shirk responsibilities, for instance, by taking it easy at work to compensate for the promotion they did not receive. Or they might engage in office politics (instead of working) to lobby to improve their position or to undermine the person recently promoted. Another common strategy is to sabotage their new manager.

Managing the situation is difficult, and there is no surefire way to resolve the situation so that everyone is better off. Nonetheless, there are three strategies that can help.

Work with the hiring manager before making promotion decisions to remove subjective measures of performance. If objective measures are available, then people can compare, calibrate and correct their otherwise inflated view of their capabilities. Then, while those not promoted may still feel some envy, they are less likely to perceive the situation as unfair, which reduces shirking, political influencing and sabotage. Moreover, they may be more willing to find ways to improve themselves so that they can be promoted next time. This strategy, however, may not be feasible if the nature of the work precludes objective performance measures or influencing the manager to change the evaluation policy is impossible.
Shape workers’ expectations so they believe that they, too, can be promoted soon. If employees expect that working hard will lead to promotion in the near term, then they are more likely to create value for the organization rather than destroy it. But creating these expectations hinges on the organization’s growth, so that more positions become open, and on a commitment to promote from within. Such policies encourage employees to make investments in training and development. Unfortunately, it is difficult to create such policies and expectations when most agencies are shrinking, not growing.
Distance yourself from former peers. Envy is sparked because referents are salient, but this is changeable. A recently promoted manager can try to differentiate himself from salient referents. In essence, the trappings of position and constraints on socializing offer at least some expectation that the new manager is no longer a salient referent. But the longer prior relationships have lasted, the less likely this distancing will work. If the manager cannot distance himself, then another approach is to distance the envious worker. Respectfully helping that person find a position elsewhere can change the individual’s referent group. The strategy may not be feasible, however, if there is a large number of workers with similar frustrations—not all can be moved—or if workers exploit grievance procedures to stay in their position.

Duce a mente (May you lead by thinking),

Jackson Nickerson

]]>

How to Deal With Self-Doubt

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:00:00 -0500

Ask EIG is your chance to seek answers to public sector management challenges and conundrums. Submit your questions at AskEIG@govexec.com.

How does a leader address self-doubt? It arises in all types of situations but particularly those in which he/she feels inexperienced with a topic or subject matter. --Anonymous

All too often, leaders confront situations that are new to them or for which they don’t have much experience. When confronted with such novel situations -- at least novel to them -- self-doubt about how they address the situation is natural. It also may be desirable.

Self-doubt is a lack of faith or confidence, which, at first blush, you may think inhibits leadership and decision-making. Yet the desirability of self-doubt comes from the simple fact that many people can be overconfident about their decisions. A little self-doubt can be a useful counterbalance to overconfidence, if used wisely. The key challenge for leaders is to figure out how to handle situations when either self-doubt or overconfidence threatens to undermine the quality and effectiveness of their decisions.

How can you overcome self-doubt or overconfidence when tackling situations in which you do not have much experience? Self-doubt and overconfidence can impact your decisions in two ways. First, these two emotions can cause you to make bad decisions or, in some cases, no decision at all. Second, and I believe more importantly, they can cause you to skip over making sure that you are the tackling the right problem to begin with. If you haven’t comprehensively formulated your challenge then your decision for resolving the situation is likely to be flawed and ineffective.

If we set aside psychological issues of perennial self-doubt, then the core way to deal with self-doubt or overconfidence is with three kinds of learning: before, during and after.

“Before” Learning. Great leaders continually expand their general knowledge as well as knowledge in the domains in which they are working. You can do so formally with executive education courses, like those that focus on leadership, but also with courses on a variety of other topics ranging from information technology to anthropology. Less formal methods include reading and journals or searching the Internet in response to new ideas you have heard about from friends and colleagues.

“Before” learning -- characteristic of a Renaissance man or woman -- is about acquiring and accumulating knowledge and concepts from a variety of fields. The goal is not to quickly recall facts. Instead, this diverse knowledge will help you look at situations from different perspectives so you can comprehensively formulate the real challenge.

Such learning can provide confidence that you are doing the right things. It also instills humility by making you realize how much knowledge you don’t fully possess.

My philosophy is to invest weekly in an area of knowledge that is unfamiliar to me. Whether it is reading a book, searching the Internet in response to an idea I read about in the newspaper, or conversing with a subject matter expert, I try to devote several hours every week to learning something new.

If I know a situation might emerge, then my search for knowledge might be more directed. I might seek out specific books or discussions on the Internet or opportunities to speak with certain subject matter experts. While I might not remember everything I try to learn, some knowledge sticks and it helps me understand new situations when confronted by them.

“During” Learning. Once confronted by a situation, you still have time to study up, but time constraints may shape the type of learning you should invest in. Instead of going to books, the Internet or experts, you may find greater value in first seeking out guidance from all of the relevant stakeholders. Understanding how they perceive the situation, as well as their hopes and fears, can help you comprehensively formulate the challenge and develop a solution that will ensure needed support and implementation.

Productively talking to stakeholders, though, requires a certain sequence of questions. First, focus on understanding the indicators of the challenge they see and experience. Once these indicators are described and (hopefully) documented, you will want to inquire about the plausible root causes. At this point, it is best to stay away from possible decisions until you have spoken with and synthesized the responses from all stakeholders.

You will have justifiable confidence to develop a solution when through your discussions you discover no new indicators or root causes. The simple act of reaching out to stakeholders and seeking their knowledge and input will provide a useful counter to overconfidence

“After” Learning. Once a decision is made and you have handled the situation, you have the opportunity to reflect. Reflection perhaps is the most powerful way to advance your learning. It also is a way to reduce both self-doubt and overconfidence. Aperio Examen is a daily method of reflection I designed for just this purpose. Reflections like Aperio Examen – focusing on what went well, what didn’t and how you contributed to the outcome -- not only can help you build expertise but also help you manage your quick responses to situations. It helps you reduce the impact of emotional biases so you can tackle even wicked problems thoughtfully and successfully. The side benefit of this reflection is that, along with the processes highlighted above, it will help you reduce self-doubt and have the humility to manage overconfidence.

Duce a mente (May you lead by thinking),

Jackson Nickerson

]]>

Training Without the Training Budget

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:32:00 -0500

Training dollars in my department recently dried up. My team and I have hit a wall in terms of personal and team development. Without the money to pay for training, what are ways we can work together to continue to develop our careers and skillsets?

--Anonymous

As the age of austerity continues to cast a long shadow on the federal government, training budgets continue to diminish if not disappear entirely. At the same time, federal workers are being asked to produce the same amount of output or more but with fewer resources. Doing so requires continuous innovation and advancement of skills and capabilities. Without funding for training, how can you help your team improve its expertise so that they will be ready for career advancement when opportunities eventually arise?

Developing individuals, a team or a large organization typically takes place during three kinds of activities:

1. The Classroom: The first activity is some type of educational experience that introduces new knowledge, concepts, and thinking. Without a training budget, it is exactly this type of infusion of new knowledge that is held back from organizations. I will come back to training; first let’s describe the two other activities.

2. Applied Knowledge: The second activity that can advance your expertise is taking new knowledge and working on—and solving—difficult problems that reach just beyond, but not too far beyond, your existing capabilities. Exploration, creativity and trial and error provide the crucible for not only coming up with an acceptable solution but also developing deeper and broader expertise in the problem’s domain. In essence, tackling progressively more complex problems makes functional new knowledge and expands your expertise.

But, there is a risk. Tackling problems with complexity far beyond the individual’s existing knowledge base is like trying to bridge a canyon that is just too wide for your existing building materials. When problems are too difficult then solutions are not found, frustration builds, confidence diminishes and you lose the desire to keep trying. Yet, without new problems to solve, you get bored, lose focus and performance suffers. Maintaining the right balance of finding challenging problems, but not too challenging, is difficult.

3. Deconstruction and Examination: The third activity for developing expertise involves tackling recurring problems but in a different way. You can treat a recurring problem as something more complex than how you have represented it in the past. Look at it from different perspectives. Reframe it in new ways. Think about the problem differently. With a new representation of the problem in hand, then try solving it in a new way. Because you already have past solutions to fall back upon, the risk of frustration, diminished confidence, and lost desire is minimized. Solving the new representation of the problem will expand your expertise and may even lead to innovation and productivity improvements.

Without any a training budget and the new knowledge that comes with it, you still can help your team advance their expertise by focusing on this third way to develop expertise. Ask your team to represent existing problems in a new and different way and then ask them to solve the new representation. For instance, if the team’s task is to produce a large annual report, ask what problem is the report trying to solve? Who uses the report and for what purpose? What value can the report create? What data is needed, in what format, and by whom? These questions likely will lead to a new and more complex formulation of the challenge, which in turn may lead to an innovation in what the team delivers. Even if it doesn’t lead to an innovation, your team will learn from the exercise and build its expertise. It is kind of like going to your gym for your regular workout but using common weights for new exercise. Doing so can strengthen a different set of muscles that can expand your capabilities.

If you are fortunate enough to have some training budget then your focus should be on getting a higher return on investment from it. You can do so by making sure that those who receive training soon thereafter use the new knowledge to tackle more complex problems than they are used to. Solving complex problems that couldn’t be solved before the training is a great way to demonstrate return on training investment. Who knows, such results may even lead to an increase in your training budget.

Duce a mente (May you lead by thinking),

Jackson Nickerson

]]>

How to Get a Micromanager Off Your Back

Jackson Nickerson, Brookings Executive Education — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:30:00 -0400

Often, I see micromanagement in the guise of accountability from the highest levels. It stifles empowerment. Upper management gives the directive to empower their employees and then demands weekly reports on the progress. Then they institute goals, quotas and deadlines. This doesn’t feel like empowerment to me. What conversation can I have with my manager to get me personally to a place where I feel more empowered, more emboldened and able to take risks?

--Anonymous

Empowerment can be a valuable approach to leading people. The basic approach to empowerment is to develop employee capabilities for tackling complex challenges beyond their previously narrowly defined tasks and then to delegate the leader’s decision-making authority to them. Empowering employees can lead to greater adaptability, flexibility, innovation, and long-run performance as subordinates take ownership of their roles.

Empowerment does not mean abandoning responsibility and accountability; instead, it means the leader must set expectations and find agreement with subordinates on how they will be evaluated. Then, the leader must avoid micromanaging. With empowerment, leaders spend much of their time serving their subordinates by removing bottlenecks and barriers that they cannot easily do on their own.

As many an experienced manager will know, empowering employees is more easily said than done. Transitioning to an empowerment approach is made easier by providing appropriate training to employees. The more challenging part of the transition, however, is shifting both the leader’s and subordinates’ thinking and mindset.

Empowerment does not come easily when either leaders or subordinates have “grown up” in a directive and compliance-based culture. All too easily, a leader who wants to empower subordinates can fall back into micromanaging by unilaterally directing activities and demanding additional measures and reports. What is going on when this happens and what can subordinates do to achieve a more empowered relationship?

Growing up, my dad had many quaint sayings. The one that comes to mind in response to this question is, “it takes two to tango,” a phrase made famous in a 1952 melody sung by Pearly Bailey. Trying to shift to an empowerment approach is challenging if the leader and subordinate do not know each other’s dance moves.

One challenge is that a leader may state they want to empower subordinates, but in times of stress, they quickly return to the thought patterns that worked in the past. In other words, the leader may want to try a new dance but hasn’t learned all the moves.

Another challenge arises when a subordinate acts in a way that does not meet the leader’s expectations. Perhaps the expectations were not clearly communicated or clearly understood. Or, perhaps the leader did not provide sufficient training or the subordinate did not make the most of the training. No matter the source, the leader who initially trusted the subordinate enough to delegate “decision rights” now has a diminished level of trust. With a lower level of trust comes increased oversight including goals, quotas, deadlines, and more frequent direction as these moves reduce the leader’s uncertainty about performance expectations. They also reduce empowerment.

The fundamental challenge for the subordinates, if they want to regain empowerment, is to figure out how to repair trust. As you might imagine, repairing trust is more difficult; far more difficult, that building trust in the first place. What can you do to repair trust with your leader?

My recommendation is to begin by engaging in a reflection technique I call Aperio Examen. The Aperio Examen has four steps:

1. The reflection begins by first thinking about what has gone well in your job—especially between you and your boss. We all have successes each and every day. Acknowledge these successes, at least in your mind’s eye, and give yourself a pat on the back. Doing so is an important precursor to the next step.

2. Now, identify what has not gone well between you and your manager. Use your “literary creativity’ to make up a story—a narrative—in which the entire situation is your fault. Crafting such a narrative may be difficult for some but is a very important exercise.

3. With the imaginative story in mind, reflect on each part of the story and evaluate which parts might be true. If you are like most people in these situations, you will discover you do share some blame and may have inadvertently contributed to the loss of trust.

4. Having identified ways in which you may have contributed to the situation, think about what you could have done differently and how you could have known to act differently. Try to recall these heuristics over the next several days (practicing the Aperio Exam on a daily basis for issues at work as well as at home, can fundamentally change your thinking and relationship).

With your reflection in hand, you can now have a discussion with your manager. Explain what has happened from your perspective. Share and acknowledge your role in what happened. In other words, apologize, which will signal that your transgression does not reflect the true nature of who you are. Also, explain what you would have done differently now that you have reflected on the situation. Finally, ask how, together, you can rebuild trust to again move in the direction of empowerment.

You may be thinking that that you did nothing wrong. That it was entirely your manager’s fault so why should you take any blame? That sentiment is your ego talking. Ego can get in the way of both the Aperio Examen (which means “unguarded examination”) and having this important conversation with your manager. This same ego also gets in the way of you becoming a better leader, at the base of which is taking responsibility and learning from the situation. If you listen to your ego, you will continue to foist blame on the manager, which will come through in your words and deeds and only widen the loss of trust. Remember, it takes two to tango.

Duce a mente (May you lead by thinking),

Jackson Nickerson

]]>

Leadership in an Age of Righteousness

Jackson Nickerson, Brookings Executive Education — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 16:42:00 -0400

With the pitched battle in Congress that led to the recent government shutdown and the growing debt-ceiling debate, can leadership lessons be drawn from this conflict to help leaders of organizations deal with similar internal battles?

--Jackson Nickerson

This column typically is reserved for responses to leadership questions from government executives. The government shut down is so rare and striking that I took liberty to pose my own question, the response to which I hope will be of value to government executives who face such pitched battles in their own organizations.

From time to time throughout history, across civilizations, and within organizations, communities occasionally experience epochs of righteousness. Righteousness is a word invented by William Tyndale, who first translated Greek and Hebrew bibles into English around 1526. This earliest meaning of righteousness is associated with an attribute of God and describes upright, moral, and guiltless actions. Ironically, his translation, which eventually formed the basis of the King James Bible, was viewed as heresy by righteous clerics who executed him and then burned his corpse at the stake.

Today, we live in an age of righteousness in which we find polarized communities in the United States as well as around the globe. Each pole believes that their own righteousness is moral and just and believing that the other side is immoral, the devil, or worse. Whether it is health care, the gun debate, abortion, the debt, size of government, social transfers, or other wedge issues, both sides have a righteousness that resists easy resolution. What can leaders who experience such polarizing righteousness in their organization do to resolve the conflict and move forward?

Leaders can travel along four paths to resolve the conflict of righteousness. Each path has different implications for organizational leaders.

1. War: When two righteous sides confront each other the most common pathway to resolution is war. Ultimately, one side must vanquish the other, which can sow the seeds of later insurrections. The American Civil War offers one example and modern day terrorism offers another. Current behaviors in Congress too might be described in this way.

In an organizational context, the conflict between executives and their fiefdoms ends only when one side wins and the other is defeated in battle. The leaders of the defeated side are retired or fired. Leaders who choose such a path end up winning by using strategy and tactics to destroy their enemy. Doing so, however, can be extraordinarily costly because of the great enduring harm that is inflicted on everyone in the organization.

2. Concessions: An alternative path is to negotiate and find a middle ground by each side making concessions. In practice, concessions can be effective but rarely are when righteousness is involved. Righteousness implies that people believe they are taking a moral and ethical stance, which means they are unable to understand and feel empathy for the opposing side. Indeed, in such situations debates reduce to name calling, which only hardens righteousness and makes negotiation impossible. All one needs to do is read commentaries below any online New York Times article on a wedge issue to see the dynamic play out. Also, one round of concessions encourages the righteous to demand more and then take more extreme positions in successive issues, which can stimulate greater righteousness from the opposing side. The net result is that making concessions among the righteous typically leads to war.

The challenge for organizational leaders is to find ways to restructure incentives so that it becomes in the best interests of both sides to negotiate in a way that saves face. Incentives are not only economic, but also can be social, emotional, and career concerns designed to build trust and reputation instead of destroying them. Also, the leader must rebuild respect and understanding by keeping righteous actors from demonizing each other, which is no easy challenge. Leadership success by making concessions is rare when dealing with righteousness opponents.

3. Governance: In many situations, communities can resolve conflict from righteousness if a large and powerful enough interests use mechanisms of governance as a pathway to remove and replace righteous leaders. In essence, an often-silent middle must rise up and use the institutions available to them to bring in new leadership. Governance mechanisms sometimes can be manipulated, like a gerrymandered electorate found in many Congressional districts, thereby inhibiting the use of the institutions of governance to constructively resolve conflict, which leads back to the first pathway—war.

Overarching leadership, hierarchical authority, oversight boards, ethics and audit panels, investigations, etc., all can question the legitimacy of leaders who display righteousness in organizational settings. Such leaders can be fired. Of course, fired leaders can fight back in various ways and in some instances challenge the legitimacy of the various governance decisions. Protests, litigation, and reputational assaults all impose costs on organizations and surviving leaders. Such assaults can even weaken or permanently effect the organization or institution. In sum, organizational leaders can appeal to institutional supports but in so doing must assess the extent to which those who are removed from power can damage these supports.

So far, the three paths don’t offer much hope. Conflict among the righteousness ultimately is resolved by creating winners and losers. But costs on people, organizations, and institutions are excessive and potentially destabilizing. In other words, most lose. Is there any way in which the righteousness can be brought together to collaborate and find, on balance, a positive outcome for all? Is there hope for a better way?

4. Formulation: I believe that there is a fourth path if warring factions adopt an appropriate mindset and process for inquiry. Battles between the righteous take place in large part because combatants focus on solutions. Their righteous zeal has convinced them that they have the right solution for which they are willing to fight. It is this dynamic and focus on solutions that creates wedge issues and destroys hope. For example, those involved in the gun debate focus on either eliminating regulation of weapons or restricting assault weapons and magazine size, competing solutions that largely ignore formulating the challenge in a comprehensive way.

Organizational leaders have the ability to convene meetings among combatants and use specific expert processes to formulate first symptoms and then causes without ever speaking of solutions. Engaging combatants in formulation is a source of hope. Doing so in a way to achieve consensus necessarily requires opponents to engage in conversation, share information and knowledge, to listen and understand each other to comprehensively formulate challenges. Such comprehensive formulation gives rise to the development of creative solutions that will never be found or adopted in a war filled with righteousness. While such processes may be difficult in a national political context, they are feasible in an organizational one.

Perhaps the organizational leadership lesson from an age of righteousness is that either the war better be worth fighting, as the paths of concessions and governance are unlikely to resolve the conflict, or that specific expert processes better be used to comprehensively formulate the challenge before trying to solve it. Either way, it might be wise for organizations and even society to reserve righteousness for an attribute of the gods because in humans, all too often it leads to the costs and tragedies of war.

Duce a mente (may you lead by thinking).

Jackson Nickerson

]]>

If It's So Hard to Fire Feds, Why Are So Many Federal Leaders Risk Averse?

Jackson Nickerson — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:00:00 -0400

Ask EIG is your chance to seek answers to public sector management challenges and conundrums. Submit your questions here.

When it’s so hard to fire a federal employee, why are so many federal leaders risk averse? I’ve never seen anybody get canned for making a mistake, yet we all walk on eggshells as if any mistake will mean our heads. Why do you think federal leaders are so unwilling to take chances?

--Anonymous

Several of the recent Ask EIG columns have explored questions about performance measurement and encouraging innovation among workers. This week’s commenter asks a similar question but one that focuses on leaders instead of employees.

A recent report on innovation in the federal work force by the Partnership for Public Service using OPM’s Best Places to Work in the Federal Government survey data, argued that based on the extent to which government agencies are innovative, that on the whole, innovativeness has been slipping in each of the past three years. If being fired is an unlikely and extraordinary act for federal leaders, as the commenter suggests, why might innovativeness be falling? Why are leaders unwilling to take risks, especially when risks in the name of innovation could lead to substantial benefits to agencies and citizens?

(HAVE A QUESTION? Submit your most pressing management questions below or click here)

A first place to look for an explanation is at the benefits versus costs on taking innovation risks. What is the upside if someone takes a risk and it leads to an innovation versus the downside risk of failure? In today’s environment, successful innovation rarely leads to any type of financial reward, especially during the past three years, which may explain why innovativeness generally is in decline. Perhaps a successful innovator receives a reputation boost and receives some acknowledgement, but does success translate into career benefits? With OPM Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs) spanning so many categories (five major ECQs with 28 component competencies) even a successful innovation likely counts for little toward promotion. If too many competencies are measured (in my view, measuring more than a handful dilutes the impact of any one measure) then good performance in one dimension will have little effect on career advancement.

In contrast, what happens if the risk leads to failure? Is the individual congratulated and encouraged to try again because they followed a good process or are they punished, taking a blow to their reputation and subjected to diminished prospects for their advancement? Will such a leader be called in to testify to Congress or receive verbal abuse about wasting taxpayer dollars when the attempt fails? If failure can lead to these bad outcomes then why would anyone ever try to innovate?

Other factors also matter. Substantial, systematic, or radical innovation can require a combination of authorities that reside with different offices and even different agencies. Authorities are difficult, costly, and time-consuming to change and combine in the federal government. In fact, senior leaders may fight to keep their authority to self-justify their position. The reorganization of authorities in the private sector, while also difficult, is much easier that in the federal government. So even if innovation is rewarded in the federal government structure, the inertia of authorities may limit innovation to incremental process improvement and autonomous research projects like those found in agencies like NASA.

Another challenge to innovation is the government policy to measure performance. Such measures and metrics are kind of like the game of baseball but where only runs scored matter. The number of swings and batters battling at plate don’t count. Put differently, in an environment where metrics are about outcomes and not process, what leader is willing to take the risk of missing a performance target or losing any game? The net result is that performance measures undermine risk taking.

Yet, even with all of these pressures lined up against innovation in the government context, innovation can still be found (see for example, Nextgov’s Bold Award nominees). The willingness to engage in innovative efforts naturally depends on the leader’s superordinate and the culture of their agency or unit. Superordinate leaders have the opportunity to insulate their subordinates from the downsides of failed innovation. Based on the Partnership for Public Service’s analysis, it would appear that NASA and the FTC are agencies that on average encourages innovation where other agencies seem to encourage it less so

If you experience a local environment that is not innovative then why not talk about it with your leader? Engage in a conversation about how the leader can change the environment to encourage and protect innovative efforts and risk taking. Help them understand how to increase the upside from taking risks while simultaneously decreasing the downside.

Duce a mente (May you lead by thinking),

Jackson Nickerson

]]>

Is Your Team Up to the Task?

Jackson Nickerson, Brookings Executive Education — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:56:13 -0400

Ask EIG is your chance to seek answers to public sector management challenges and conundrums. Submit your questions here.

Collaboration is a never-ending challenge in my office. Many of us prefer to work alone yet we’re constantly encouraged to work together (which doesn’t seem to work). Is it wrong to be more effective working individually? How can I let my leadership know that I prefer to work by myself to develop an idea before bringing it to the team while still seeming like a team player?

-- Anonymous

A common mantra in most organizations is that teams, especially diverse ones, lead to higher productivity and employee satisfaction. The belief that teams represent a superior way to organize all too often translates into leaders calling for teamwork in every task. Yet, the reality is many teams -- some argue the majority of teams -- don’t perform well, which can hamper productivity. Why are individuals so often asked to be on teams? When can people work alone yet still contribute to the organization in a productive way? How can these issues be resolved?

Sometimes a team offers a productive way to organize work and sometimes it doesn’t. Moreover, some teams work well and some times they don’t. The challenge for leaders is to figure out when to use a team and how to help the team be successful.

Teams offer efficiencies in three types of situations.

First, teams are useful when a task is physically beyond a single person. Lifting a large and heavy box is the classic example of a task where teamwork between two or more people is needed. But these kinds of tasks probably are not the norm in your organization.

Second, teams can be useful in settings where tasks are repetitive but interdependent. For instance, consider an auditing team. An audit is a relatively standard process, yet sometimes what an auditor discovers in one part of the review can affect the productivity of another auditor. In other words, team productivity is enhanced when individuals adjust to and help one another. Having incentives and workers monitoring each other to achieve those incentives can further boost productivity. Teamwork is valuable when coordinated efforts allow for constant and mutual adjustments. In such instances teamwork can be substantially more productive than individuals working independently.

Perhaps the most valuable kinds of teams arise from collectively formulating and solving wicked problems. Ending veteran homelessness is an extreme example of a wicked problem. In this case, no one person has enough information and knowledge to comprehensively figure out what the problem is, let alone how to solve it. Teams, if they function well, can bring together individuals with diverse information, knowledge and motivations to collaboratively and comprehensively formulate as well as solve the problem in ways that individuals simply can’t accomplish on their own.

Just because a situation calls for teamwork doesn’t mean that a team automatically will be successful. Randomly throwing people together and asking them to work as a group is recipe for failure, if not disaster. For teams to work well, they need to be trained in and follow proven processes appropriate for the task. Collaborative Structured Inquiry, for instance, is a process taught at Brookings Executive Education for tackling complex enterprise problems. This approach can help a team build trust, develop understanding, and comprehensively formulate and solve enterprise problems. Other methods, like Six Sigma, are appropriate for other tasks. Yet few teams are trained to use such processes.

Even if a leader correctly determines that a task is best tackled by a team and then trains the members in an appropriate process for coordination and collaboration, one more thing is needed for the group to be productive. The team members must like working with others. The fact is some people don’t like to work in a team setting. This doesn’t make them bad workers. But, just like in basketball, if a star player does not enjoy collaborating with others then the team is unlikely to win a championship.

One option is to restructure the task so that teamwork is not needed. Of course, if the task is best suited for teamwork then reconfiguring the tasks so they can be performed individually structurally locks in low performance—a choice that few leaders would want to make. Another option is to help the person who prefers to work alone find a position, perhaps in another organization, where the tasks better match the worker’s capability. Otherwise unhappiness and low productivity could impair both the worker and the organization.

In sum, three questions need to be addressed. Have the tasks been designed for the greatest productivity? If so, and a team approach is best, have the team members been trained in an appropriate process for cooperation and collaboration? Finally, does teamwork offer the best match for you or will some other job be a better match?

]]>