Indecision is the key to flexibility

On the surface, this statement sounds like the enemy of a good plan. If we made a decision, we'd be seeing progress already. Being indecisive is thought of as bad. But is it always? How often do we hurry to get a project started, to find that a decision-maker changes their mind? Probably more ... [click here to read more, and don't forget to update your bookmark or RSS feed]

Stop having meetings, they suck up too much time

I blogged about meetings a few weeks ago, and provided some tips on how to approach them realistically. Let's face it, no one likes meetings.

Since I published that blog, I have been pondering an even bigger question. Why should we even have meetings? I'd say that very few meetings are necessary. Most of them could be easily replaced by collaboration tools, and accountability. Meetings are happening because people have always went to meetings. It's like sharing the pain. "When I was coming up, we had meetings! We'd all gather in a conference room, and talk. And then we'd talk some more!" It's a good thing smoking is banned.

There are some meetings that are highly valuable, and these are working meetings, where a deliverable is produced in the meeting. These generally focus on establishing or changing processes, or on planning. This needs to be done with everyone present.

Empty conference rooms rock

Most meetings are focused on leveling information across functions. This comes in the form of each person providing a brief (when we're lucky) update on what they are working on. Previous action items are updated, and new ones added. The meeting is really focused on making sure that stuff gets done, which is really just accountability. If you have a meeting coming up, and you were supposed to have something done for it, the peer pressure of showing up at the meeting with empty hands will probably motivate you to get the stuff done. Sharing information is a helpful part of the meeting also, it can validate the 120 e-mails we received since the last meeting. Attendees sit and think - yup, Bob got that done, it was in one of the 120 e-mails we had since the meeting last week.

If our meetings are primarily focused on sharing information and tracking action items, these can easily be managed using one of the many collaboration tools. Action items become assigned tasks, and "blah blah" updates become Wikis.

How much time do you spend in meetings that could have been eliminated by a few e-mails, a Wiki, or an task tracking tool? Would you still do your work if you didn't have a meeting to remind you to do it? Are meetings things of the past? 

If you enjoyed this blog, please share this it using the social media buttons below.

The dysfunctions of a heroic team

I love a good slogan, and one of my favorites is "There's no "I" in team!" What a bunch of baloney. My typical response is "You can't spell team without "me""! That always gets them.

Years ago I learned a very valuable lesson about teamwork. At the time I was a lowly sergeant in a National Guard training unit. We had primarily senior people in the unit due to the type of training we managed. Our commander, a lieutenant colonel from the Army, was the person who had the largest impact on my life trajectory. Many of the people I served with under his command have the same high regards for him.

He was full of appropriate, timely, and sound advice. It always came to us as little nuggets, and I have a folder full of them in my desk drawer. There was never a time I interacted with him where I walked away without having learned something. It was a great unit to be in, and it couldn't have come at a better time in my life.

One of the nuggets he tossed out there for us, is the concept of teamwork. He had a different twist. It was refreshing and different, yet it made so much sense once I grasped it.

It was so simple, yet so true. We are all sold on the heroic vision of teamwork. Everyone should do all they can to ensure a project is successful. Yet by doing this, we create an environment for failure. Roles become unclear, and work gets missed. Inordinate amounts of effort are exerted by the few, while the many wander around trying to figure out what to do next.

I was Infantry at the time, so this made sense. If our team is setting up a perimeter, we place our crew served weapons (the ones that are the loudest) to cover high speed avenues of approach. We then divide the perimeter into sectors of fire, where each person has a "lane" to cover. If one side of the perimeter is attacked, no one should be going to assist unless ordered to do so. Because if someone goes to assist, they are leaving their sector of fire open, unguarded, and vulnerable.

A few years ago, I was reminded of this lesson. I was working the foredeck of a 37 foot sailboat in a race. The spinnaker became fouled, and I was struggling frantically to fix it. I hadn't asked for help, and was surprised to find the person from the mast there to assist me. No assistance was needed, and once the spinnaker was ready to hoist, it couldn't be hoisted because the person working the mast was standing there. Offering me advice. Offering me assistance, and not ready to hoist the spinnaker. This wasn't teamwork.

I've carried this lesson with me, and often see organizations apply the heroic definition of teamwork. In doing so, they deprive people of learning. If a team member is struggling, it is in the best interest of the team to assist the struggling team member in learning their job better. This will ensure that the next time they are called on, they will be able to actually do their job. Doing a struggling team member's job perpetuates dysfunction.

What dysfunctional teamwork have you seen? Do you tend to help others by doing their by, or by helping them learn their job? Please use the comments below to share!


Please use the convenient buttons below to share this with your social network. They may be saved from dysfunction.

Thanks Darry D., the lessons are still being synthesized and applied. 

Non-smokers' comp time

Several years ago, I worked in a customer service department for a small company. We had many smokers, and several times a day, they'd all wander outside to enjoy a smoke. I'd keep working. So one day when they went out, I opened my desk drawer, pulled out a bicycling magazine, put my feet on my desk, and started reading. My boss walked in, and asked "what are you doing?" I slowly looked at him, leaving the magazine open on my legs, and said "I'm taking some non-smoker's comp time". He gave me the look. You know the one I'm talking about.

I'm all for a person's right to smoke cigarettes. I applaud them for having the fortitude to stand outside in all weather, often without protection from the harsh elements, shielding the glowing ember from the ice packed northern winds. They are the kind of people organizations need. Their focus on maintaining an appropriate level of nicotine in their system is the stuff success is built from. All smokers reading this blog are suddenly craving a cigarette. It's okay, head out and have it. This blog will be here when you get back.

It seems that the more stressful the environment is where I work, the more people smoke. Some days I'd head out of the office for lunch, and there'd be a crowd of people smoking. They looked like the same people who were smoking when I walked past the entry door a short time before. When I came back after lunch, the same crowd was there. Or at least they looked the same.

Hey Buddy, can you spare a match?

A friend once said that he smoked so he could keep up on what was happening across the office. Many of the administrative professionals who supported the leaders smoked, and they'd swap gossip between deep inhales of their chemically treated, dried weed. He knew when down-sizing was about to happen, who was nailed for downloading porn, and who was pilfering office products. His smoking was a more personal form of LinkedIn, maybe he could start a new networking site, and name it SmokeIn. But no one would visit the site, because every time someone mentions a cigarette, smokers feel the need to have one. It's okay, go ahead and have one. This blog will be here when you get back.

One very hectic day at Dysfunctional, Inc, I looked outside and saw the gorgeous weather. The smokers were really enjoying it - as much as one can enjoy getting fresh air while smoking. My team was all busy, head down and getting the work done. It was a Friday at around 3:00. I walked out into our cube area, and called my team into my office. After a few minutes, they were patiently huddled in the office, wondering why I called them in. Was the gig up? Were we being outsourced?

"Do any of you smoke?" I asked, already knowing the answer to my question. No one answered affirmatively. I went on "Okay, since none of our department smokes, I feel it's only fair that we implement a new departmental perk. It is called non-smokers' compensation time. Starting right now, I want everyone to look hard at what you're doing. If it must be done today, please do it. If it can wait until Monday, then I'm asking you to pack up your stuff, and get out of here. Do this in small groups, without drawing attention to yourself." It took a few seconds, but the grins slowly started to appear. "Do you mean we can leave work now?" was the first question. "What part of what I said wasn't clear?" I replied. "I'll be here finishing up quarterly financial reports, and won't be taking attendance. Thanks for your hard work, and get out of here".

Within 15 minutes, the office was empty. We utilized non-smokers' comp time that summer. We kept it quiet, some perks should be outside of the process.

I hereby declare that anyone reading this blog is free to leave the office early today. Unless you smoke. You can just go outside and light one up. See you in 10 minutes for the last couple of paragraphs!

Have you utilized any motivational techniques that didn't comply with organizational policies? What were they? Did your employees end up more productive, or less productive? Please comment at the bottom of this blog. 

Disclaimer: I smoked for years. I quit decades ago, and still occasionally dream about smoking. I know how tough it is to quit, and I know how much smoking impacts health. My best advice is to just quit. Cold turkey. You are stronger than the marketing. If you don't want to quit smoking, it's okay, go have a cigarette. I remember how I felt when I smoked.

If you liked this post, please share it with your social network using the buttons below.

_______________

The taste of project failure

The atrium between the office areas was filled with food. There were chafing dishes along one wall, surrounded by trays overflowing with pastries. Another table had urns of coffee and tea, and multi-colored pitchers of juice. People were gathered in clusters in the room, picking at the feast, and talking in low voices. The walls were covered in banners with the name of a program printed on them in big colored block letters.

The bitter taste of breakfast

"What's the party for?" I asked an acquaintance as I passed through the area, headed to my office. "It's for the Big Failing Project Team", he whispered, as though we were discussing a personal problem of someone nearby. I stopped, trying to connect a failing project and free food. "Why is the Big Failing Project Team getting free breakfast?" My acquaintance looked at me like I had suddenly sprouted a pimple between my eyes. "This is team building. Leadership is worried that they've been working too hard, and want to reward them so they will know they are valued." The gears turned in my head. "If they worked hard, why is their project failing?" Silence. "So if I want our project team to be recognized, I should encourage them to fail?" I've always loved asking the tough questions. I didn't wait for his response, I turned and left the atrium, adding yet another dysfunction to the list of organizational dysfunctions I'd never commit when I made it to the top.

A couple of minutes later, my boss came by my office. I related the story of the free breakfast for the Big Failing Project Team to him. He recommended I just go ahead and get some of the free food. I explained that I wasn't bothered by the free food, I was bothered that the Big Successful Project Team, the one I was on, was ahead of schedule and under budget. If a free breakfast was being offered, it should be for the successful team, not the failing team. We were rewarding the wrong behavior. It was his turn to be silent. I wondered if there actually was a pimple between my eyes.

At the time, I was finishing up a graduate certificate in project management at Stevens Institute of Technology, while enrolled in my first semester of a masters of science in management at Thomas Edison State College. If you've ever been in a masters program, you'll probably remember how your mind begins to view your job like a case study. Often times, the case study you are living has a strong resemblance to Scott Adam's comic strip Dilbert. This is why Dilbert is so popular, it hits close to home. I once tried to watch The Office, and had to stop. It made me feel very uncomfortable. The characters almost seeming to portray people I know, maybe in some ways who I am. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I reflected on why a team would be rewarded for failing, and never came up with a reason why this is good. The projects I was managing at the time, were the most difficult. Few of my team members were on site with me. I managed all of the off-site programs. My team on a project consisted of content developers in Illinois, editors in Massachusetts, and developers in India. Another project I managed had content developers in Illinois, video production in Massachusetts, a producer in Mexico, and video locations spread around the Spanish speaking world. No breakfast enchiladas for us, we used that time for communicating.

How did we avoid the free food? We talked and e-mailed each other constantly. We thanked each other for meeting deadlines, acknowledged extra effort, and when appropriate, we complained about the obstacles, but overcame them. Our success was dependent on each other, and we knew that the miles that separated us couldn't stand in the way of our getting the project completed successfully. Departmental politics were left out of our work. In that organization, success meant obscurity. Failure meant rewards. I'm proud to know our team didn't deserve a free breakfast. But I did sneak over and get some of it from the buffet table. I brought it back to my office so no one would think I was part of the failure. It didn't taste as good as it looked. Does it ever?

If you enjoyed this blog, please share it with your social network using the buttons below.

_______________

Cleaning up a workplace mess

We've all done stupid things at work. Maybe it was a snap decision that placed our organization in a bad position during a negotiation. The stupid decision cut into margins, and was outside of the company policy. Or we completely spaced-out acting on something important, causing a late delivery, and the negative ripple effect it has on an initiative. We suddenly have that sinking feeling, knowing we screwed up, and that we need to fix it. How do we fix it?

I've seen people do some pretty strange things to get themselves out of bad situations. From my observations, there are actively wrong, passive, and actively right ways to clean up our mess. Which route we select, and how we approach fixing the mistake will have long term impacts on us an individuals, the people around us, and our organizations. I'd go as far as arguing that how we clean up our mess has a collective impact on us as a society.

One of the most common actively wrong ways I've observed colleagues try to cover up their mess is to lean on a vendor. They will usually try to manipulate the vendor into doing work outside of the scope of the contract. This manipulation was usually effective because the original statement of work was poorly written, and the vendor worries that if they don't step up, they may never get work from the client organization again. In some cases they may be correct. Some readers may be leaning back in their chair thinking "and what's wrong with this?".  If the mess is a result of the statement of work truly not reflecting the expectation of the attributes of the final product, then this may not be manipulation, and may not be a wrong approach. But I am referring to messes here. Manipulating a vendor to do free work is theft.

I've also seen project managers allocate expenses from one project to cover the costs of another. When this is done for a client project, it is often theft. It is no different than sending them an invoice for something they never ordered or received. The project manager is stealing from one client to pay for another project. In the process of reviewing the expenses of projects I was managing, I've found expenses from projects managed by other people, as well as administrative expenses allocated to my projects. I won't go as far as saying these were intentional mis-allocations to cover someone else's mistakes, but knowing the environment I was working in at the time, I certainly had good cause to be suspicious.

A passive approach is to not do anything, and hope the mistake moves through the process without being detected. I confess. I have done this in the past. The level of anticipatory stress becomes very high, and in the end, it was never worth it.

When we make a mistake, someone will generally be harmed in some way. When we cover up our mistakes, we harm others. Harming others degrades us in many ways. It damages our ethical compass, causes us emotional turmoil, which often manifests itself in our physical bodies, and when the mistake is eventually found out, trust is broken. Broken trust can't be put back together. Once broken, it stays broken. This trust may have been from our organization, our boss, our colleagues, or a vendor. It doesn't matter where the trust resides, it won't come back.

Early in my career I identified the actively right thing to do when I screw up. I throw myself on my sword early. I've found that the most effective way to make a mistake disappear is to be honest about the mistake. When we are honest about the mistake, people will generally rally around us to clean up the mess. Everyone makes mistakes, and the people around us will see some part of themselves in our mistake. It is a way for them to right a wrong of the past by helping you fix yours. We are all human. Working as a team to clean up a mess is the sign of a good team. It is also validation of a good relationship with our colleagues, including our boss. This approach also works with vendors. When we ask for help to fix a problem we caused, a vendor will usually do all they can to help us out.

By being honest, we will be harmed, but we are at fault, and as the person at fault, we are the right person to be harmed. This type of harm is usually very short-lived, and quickly forgotten. Being honest builds trust, it doesn't destroy it. I've found that if I state what went wrong, take the blame, identify what I learned from the experience, and ask for assistance in fixing the mistake, all will come out well. The humility we must display is an important part of growing, and it will help us steer clear of the same mistakes in the future. Throw yourself on your sword. It won't hurt that bad.

If you like this blog, please share it with your social network using the buttons below.

___________

The beatings... Oops, I meant to say "meetings" will continue until morale improves

Let's face it, many people in white collar jobs spend way too much time in meetings. I'm not saying the meetings aren't necessary. If we didn't meet, how would we formulate plans and make decisions? I've noticed for years that unless I am facilitating the meeting, my presence is only needed for a portion of the agenda items. Yet when I look at my calendar most weeks, I see that over half of my time is taken up attending them. After all the meetings, there's little time to do other work.

There are loads of articles written about how to have more productive meetings - the value of agendas, how to facilitate to keep things on track, dealing with side conversations, and a host of other tips and tricks. One would think that just distributing an article or two to our colleagues about the subject would solve the problems within a week or two. But we all know that's not the case. Because few people have the insight to recognize how they contribute to unproductive meetings. So there's not much we can do to force productivity into meetings we attend, unless we want to irritate other people.

I've noticed a trend over the last few years, where fewer people attend meetings in person. They will instead opt to attend virtually, using tools like Webex and LiveMeeting. These types of tools were only used for sales presentations when they first came out. But with our increasingly mobile work force, the numbers of people attending remotely seems to keep increasing. Another trend I see is that often people will dial into meetings from their desks, which can sometimes be as close as 10 feet from the conference room where the meeting is taking place. This sometimes causes a stereo effect when the person speaks, because you can hear them through the wall, as well as over the speaker phone. Why would someone call into a meeting from 10 feet away? That's a rhetorical question, there's no need to answer.

So what do we all do while in meetings? Here are some techniques I've utilized when in meetings that didn't require my full attention, and being facilitated by others:

• Write - Bringing a laptop to a meeting isn't acceptable in many organizations, but a paper note pad is acceptable. Using paper helps me free associate ideas, and often when I am in a meeting, something someone else says will trigger a blinding flash of the obvious to improve something, and I can capture it quickly. I've also been able to utilize long and large meetings to outline plans, develop ideas, and re-do lists. These types of activities are easy to drop and pick back up, with little loss of attention during the meeting. Don't sit near the presenter if you are doing this. Writing will look like you are capturing all of their ideas that flow like honey, and if they see you are writing something else, it kills the illusion.
• Watch - Focus on the people in the room, noting their non-verbal communications. This is especially insightful to do in meetings that may be controversial, where a departmental turf-battle is taking place. There are some people who should stay very far from a poker table, and you will know who these people are from watching their faces. This kind of observation also helps us learn how to control our own facial expressions, because others in the room may be watching us. There is a whole study around this, called Facial Action Coding Systems - or FACS. Being able to read non-verbal communications will help you immensely in your career, and it's a fun hobby. 
• Deflect - I learned a valuable lesson from a colleague at a company I used to work for. Never leave a meeting with more work than you came in with. This may sound selfish, but as I thought about it, it made perfect sense. With the shift to matrix organizations, there are always random and ambiguous things to do to support projects. Unless the activity is yours to do, don't volunteer - or at least not too much. If the activity were easy to do, someone else would have done it already. It's also more productive to determine who should be doing the work, so future random tasks in that category can be properly assigned. 
• Decline - We all work with these people. You know who they are. They call meetings with ambiguous subject lines, and no agenda. I generally refuse to attend without an idea of what will be discussed. This should be handled carefully, since many of these structureless meeting socializers will be hurt that the mere invitation wasn't enough to bring you in. It goes without saying, that if it's your boss, you will accept and show up. 

Are you the remote person, attending a meeting just in case someone needs to ask a question? If you can't utilize the above tips, try some of these to maintain your mental and physical agility. 

• Chair yoga - This is a great way to stay focused on the meeting. You are not visually distracted, and can alleviate the aches and pains we all experience from sitting in chairs. 
• Stand - This takes less effort, and isn't quite as good as chair yoga, but it is good for your back, and also helps you focus. You can even purchase a treadmill desk, and gain more benefit from the days you work at home. 

When you are leading the meetings, here are some tips:

• Respect - Just as you may not like sitting in long, poorly facilitated, and unstructured meetings, your colleagues probably feel the same way. Start meetings reasonably on time, have an agenda, facilitate to keep everyone on track, and end early. A one hour meeting ending at the 50 minute mark is a gift your colleagues will love you for. Most meetings start late, because the previous meeting ended late. Even a meeting that ends on time, causes the next meeting to start late, because we humans are biological creatures, with needs such as bathrooms and coffee, sometimes in that order.
• Understand - People who are remote may be multi-tasking. You'd do the same thing if you could. I use instant messaging to "ping" the next person to brief on a topic, so they are ready to talk when it's their turn. They will appreciate the nudge, since there's nothing more embarrassing than being at the door receiving a FedEx package, or letting the dog out the back door while someone is calling your name on the teleconference.
• Structure - An agenda is great, but if we allow people to endlessly drone, meetings take a long time. I use agenda "bucketing" as a way to improve the value of what people talk about. All participants on the call are asked to speak to specific categories - Successes, Decisions, and Updates. This structure keeps meetings way shorter, because they will need to organize their thoughts prior to the meeting, which will in turn make them more focused when speaking. I use a Wiki to capture notes, and instead of trying to capture the information during the call, or have an assistant do this, I have the team members add their own notes to the Wiki. This technique keeps the notes very clean. This format also allows team members who couldn't attend the meeting to quickly scan the notes to see key points.

What are your favorite activities to do while in meetings? Do you do work, or fun stuff, or a little of each? Please share your tips and techniques in the comments section.

If you like this post, please use the convenient social media buttons to share this with your friends and colleagues.

_____________________

Find the rhythm in your day

Rhythms are recognized in all living things, from the fungi growing under the trees in the woods, in all plants, animals, and us humans. These rhythms are referred to as circadian rhythms, and are an important aspect of life. Each human is unique, and although we are almost all wired to sleep at night (ask anyone working the night shift about this), and work during the day, each of us has unique aspects to our individual rhythm.

Rarely do we control our own life, or at least we may not think we can. (One area we can't control, is the imposed change in our clocks twice a year by Daylight Savings Time.) What I have found, is that by utilizing careful observation, realizing gains in self awareness, and flexibility in our planning, we can help organize our days to take advantage of our natural rhythm. Or we can fight it, and feel like we are not living right.

Click the link "circadian rhythms" in the first paragraph to explore this graphic

Over the years, I've learned some basic things about myself. My bed time varies, as do my daily activities, but I do always get up at 5:00 AM on weekdays. I find the morning to be a very productive time. A "me" time that is part of what I consider a very fulfilling life. My mornings are spent writing this blog, reading the news, carrying out the compost, and consuming coffee. I will sometimes exercise in the morning, but this is generally a seasonal change in my rhythm.

I know I am best at tackling my tough issues between around 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Knowing this, I tend to schedule the meetings I facilitate during this time period. I find that a meeting tackling tough issues too late in the day, or too early, will make it difficult for me to exercise the patience required to stay totally engaged in it. There are times I can overcome my late day sluggishness with caffeine, but this is like borrowing time. It is only good for so long.

My mornings at work are generally focused on short term plans (1-2 days) for initiatives I manage, and organizing my day. My late afternoons are a continuation of the morning, with more administrivia - such as replying to e-mails, and looking at my longer term calendar. If I bike commute, my ride home usually has me arriving in our driveway ready to dig in the dirt, or split wood. I love to eat dinner with my honey, followed by a good solid workout, and then evening tea while reconnecting with my honey for a couple of hours. The period at the end of the day is usually perfect for reading a book, followed by sleep. If the book is good, I may extend my awake time. And the next day the rhythm starts again.

There's a certain comfort I find in rhythm. There may be a certain amount of chaos all around me I can't control, but what I can control is how I react to the chaos. Acknowledging our rhythms affirms our strengths. These are not weaknesses; no one can be all things to all people - or to all issues. Our rhythm is our strength, and I see many people fight their rhythm as they appear to slowly degrade.

Do you acknowledge your rhythms, and leverage the strengths of them? Do you have a favorite time of day to do certain things? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

If you like this post, please share with your social network using the buttons below. And then go live your rhythm!

____________



For me, I 

Organizational Culture - balance between effectiveness and likability

I've worked for a variety of organizational structures in the course of my career. Something I've noticed, is that cultures vary from one place to another. There are tons of books out there explaining culture, how to pick and create the culture you want, and the importance of being in an organization with a culture that fits your work style. There are 263 books on Amazon.com that are about organizational culture. Don't read them all, I will summarize culture for you in this one blog.

I developed this theory one night while on a business trip, sitting in a hotel room, working on my masters. Culture is a continuum. On one side is "likability", and on the other is "effectiveness". Each organization is located somewhere on this continuum. The closer an organization gets to one side, the farther they get from the other side.

In the example above, I am using two organizations to show how the continuum works based on my experience. On the right, is the Army while I was mobilized. On the left is big book publishing before the Internet dramatically changed how they must do business.

The Army placed a higher value on individuals being effective than it did on individuals being liked. As a high performing organization, a unit would have high morale coupled with high effectiveness. The reason an organization can have both of these, is because the culture supports the enforcement of norms. Everyone knows how to act, and what is acceptable group behavior. If someone steps outside of the acceptable group behavior, anyone on the team will confront the person, and guide them back. I witnessed this in action many times, and rarely saw someone hold a grudge as the result of being corrected. This is how the culture worked.

In publishing, the focus was on being liked. When confronted with a decision related to a project, it was generally acceptable to either extend a deadline, hire more resources, or change the scope to meet the output. Rarely did I witness anyone be pushed to be effective. The value of the individual was how they interacted, and how nice they were. Everyone likes to work with nice people, but when it comes to getting stuff done, it was often difficult to say to someone "you had a month to do this 1 hour activity, why do you need another week?". That would be rude. It was better to hand wring, commiserate, and implement an alternate plan.

When starting at a new organization, it is very important to arrive on the left side of the scale, and determine where on the continuum the organization operates. Once you determine this, start working your way right until you are assimilated into the organization. If you start your new job on the right side of the continuum, and the organization is way on the other end, you risk damaging relationships. In the worse scenario, you may generate a "t-cell response" and be treated like an organizational germ. Now that isn't fun.

What other factors impact culture? Is there a vertical line to add, or additional aspect that is at the macro level?

If you like this post, please share with your social network using the buttons below.

______________________

Work/life balance, and the not so smart phone

I rolled into the office on time one Monday, parking my bicycle next to my cube. A colleague walked in behind me, laboring with her portable office. "You didn't reply to the e-mail I sent you" she stated matter-of-factly as she hefted the luggage into her cube. "When did you send it?" I asked. She exhaled noisily, and said "Ehhh.. Saturday night!". I put on my perplexed face, and asked "I just got in, how could I have answered your e-mail already?".

And thus the morning's dramatic dialog began. You don't check your e-mail on the weekend? No. What if something important happens? You can call my cell. How do you keep up with your work? I work while I'm in the office, and enjoy my family when I'm home. There's no cost to you to get a smart phone, and you won't have to carry the laptop! Yes there is, the cost is in the quality of my life. I wish I could do that! You can, you just don't. I could never do that! I have important work. I have an important life. We have to get you a Blackberry! No we don't, I won't use it.

This same person who sent me an e-mail on a weekend and anxiously awaited my reply had related that her husband also would work while at home. Many evenings they'd sit on the sofa watching television, and be instant messaging each other as they worked and watched their nightly shows. While their elbows were touching. That to me was incomprehensible.

For a short period, I began to feel guilt, and thought that maybe I should succumb to the pressure and get connected like everyone else. Sometimes in meetings, I'd be singled-out as the lone hold out who refuses to get a smart phone. But I never refused a smart phone, I just refused a smart phone for work. I held my ground, and people got used to it.

While working 3 years in my current position, I remember one phone call after hours. It was my boss. A project team needed to upload files to a server, and were experiencing challenges. I was in a restaurant having dinner with friends, and walked outside to answer the call. We talked for about 15 minutes, and worked out a solution. What struck me was that she apologized for interrupting my night. I was fine with being interrupted. I was happy to be called for something that was important, and in the scheme of things, one call in 3 years was perfectly acceptable.

I wondered if she had sent an e-mail if there would have been an apology. An acknowledgement that the e-mail was interrupting my personal life. Sending an e-mail is impersonal, it only requires some fast typing, and a minimal amount of sentence structure. Hit "Send", and wait anxiously for the reply. Will the recipient of the e-mail look away from their kid's baseball game to respond? Would she stop her conversation in mid-sentence during a romantic dinner with her partner, set down her wine glass and read the e-mail? Would she reply? This was the important question. I wonder how much time is invested by the sender, glancing at their crackberry instead of into the eyes of their kid, watching for the important reply to the e-mail. At some point, I wonder if life becomes the distraction, and the work becomes the focus for these people.

Before the days of smart phones and laptops, it was rare to receive an e-mail date stamped on a weekend. Even as laptops came out, the Saturday evening e-mail wasn't that common. It was like a badge of honor for the sender. The e-mail was like yelling loudly - "LOOK! I AM SO DEDICATED TO THE COMPANY THAT I SENT AN E-MAIL AT 10:00 ON A SATURDAY NIGHT! I AM AWESOME!". And you are not. There was no expectation of a reply. The time stamp on the e-mail was the only goal of the e-mail. I am someone important, I work weekends. You didn't reply, you aren't dedicated.

Had someone come out with an Outlook e-mail scheduler, they'd have become rich. People could have written their weekend e-mails in the form of a novella on a Friday morning. After it was completed, they could have set it to go out automatically at some pre-determined time during the weekend. The e-mail would have went out while they slept soundly. Perception is reality. The person would have their received their badge of honor for working extra time. No one would have been the wiser.

I've discussed work life balance with many colleagues in while at various jobs. They say they must be accessible 24/7 - it is a job requirement. But is it a job requirement, or is it a self-imposed sense of urgency that the person adopts as a result of working with people who are always connected? For doctors, or anyone who is dealing with life, death, accidents, and emergencies, I can see the need for accessibility. For anyone else, I ask what is the impact if they aren't accessible after normal work hours? I've heard many reasons why they can't unplug. Why they must be instantly available to answer a question. There seems to be one common thread - they are connected because everyone else is connected. That's not a good enough reason to skip a personal life. At least not for me.

In my career, I had two jobs where they gave me a cell phone for work. On one of the jobs, I carried the cell phone everywhere, but would keep it turned off when not in the office. I would turn it on once or twice a day, look at the screen, and when I saw there were no messages, I'd turn it off again. The second job I had a cell phone for was as the senior noncommissioned officer for a team of mobilized soldiers in 2003. This one I left on all the time, and would answer it when it rang. It didn't ring much off-hours. We worked long days, and by the time the sun set, most of our team members were ready for sleep. We worked at the office, and relaxed out of the office. The new normal seems to be that people socialize while working at the office, and work while socializing outside of the office. This continuous shifting of attention is considered productive.

A former employee called me a few years ago, wanting my advice on how to have a work life balance. She always remembered that when she worked for me, I came in on time, and left on time. I didn't use a smart phone. I had a life. I talked about my life. I encouraged my employees to leave work at work, and made it clear that after-hours e-mails weren't considered a badge of honor. They must have a home life. We talked for a time, and discussed how she could get off of the treadmill of a life that was out of balance. She had all the standard excuses why it wasn't possible to implement changes. She is still on the treadmill, and the only outcome of her lost time is that she continues to avoid having a personal life. Our minds are great at tricking us into doing the unimportant stuff.

Life is busy. Life is messy. As soon as we open up the door to working on off hours, we have given up our home life. We never get this time back. A lost evening with our families is a lost evening. Time only goes in one direction, and once the sand in our hour glass of life pours from the top to the bottom, the sand can't be put back in the top. It is our life, and is not for sale. We rent out some of that time so we have money to use to enjoy our life, not so that work becomes our life. Staying connected 24/7 is a form of slavery. It is the relinquishing of our freedom to an organization. An affirmation that we aren't individuals, empowered to enjoy our lives. We are vassals to a greater cause. And the cause is the company we work for. Don't get me wrong, it is great to love your job just as I love mine. I love chocolate also, that doesn't mean I eat it all day. I must eat a balanced diet that fuels my body. I must have a balanced life to fuel my mind and my spirit.

The first step in attaining balance in your life is to delineate your work life from your personal life. Draw that line in the sand, and defend it. Here are a few tips to help you get your life back:

• Don't accept a company smart phone. As soon as you do, and start expensing it, the expectation that you will work after hours begins.
• If you can't avoid one, or have one now, never check e-mail or answer the phone during meals, personal events, or within an hour of sleep. It is too easy to get sucked into the operational tempo of work and lose a chunk of time.
• Ask yourself if you need to respond now, or if it can wait. If it can wait, then let it wait. It will be rare that a question can't wait until morning. This will be your way of training your colleagues not to expect you to respond after hours.
• If you reply, add some personal comment to your message. Here is one you can plagiarize: "Thanks for asking! I am in bed right now, and my partner and I are in the process of disrobing each other. Let me know if you have any follow up questions quick, because I'd hate to get too absorbed in my home life right now, while you are asking about what color background you should use for a presentation". That should curtail any follow-up e-mails. Or you can opt for a different message, but you get the idea. 
• Encourage people to call your cell phone if they have an issue after hours. There is something personal about calling a phone, and it will force your colleagues to think about what is so important about their question that it can't wait until morning. It is like forcing someone to make eye contact before they run you over in a crosswalk. When we make personal contact, there is a greater likelihood that we will all act human toward each other. 
• Hold your ground. You have a right to a life. Talk about your life at work, and make personal connections. 

When confronted with colleagues who question my decision not to have a work smart phone, my answer is always the same. I have a life, and will not make excuses to continue to have one. You should get one also. 

If you like this post, please share it with your friends using the social media buttons below. The personal life you save may be your own, or the life of a loved one. 

Just because it's easy, does it make it right?

I knew it was going to be a unique day when I arrived at the office and the newly hired marketing vice president was fired. This was a few years ago, and I was operations director for a venture capital backed corporation. I never got the whole story, but there were some rumblings that the latest victim of the whims of leadership was spending too much time traveling to other offices to party with the single ladies who would be under him (no pun intended).

People getting fired was pretty typical there, and every day I drove into the parking lot with a knot in my stomach, wondering when my turn to get fired would arrive... but that's a topic for another post. Another memorable day for me, was finding that the two person art department was let go. I went to HR, and asked who would finish the work they were doing for our clients. It didn't surprise me that they looked startled, and said they didn't know this group did work for us. So we outsourced the art work by hiring one of the people they fired as an independent contractor. He received better pay, and was able to work from home. I envied him many days as I witnessed the "bad" venture capital carnage.

Back to the unique day. My boss came by my office, and explained that the just fired marketing guru had a new hire starting that day, and this new person would report to me. I asked if I was taking over the marketing function, and found that no, I was to utilize New Hire as a project manager. I asked if anyone had talked to New Hire about this yet, and no one had. She was still in HR doing paperwork.

My frustration was evident. I had been trying to have my budget increased for months so I could hire another project manager. This money was given to marketing, and now I ended up with a person who I had not interviewed, had no experience that I needed, and was about to find out they just had an instantaneousness career change. My boss told me that if the new person didn't work out, I could just get rid of her. Like she was an unwanted potted plant, or an empty pen.

About an hour later, New Hire was brought to my office. She had been told about the changes, and she was not happy. She had left a job she loved, working for a good boss, thinking that this new position was a great career opportunity. Instead, she was being told that she would now be a project manager, and she had no choice but do it, since if she refused, she'd not have a job. If she didn't have a job, she would lose her apartment.

Once I heard her disappointment, I realized that my initial concerns were self-centered. This was her life that was being toyed with. We had to come up with a plan. So I outlined what I thought we should do. She had experience in project management, because every marketing campaign she worked on was a project. I would help her learn the skills she needed, and our team would support her. If she found another job in the meantime, I wouldn't be upset if she left. But while she was with us, she could learn new skills, and help our project management team deliver great projects. Who knows? She may actually like project management! She grudgingly accepted the plan.

A few weeks later, she was doing fine, managing projects, and making connections on the team. She was still disappointed, and sometimes it would come across in her tone. I didn't blame her, and tried to help her see the positive side of the situation.

On one of my regular calls with my boss (who worked in a different city) Boss told me that New Hire had made a face at Boss (really, a face). This showed New Hire had a bad attitude, and she should be happy she has a job. If this keeps up, we'd have to fire New Hire.

A few days later, I had my regular meeting with the boss's boss. In the meeting, Big Boss told me I should find some reason to put new hire on a performance improvement plan (this was the first step to fire someone, and there was never a focus on performance improvement, it was on firing), and get the clock started to fire her. I leaned back in my chair, looked across the table at his grinning face (I still don't know how one can grin after firing people by the handful), and asked a simple question. "Am I in this position to do the right thing, or am I in this position to do the easy thing? I'd like to think I'm here to do the right thing."

I went on to explain the many successes New Hire had since joining our team, and reminded Big Boss of how New Hire had transitioned from marketing to project management, and was part of the team now. I had no problem with New Hire's performance, and wouldn't put her on track to be fired. I acknowledged that New Hire pulled attitude on occasion, and I'd deal with that. He dropped the subject.

In our next department meeting, I reminded everyone of the importance of attitudes, and how we should be role models for positive energy. I admitted that the organizational environment was sub-par, and that at times I also had disappointment, but that we must be careful of how we are perceived, especially among People Who Fired. The message was understood.

I thought of this story recently when I received one of the occasional e-mails from New Hire. She is now leading a project management team for an advertising agency in NYC, and had contacted me to say how much she enjoyed working on our team back in the time. She was hiring more staff. She had applied many of the methods we had used in our old department for keeping the workload tracked and managed. I thought of how a person who was handed a very bad situation, learned from it, embraced the changes, and turned the bad situation into a new career path. I'm proud of her, and am thankful I had the presence of mind to not follow the leaders on that job.

We both learned from the experience. New Hire learned to adapt, and I learned that as tempting as the easy solution may be, we must make sure it's the right solution. If we must choose between what's easy, and what's right, we must choose what's right. Easy and wrong is what will haunt us later. 

Determining when to take action

I have a focus group which provides advice on how to write better blogs. I refer to this focus group as "my honey". Yesterday the focus group pointed out that my previous blog, Life Lessons from an Erector Set, lacked a call to action. There was nothing the rare reader could do as the result of my post.

What separates us humans from the rest of the animal kingdom, is that we can change the channels on a television set, and we can contemplate what to do tomorrow. Animals live from moment to moment, reacting to what's around them. This is why we don't see animals protest for animal rights. Okay, part of the reason is that most animals eat other animals, but that's not the point. They are too busy sleeping, eating, and having sex. The astute reader is now trying to prove me wrong, and they are probably thinking of Charlie Sheen. But Charlie can plan who to have sex with tomorrow, as well as where, and then tweet about it.

So this got me thinking about how we determine when to take action, and what type of action to take. Project Risk Management is a framework, or knowledge area we can draw from. In a previous post, I discussed how our current government needs to apply portfolio management concepts to the budgeting process. A few days later, Governor Christie announced that he had identified key priorities, and has budgeted to address these first. I wonder if he reads this blog.

Many people in the general public apply a framework when they see that their cable program provider is about to remove their favorite channel, or that the NFL may not be playing next season. The massive fear they experience as a result of not having their favorite show on Tuesday night has them cowering in the corner, dreading the thought they will have to actually have a conversation with the other people in the house. Or they may be forced to read something from a book. They quickly call their smartest friend (referred to as a lifeline), and ask them who their Congressman is. If they are lucky, their friend is in the same district, knows the name, and provides the information. A call is made to the Congressman, threatening them with loss of their congressional seat if they allow the channel to be removed.

So let's pull the above scenario apart. The person is identifying a risk, and determining the probability of it occurring. Many people confuse possibility and probability. Something that is possible, is that an alien race will suddenly appear, and as a gift of friendship will cure cancer, pay off all of our mortgages, and give everyone free television connections. It is possible. But what we must do is look at probability instead of possibility. Is it probable that a philanthropic alien race will rescue us? If you think so, it's okay. We need people to keep us laughing in hard times. In the case of the cable television battle, the person has been convinced by the television infotainment wizards (generally labeled "news") that they will start losing their "right" to their favorite channel, or have to pay more to receive it.

After we identify the risk, and determine probability, we look at the impact the risk will have on us if it actually happens. In our example case with the television channel, the impact is that this person will be adrift on Tuesday nights, having to fend for themselves in terms of entertainment. They will be impacted, because they will need to surf the other 1,200 channels for an hour or two to find something else to watch. This is cruel. Can you imagine having to join the series "24" halfway through? Or another impact will be that they will pay more for their television signal.

Now our next step is to determine what to do about the risk. Here are the options we have when faced with a risk or decision.

• Avoidance - In the above scenario, the person would do the simple thing. They'd cancel their television connection, and find something better to do on Tuesdays. 
• Reduction - This is the option the person chose. They are trying to mitigate the issue by having their Congressman fix it to their benefit.
• Sharing - If the person decided to change service providers, they'd be transferring the risk. This is referred to as sharing, or insuring the risk. 
• Retention- Suck it up, and budget the money needed to pay for the extras. 

There is how you determine what to do when thinks are messed up. This is your call to action (or inaction).

If you are the focus group... I mean "in" the focus group, please let me know if this satisfies the need. And if you are a reader who enjoyed this post, please share using the clever social network buttons at the bottom of this post. Comments, questions, and derogatory remarks are always welcome.

________________________

Head Start or Pisanki? Opportunity costs are lost in the government's process

Most activities in life are projects. Project management is the art and science of getting things done. A project is defined as having a beginning and an end, not to be confused with entitlement payments, which are by definition operations management, thus never ending.  Project management applies to so many areas of life. Vacations, home improvements, planting your garden, protesting our childish government, or updating your Facebook page are all projects.

Before project management was defined, organizations would have a thought (sometimes a whim, which is a little below a thought, but a higher level stimulation than a reaction) and apply resources to make an attempt for the thought to become reality. It would be supported by a big plan, and everyone would organize around it. Some organizations would have many thoughts, and pursue them all, straining their resources, running people into the ground, and burning up their resources. Sometimes an effort paid off, and the organization would reap the benefit of their effort. Many times the organization lost focus, didn't put their money into smart initiatives, and they ended up going out of business, or becoming insolvent and ineffectual. These concepts also apply to government.

Then along came project portfolio management. Some person came up with the crazy idea that if resources are limited, maybe the organization should determine what was most important, and apply their resources to the important stuff first. As the resources were depleted, less effort would be put into lower priority ideas, and some ideas would be abandoned completely. This way the organization wouldn't have to decrease peoples' pay, deprive them of food, or buy inferior toilet paper for the bathrooms to save money for funding projects.

In order to accomplish this, all of the efforts the organization was thinking about investing in had to be evaluated as a portfolio. Decision criteria had to be developed, and all proposed projects would need to be "normalized" by consistently applying the same criteria to all of them. In this way, an organization could make sure that the important stuff was identified, and got done first.

The way federal funding of programs and projects is completed now is some Congressman, the President, or someone at a town hall meeting speaking for millions of people comes up with an idea. The idea gains traction, and as a stand alone project, it looks like a great thing to do. Some examples of great things that were looked at individually are when our government gives a private museum that has assets in the millions of dollars a couple of hundred thousand dollars to restore their building.  The following items are from the 2010 budget, as reported on the Citizens Against Government Waste Web site:

$194,800 by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) for completion of the historic restoration project at the Historic Slater Mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island.  According to Slater Mill’s website, it is “one of the most visited sites in Rhode Island with 30,000 visitors per year, 80 years of preservation experience and long-term partnerships with major universities, public school systems, cultural heritage organizations, tourism agencies, museums, guilds, artists, the business community and many others.”  The website also discloses that the admission fees are $10 for adults, $9 for seniors and $8 for children.  Besides being a popular destination, the organization does not appear to be on shaky financial footing.  According to the Old Slater’s Mill Association 2008 IRS Form 990, it has net assets of $2,573,254. 


Another example is providing a museum a couple of hundred thousand of the taxpayers' dollars so visitors can leave with a Pisanki egg. At $30 for the class, you'd think the cost of the paint would be covered, and they'd not need our money.

"...$250,000 for the Wistariahurst Museum, Holyoke, for renovation and expansion.  The museum charges for a number of events, including, “a hands-on demonstration in Pisanki - the tradition of decorating eggs and one of the most cherished cultural expressions of Polish heritage around the Easter holiday. Participants will leave with their own designed and hand-dyed Easter eggs. Fee is $30 per person”, and a “Trash to Treasure” in which “scouts and youths will use their creativity to turn castaways into fun and functional stuff, letting their imagination run wild in this hands-on session! $8 per person.”


Taken as a single item, neither of these gifts of our tax dollars seem like much, and many of the rare readers of this blog may think "good, I like that we fund the arts". But what is missing in the decisions to fund these two items is the analysis of opportunity cost, which is what a good project portfolio management system takes into consideration. 

When we look at opportunity cost, and use a prioritization process, we will see why maybe spending $200,000 on something different may be a better choice for us. With $200,000, we can have more than 20 inner city kids participate in a Head Start program. There's a choice I'd like to see a Congressman make - Pisanki eggs for museum visitors, or a positive lifetime impact on 20 inner city kids. Or how about choosing between Pisanki, or 40 miles of bike paths to combat obesity? How about $300 million to PBS or 6,000 miles of bike paths - per year - to combat obesity and protect the environment? The choices are never simple, but if they were simple, someone else could make them.

Should everything that is good be funded, or should we only fund what we can afford to fund?

A framework for individual performance feedback

I was recently asked to participate in defining a new performance management process for a group I work with. In the first couple of meetings, we had a free ranging, and often emotional discussion around what is not working in the current process, and what structure would support the implementation of a good process. I for one find that performance management is often focused on treating everyone the same, when we all know we are each different.

After the first couple of meetings, I began to mull over performance appraisals, and what about them doesn't work. One of my strengths is that I see patterns in most things in life, and use these to identify frameworks. If we can identify and put a name to something, it is much easier for us to address it. So as a recent meeting started, I began to jot some notes about how performance feedback works in the real world. The following table is the draft I presented to the team, and it was accepted. I may make modifications to it, but for now, this is my framework for understanding performance feedback.

In most organizations, there are three types of feedback. Impromptu is immediate. The reason for the feedback is fresh, usually based on an interaction in a meeting or as part of an initiative. Threshold-Driven is based on feedback at intervals during or after a project. This is a triggered event, and can be based on the size, complexity, or duration of a project. It can also be based on a certain number of issues surfaced during a project. Periodic performance feedback is generally used to identify individual performance trends, and is typically set to occur at certain times of the year. It is usually conducted to document performance for the human resources function, and to allow the person being evaluated to agree, rebut, or modify their approach to completing their work in the next rating period.

Source defines how feedback is initiated. Feedback can be unsolicited, meaning that the person receiving the feedback hasn't asked for it. The feedback is coming anyway. This is usually precipitated by an event, and can be positive or constructive. Solicited feedback is when the person being evaluated, their performance manager, or human resources requests feedback.

Feedback is then provided through a Channel. Direct feedback is when the person being evaluated receives the feedback directly from the person providing it, and they have an opportunity to contextualize the feedback and discuss it. Indirect feedback is when a colleague provides feedback to the individual's boss or colleague. This feedback is usually viewed as under-handed when the feedback is derogatory.

The above table is mix-and-match, meaning that feedback can be defined by selecting any one value from each column. Periodic reviews may have a mix of Source and Channel, but each instance of feedback is defined by one value from each column. Love it, hate it, or disagree with me, (in the comments section please) but this is how feedback occurs in an organization. Does your organization differ from this framework?

My most formative professional experience in life is derived from my 23 years of service in the Army Reserve. When I first joined, all performance reviews (periodic) were graded as exemplary. If you received anything less than exemplary, your career was over. In the late '80s, the Army changed how the evaluations were conducted, and after a few review cycles, the process became more equitable, and people could use their evaluations to work on improving their performance. Leaders could use the performance feedback to determine order of merit.

The Army utilizes an After Action Review (AAR) process that is focused on fixing issues that arise during and after missions. These are threshold or event driven feedback processes. In these AARs, issues are addressed in the open, and people who caused the issues learned that it was better to learn from their colleagues in the open, than to have them complain behind your back. Everyone shared in the success or failure of a mission, and as a result, the meetings are very productive. These AARs address issues, not people. But all missions and projects are executed by people, and people learn to change their performance for the good of the team. Many issues raised in these meetings allow units to redefine processes and workflow.

When looking at organizational maturity, my observation is that an immature organization (this has nothing to do with workplace wedgies, it means they don't have stable processes) has primarily impromptu, unsolicited, indirect feedback as their primary performance management system. This supports a dysfunctional culture, and breeds a damaging political climate. If Harry doesn't like what Fred did, Harry goes to Fred's boss Mary to provide the feedback. Fred may or may not ever receive that feedback, and many times if he receives the feedback, he knows that Harry provided it, and workplace trust takes a hit. Or Mary takes the comments as facts, and modifies her view of the Fred (or of Harry), causing Fred to be treated differently, without him knowing why. Without trust, the culture changes, and dysfunctional habits grow exponentially.

I observed a fantastic method for shutting down the impromptu, unsolicited, indirect feedback. Several years ago while managing projects, I was providing impromptu, unsolicited, indirect feedback (okay, I was complaining) to a new department head about a site director from a different office who often monopolized my time. She looked at me thoughtfully, and asked "when you said this to 'name withheld', how did he react?". I was stopped dead in my tracks, and learned that if I couldn't provide feedback directly to the person who needs the feedback, then the problem is mine, not the other person's. I added this to my management toolkit, and have pulled it out many times when confronted by someone complaining about someone else. I've even offered up this tool to others who are facing this challenge. Try it, you will like it.

As an organization matures, it will usually adopt a periodic, solicited, indirect process. A process of this type provides the centralized human resources function with what they perceive as a fair and equitable way to gather and analyze feedback. The data generated is used to create nice colorful bell curves for leadership to place in PowerPoint presentations. Periodic feedback is great, but feedback must be timely to be effective. Also, in order for people to maintain anonymity, much of the feedback lacks context. If the feedback lacks context, it is generally not actionable.

Organizations which implement only periodic performance feedback systems may have a hard time getting people to learn from the experience, and can create morale issues. Periodic reviews allow people to save up their constructive criticism for a point in time, and by saving it up, they deprive the person being evaluated of the opportunity to improve their performance when the issue occurs. As the only mechanism for feedback, the periodic review falls short in many areas. This can be said of utilizing any one performance feedback system as the only system.

It is my strong belief that the best way to improve performance is to encourage a culture that appreciates impromptu, unsolicited, direct feedback as its primary way for a person to evolve in their role. To implement this, both the person providing feedback, and the receiver must leave their egos out of the discussion. The feedback must be impersonal, factual, and clearly state the impact the issue had on the team. The person receiving this must appreciate that the person providing the feedback is simply trying to improve processes, or address an issue, and it isn't personal. If they disagree with the feedback, they must be capable of disagreeing without damaging trust (see "P.S." at the bottom).

As humans, we should have the opportunity and desire to continuously improve. This is where the direct conversations with colleagues becomes valuable. Adding periodic reviews captures performance trends, and should highlight areas of strength, and areas of improvement - that the person is already aware of from the direct conversations with their colleagues.

Moving to an open environment where people are willing to have the difficult conversations isn't an easy cultural shift. But as I stated up front in this post, once we can put a name to something, addressing it becomes much easier. What is your preferred method of receiving feedback? What is the worst way you received feedback?

P.S. - None of the above addresses what is probably the most challenging issue to address in performance feedback systems, which is the quality of the comments in a review. I will address quality of the feedback in a future blog.