Speaking with authority

Everyone is an expert these days. We have lost our confidence in any one news source (and rightly so); but with the glut of available information out there, we tend to choose to believe the one that spins closest to our personal feelings on any one subject and spout off as if we are the authoritative source on the issue.

How do we combat this tendency? What are the reliable sources? Well, so far, I have no answer. I am not the authority. But what I do know is that it is best to use two filters; one for incoming messages and one for outgoing.

Having been in State government for the past 5 years, I can say with authority that words are very important and a ‘just the facts’ approach is best. The only thing that you can be sure of is that everyone is telling you what the proposal or event means to them. Ultimately, however, the only important thing for you to know are Who, What, When and How. Why becomes subjective. In most cases, ‘why’ refers to the conveyor’s interpretation of why this is good or bad; and not why it is happening.

The first filter is the one for receiving information. Try pulling out just the information that is repeated from multiple sources by focusing on the key words that everyone is using. Remove the valuation adjectives like ‘astronomical’ or ‘detrimental’ and just keeping the substantive words like ‘tax hike’ and ’single payor’.  My suggestion is to use the news outlets and other second, and sometimes third, hand information sources to help you decide what you want to know more about and then to seek out the actual source. In most cases, the source is public information (that’s how the news got it).

The second filter is the one you place on how you relay the information to others. You are not an expert on all subjects that you simply hear a lot about. In conversation, do not apply your understanding of a subject or another person’s intentions to your relaying of the information. Give people the facts. Again, the who; the what; the where; and the how.

And finally, I am not saying you shouldn’t have an opinion on the matter. What I advocate is that you state the simple facts, without adjectives or adverbs, and then admit that the remaining content is your personal commentary on the situation. At that point, I don’t care if you do an interpretive dance about the damned thing.

Too often these days, people will repeat rhetorical messages as part of the factual information. Similarly, these same voices like to speak as if the rest of us have something to learn. We need to keep in mind that the information may be important in spite of the way it is relayed; and try to parse the solid stuff out of the rhetorical language.

If you are talking about something you are working on or participating in, then you have first hand knowledge; otherwise, you are far enough removed that you should keep your pointer finger in your pocket.

Unless, of course, we’re talking about me. I am always right.

Honestly, I know I fall into this trap all the time. But I make an attempt to recognize and correct it. I use “I believe” and “I think” a lot as qualifiers. How do you separate the facts from the commentary?

-Bully

Go Lead Yourself Off A Cliff

I’m not a brilliant mind. I don’t break ground with these posts. This is common sense.

I am not a leader.

People don’t follow me; we move together. That is what I like about the people I work with. We generate ideas separately and share them. We agree upon a goal and, with collective buy-in, plan how to accomplish it.

When I manage a project, I simply act as one of the resources. I am the part of the machine that is responsible for keeping tabs on everything. I will make decisions based on the information available from the team members; so there is a directive component to the work. However, the decision making was completed at the beginning of the project when we agreed upon a goal. Decision making during the project isn’t leadership so much as problem solving.

I read lots of books on management styles and successful leaders (okay, not a lot lately; more listening), and they all seem to be leaning toward the inclusive styles of management. Specifically, the old fall-back Richard Florida makes a point of this in his descriptions of how the creative class is best managed.

If your leadership style is to expect everyone to blindly follow you over a cliff, then you assume you have a bunch of mindless employees.  This a dangerously condescending assumption.

Hopefully, your business/company is composed of intelligent people that were hired because of skill and a capacity for independent thought. Most successful businesses these days are.  In these companies, feedback is accepted and buy-in is important. I may not agree with all of your decision making; but if I trust that you have thought it through and may be trying something radical or innovative, I am more likely to follow you.

To that end, I believe that reframing yourself as a part of the team is important. People can still look to you as the ultimate decision maker. You will not lose your status or your ability to take a flying leap. Look at the platform you are afforded as a leader as the centerpiece instead of the pedestal.

Remember that pyramids; mountains; and even skyscrapers; don’t have a top when you’re looking at them from above.

I am open to the contrary idea that strong leadership requires heavy handedness. Have you ever had a dictatorial leader, or one that was secretive about the grand plan, that you really felt inspired to follow? Please share your thoughts.

-Bully

The Difference Between Project and Process

It’s the simple disctinction that is often overlooked. I often refer to them interchangeably myself; because I develop processes and walk away from them. However, Project and Process are not the same thing. Projects can contain processes; but not the inverse.

• Processes are built on a collection of tasks and are meant to be recurring in a “this is how we make a widget” kind of way.
• Projects have a definite beginning an end and are singular events in a “plan your birthday party and then have it” kind of way.

So both things have a desired result. One is recurring, one is not. Both should be repeatable though.

A sound project plan for lauching a product or moving into a new facility should be able to be used as a model anytime you want to launch a product or move facilities. The particular considerations and processes may change, but the tasks involved will be eerily similar.

One change you should expect in a reused project plan, that you would not expect in a reused process, is a change to your timeline.

Generally, a process is built to be efficient from the beginning and only a shift in resources will change the speed at which the process can be performed. With a project, you should expect that your critical path (the interdependent tasks that take the most time to complete) will change.

Having used a few of the processes before, you will find that you streamline some of them; such as securing a marketing firm for a product launch.

Say that in the first iteration of a product lauch it took you 3 months to research and vet marketing firms. You will already know of firms that you consider qualified and reliable, so this reduces the time needed to get marketing in place.

Another perspective – Process is how you do business. Projects are how you change how you do business.

My suggestion is to focus on processes at the beginning. My reason for this is simple: processes are the foundation for both good daily work and good project work.

Bully