I am pondering these weighty things
The always worthwhile David Maister:
Why Training Is Useless
For a lot of my professional life, I got paid to do training. It usually went very well in the sense that I got high ratings (evaluations) and people not only paid their bills, but invited me back again to do it again and again.Dangerous Rubbish About Leadership
I now believe that the overwhelming majority of all business training, by me and by everyone else, is a complete waste of money and time, because only a microscopic fraction of any training is ever actually put into practice and yield the hoped-for benefits.
The main reason is that companies keep trying to bring about changes in behavior by training their people in new things, and then sending them back to their operating groups subject to the same measures and management approaches as before. Not surprisingly, little, if any of the training ever gets implemented.
What companies don’t seem to understand is that training is a wonderful LAST step in bringing about changed behavior, but a pathetically useless first step....
Adam Smith, Esq. (aka Bruce McEwen) has joined the discussion about what makes managers different from leaders. His comments are here(h/t to Johnnie Moore for the training link)
I keep getting asked about this topic, so here goes my ten cents worth. I think more rubbish has been written about ‘leadership’ than almost any other business topic. A lot of it is patently false, and even more of it is dangerous.
The fatal flaw in discussions of ‘leadership’ is the implicit assumption that we want to be led. Not many of us do, especially not the highly educated, credentialed, well-paid group of us that like to call ourselves professionals.
We want to be helped, we’ll agree to be coached and (with careful definition of the term) we might consent to be managed. But we’ll rarely agree to be led.
I’ve quoted this before, but it’s worth repeating here: the word manager derives from a mediaeval French or Italian word, meaning the holder of horses. It should conjure up the image of the task of getting a number of fiery beasts, each more powerful than the manager, to act in consort.
The word leader, on the other hand, derives from a Chaucer-era word that meant the person who chose the route on the expedition (‘This way, people’!) That image evokes a model that won’t work – trying to tell me where to go, pretending to me more expert than I am, trying to take charge. That’s not how it’s most effectively done....
posted by fouro @ 3:41 PM
4 comments
links to this post
4 Comments:
This is getting weird, man! I've spent a good part of the day looking at old Fouro posts as I compose a response to this.
I can't decide if it's a corrolary to the leadership problem or the other side of the coin. Where is the balance between consensus and management.
I think Maister is off the mark when he says most of us don't want to be led. Micromanaged, no; but inspired and guided in our journey, yes. We might have to build the odd golden idol now and then, but we really do want to make a difference in the world.
Guess it's time to dust off that book thing.
Damn, what are you trolling for?
Read the post. Dunno if it's an answer you want but this is exactly why we use the Table of Elements and a Project/Brand framework built out of it. If I have an intrinsically motivated goal that I must match/steer towards that all have previously agreed upon, then it precludes arguments down in the weeds. Take Mazda. When they design an exhaust system, or lots of things, they use Kansei as their pole star. It must feel right and sound right to the ear. It is Don Norman's emotional design, except 250 years older. I don't know if this is what the IT guy is referring to, but Mazda creates psychological markers (as do we) to go along with the physical benchmarks. And, the pyschological always holds sway. That is the final estimation and evaluation of a product or effort, so it must as they see it.
If his people are arguing minutiae or turf, the effects must measured in terms of contribution to or detraction from the agreed upon Kansei goal. I know this helps me from time to time becuase it's often folks jockeying for "relevance" within a certain design or effort. Asking them to assess the impact of following their suggested course's impact on their earlier claimed goal of creating sensation or experience X slows them down and sometimes quells the inertia completely. It takes balls for mgmt to do this, but it works if you work it. Hard to argue a metaphysical truth you yourself have affirmed as righteous, even if it's as basic as "sounds like the Mustang in Bullitt."
I guess that brings us to Maister's "not wanting to be led." The part that appealled most to me was his point about like minds around a table--leaders don't inspire, they uncover the common inspiration within. The point is not to direct every transaction, but find folk who respond energetically in the right general direction you've all come together over. That's BHAG or statue-sense country. And it allows pros to do what they're most empoewered doing: using their wits, and competing using them, within reason. As Moses and Linesman, the boss's job is to remind and prod. And whack the freelancer with a lightning bolt.
So, yeah. You're right, and he's right I'd say. And if you think about it, we're all talking about folks who haven't tackled Kansei but are looking for it, even if they don't know it yet.
Make sense?
SOrry I took so long to respond. I had to do a little mountain climbing with my kids today. Actually, they only went to play in the only snow here in Maricopa County (alt. 6500 ft.)
You're right on the money! People can argue about the best way to achieve the goal, but horse trading to give people the sense of relevance is counterproductive.
Managing the frame is what's important, in Fouro terms, right?
No prob. Sounds fun, especailly for a dad in the piedmont. Hey, did I tell you Kyle's in NY for JOs? She made the zone team, 1st in VA in 100 Back, 2nd in 50 & 100 Fly. I'm all tingly.
------
Managing the frame is what's important,
Exactly. Leaders manage the frame, Managers manage the work. Employees manage themselves--explicitly so. Wax on, wax off.
It's a feedback loop that you let managers climb into as they prove they can beathe the air--whether by your noticing that people "do" for them and not others, or by some process grasp they demonstrate that others don, or, by dint of their ability to articulate the views and purpose of the org in compelling terms to outsiders.
Helps with good Succession too. Not because of some inticate formulae, but because it follows somesimple coordinates of importance, just as John Boyd's OODA loops do. The purpose should be thesame for both -- cutting through the fog.
I smell a post coming on.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home