Author: Ed Muzio

FAQ: “Typical North American Management”

Post author By Ed Muzio
Post date May 22, 2024

I often refer to “Typical North American Management” in my presentations and writing. The term is even referenced in the Amazon listing for Iterate. Over the years I’ve gotten enough questions about it that I thought a quick Q and A would be useful. So here we go…

Q: What do you mean by “typical North American management”?

A: It’s a term I inherited from my mentor and predecessor; I use it as shorthand for the standard way that most companies are managed and run. My understanding is that about 80% of companies across all spaces work in roughly this way. It’s the basis for what we see in media, and what we carry and reinforce in popular culture regarding how management works.

Why “North American”? Isn’t this worldwide?

It often is, but I’m reasonably certain this style of management comes from habits that grew out of North American industrialization and commercialization, influencing outward from there. (Think: cross-country railway construction.) Plus, in working globally on Iterative Management®, I’ve found other cultures often struggle with different aspects of the methodology, I think because they enter with different norms. For example, US managers frequently have a hard time with the idea that a management team succeeds or fails together – we’re still a bit culturally stuck on the idea of lone cowboys succeeding despite their coworkers or leadership. Eastern cultures seem often to have fewer challenges on that front, but more difficulty than their US counterparts with the idea of making and acting on decisions in the face of overt disagreement. So, I say “North American” to remind myself and everyone that not all cultures start from the same set of assumptions.

OK, so what is typical North American management?

There’s lots of nuance to that answer, but at a high level it’s the idea that management’s job is to set a strategy and a plan at the beginning of the year and then meet weekly or regularly with employees to check how things are going and report it upwards, fixing problems as they go.

What’s wrong with that?

Nothing… except that it doesn’t work because it’s not well-matched to reality. As soon as we start to move forward in time, things change! Efforts go differently than expected or have different results, we learn new and different things about what we’re trying to accomplish and the environment we’re doing it in, and the all-important plan becomes progressively less reflective of real life. Managers respond to that difference by running around between meetings trying to figure out what has changed, who they need to talk to about it, and what needs to be decided how and by whom, to get somewhat back on track. Then they go to meetings with their bosses and give performative status updates with various levels of positive spin that basically can be summarized as “things are mostly on track here, don’t worry, and please look somewhere else.”

This puts the boss in the position of having to suss out what’s really happening and work solo to uncover problematic interdependencies. Worse, with five of those updates at about nine minutes each, a one-hour weekly staff meeting can come and go without ever looking at any high priority issues or making any significant decisions. It’s more like a series of one-on-one meetings with the rest of the team taking turns in the role of an audience that may be allowed to ask clarifying or philosophical questions but wouldn’t dare poke holes in the narrative for fear of having the favor returned.

Yeah, that meeting could have been an e-mail.

Then what’s the opposite of typical North American Management?

It’s what I call Iterative Management®, though it’s the behaviors that matter, not the label. In this approach, the group gets together, and someone says, “hey boss, we’re trying to get to point A in the future together. Right now my part of things looks like it’s pushing us more toward point B. Here’s what I recommend all of us do to get back on track and/or adjust our expectations.” In about three minutes, one person can tee up a substantive discussion, and then the leader along with multiple impacted team members can make a decision and commit to some action before they leave. In this way you get more decisions per cycle, more actions per cycle, and more chances to revisit changes that didn’t work in the way that was expected in prior cycles. Meetings actively engage team members in deciding on what to do today to influence tomorrow, instead of saddling them with dog-and-pony shows or improvisational speaking exercises focused mostly on what’s already happened.

So both typical North American management and Iterative Management® are about meetings?

Yes and no. Meetings are where the management culture is most apparent, so it’s true that a move toward Iterative Management® will change how meetings look and how well they function. It’s also true that if you hire your friendly local Iterate® guy to assess your management culture, he’ll spend a lot of time watching meetings because they’re a showcase of what’s happening. But you can’t fix management culture just by fixing meetings, because many of the behavioral norms required to make the meetings better happen before and after them. The change makes meetings more effective, but it’s much more than an effective meetings campaign.

The most useful way to think about meetings is as the stage on which your management culture plays out – in particular, its flexibility, its adaptability, and its capacity for intelligent group decision-making and quick action. If you watch for those issues in management meetings and aren’t happy with what you see, that’s a big hint that you have some improvement to do outside of them as well. By the way, if you’re not sure how to observe your meetings for those elements, every copy of Iterate includes a pretty detailed Assessment of Iterative Management® Practices, so if you already have the book that’s a good (and free) place to start.

If I want to move my group away from typical North American management and toward Iterative Management®, what’s the best way to start?

Making this information as accessible as possible is part of my ongoing work and consistent with my values. If you want to do it yourself, the website and video collections are free, and the book is relatively inexpensive. If you want help, classes and simulations are engaging and moderately priced. If you just want to get thing started fast, the one-quarter accelerator provides quick and substantive payoff.

But whatever you do, I’d encourage you to get in the habit of noticing and steering away from typical North American management. Unless you’re doing something as simple and linear as building long stretches of railway, you and your team would probably benefit from a more sophisticated approach.

Like this and want more? Watch Ed Muzio’s new TV Series, “One Small Step” on C-Suite Network TV. And, Visit the Group Harmonics Industry Intelligence Archive for ideas, whitepapers, and case studies about changing culture and how management culture impacts so many facets of the organization.

Growth Leadership Operations

Meet for a Reason (C-Suite TV)

Post author By Ed Muzio
Post date April 29, 2024

You can see it in any social media feed: People hate meetings. And you can’t really blame them. So many meetings are boring, useless, or purely for show, it’s no surprise that at work, they’re the thing we love to hate. The thing is, to do work in groups requires discussion, and that means meetings. But maybe we don’t hate all meetings, just bad ones. Here’s One Small Step to keep your meeting from being one of the bad ones.

Like this and want more? Watch more of “One Small Step” on C-Suite Network TV. And, Visit the Group Harmonics Industry Intelligence Archive for ideas, whitepapers, and case studies about changing culture and how small practical actions can create large systemic results.

Growth Leadership Operations

Don’t Be Fooled: Bigger Doesn’t Equal Slower – Letters to Leaders

Post author By Ed Muzio
Post date April 15, 2024

Dear CEO’s, COO’s, and other runners of complex organizations,

Once upon a time, seven people gathered around a table and decided to do something complicated.

Maybe they were going to invent a new, high-tech medical device. Maybe they wanted to put on a major event covering a topic with a lot of interest but without a formal community. Maybe they wanted to start a nonprofit organization to serve a specific need. Whatever it was, it would be complex, take time, and ultimately require more people, but they were committed. They worked on it every day and checked in with each other weekly. Those meetings lasted anywhere from 20 minutes to a little over an hour, and in them they talked about what was coming up and who needed to do what to stay on track.

Weirdly, the attendees rarely called the gatherings “meetings.”

It was just people working together, in ways that seemed obvious and necessary, like “we have that major milestone/event/filing/news release/etc. in five weeks, and in order to be ready we need to…” The leader helped move meetings along and made rulings occasionally, but everyone was so focused on what they were trying to accomplish that most conversations took care of themselves and drove the group forward. When surprises or problems arose, everyone pitched in and either turned things around or had an honest conversation about tradeoffs, and then acted on their shared plans.

It wasn’t always easy. It wasn’t perfect. It wasn’t free of conflict or a little drama from time to time. But overall, this group of people consistently headed in the same direction and focused on getting there together. And it worked. They succeeded, hit most of their early marks, got some wins. Before they knew it, they had grown to a group of 25 to 50 people with a more complex set of efforts in progress.

Everybody knows 25 to 50 people can’t fit around a single table to have a meeting, so the original group created some hierarchy. They hired smart people with the right skills, clearly defined overall goals and structure, and created an environment where people felt free to bring their best selves to work. They defined groups, assigned managers, and tried to write clear goals for everyone. In short, they did everything right, at least according to most of what you’d find on LinkedIn as a six-minute read or infographic advocating for the importance of people.

Weirdly, people rarely publish an infographic on LinkedIn advocating against the importance of people.

Anyway, something was different in the leadership team. There were still seven people, gathered around a table, with the same level of competence and commitment to the mission. But many of those people now had teams reporting to them – some with multiple layers. And if you listened to what was being said in the meeting – really listened – it had changed. Gone were the days of “we have a major item coming up, and in order to be ready we need to do X.” In its place appeared something more like this: “my team’s current goals are X, Y, and Z, and here is how that is going.”

This happened almost imperceptibly to those involved. They were still talking about the results they cared about, and of course they now had to roll up the progress of the people beneath them. Surely status updates were needed, and so the transition from issue/decision/solution conversations to status update happened as easily as sliding into a hot tub after a long day.

Before long, though, the leader began to feel a little like that hot tub might be a cauldron slowly coming to a boil. More and more time of the time previously spent doing things or looking forward was now spent interpreting the ever-thickening status updates: Is the presenter putting a positive spin on it? How positive? Is the information accurate? Is it possible the presenter thinks the information is accurate but is mistaken? How will presenter A’s status impact presenter B’s goals? This leader went from looking ahead to the results of the future to looking down at the work happening beneath – it had somehow become the leader’s job to stitch it together.

[[RELATED: Quit Making Sure and Start Making Decisions]]

And it wasn’t just one leader. Members of the leadership team found themselves looking down into their own teams in the same way. Nobody would have said so, but the whole thing had begun to resemble Dr. Seuss’ depiction of management as layers of subordinate-watchers. Much to the frustration of all involved, they began to notice that things were moving more slowly and clumsily but couldn’t put their finger on exactly why.

Weirdly, Dr. Seuss wasn’t trying to be a Management Thought Leader.

Still, if this story sounds familiar, you’re not alone. Many leaders have experienced it. Worse, very little of the advice out there on leadership and running high-functioning organizations has much to say about how to prevent it. On the contrary, most of the advice will either covertly or overtly tell you that as you get bigger, you have no choice but to get slower. Leaders following the majority of “best practices” in organizational development and team leadership often find themselves with this exact problem.

That’s the bad news: it happens so often that people, even “experts,” have come to believe it’s inevitable.

The good news is that it’s the advice that’s slowing you down, not the size of your company. The highest performing entrants in most spaces – even the HUGE ones – don’t allow themselves to tip into endless status-updating with minimal decision-making. They don’t get lost in rosters of linked goals, and they don’t spend all of their organizational improvement calories on Excel spreadsheets with competency matrices. Instead, they run meetings that make high quality decisions, take quick and coordinated action, and then learn from what happens and incorporate the new information into the next round of decisions. What they do is neither mysterious nor terribly difficult to understand: they simply Iterate®.

My entire career is about how to prevent or correct this sort of management-bureaucracy-by-way-of-status-update. By doing things like getting everyone looking up, looking forward instead of backward, and implementing Iterative Management® in general, you can get any size organization to flex and pivot just like they would if they were seven people sitting around a table trying to do something new and complicated. If you’re looking for more information on how to do this, either call me or just stick around. I promise, I’ll keep writing about it.

But for now, I just wanted you to remind you not to buy into “bigger equals slower.” If you find someone pushing that advice, don’t find a way to slow down – just find some different advice. Because while it’s true you might need to work a little differently, you can make the changes while you’re getting the work done – you don’t have to trade away results.

I guess what I’m saying is, weirdly, “go slow to go fast” is absolutely correct – but it only works if you don’t forget the second part.

Respectfully,
Ed

PS. If I took your computer, put a bigger microprocessor in it, and then gave it back to you and said, “now your system is run by a larger and more complex network, so of course it will go slower,” you would fire me as your IT person. Adding computing power should add speed, not reduce it; that’s true in human systems too.

Growth Leadership Operations

Create Lateral Development (C-Suite TV)

Post author By Ed Muzio
Post date February 28, 2024

As the leader of your team or organization, are you the only person who understands how the pieces fit together? Does that make it difficult – or scary – to take vacations, or be out of touch– even a little? Here’s One Small Step that will help you start connecting everyone on your team to a better understanding of how they’re all connected, so they can work together on your objectives even when you’re not around.

Growth Human Resources Leadership

What Does ‘More Substance, Less Fluff’ Really Mean in HR & Consulting? Asking AI to figure it out went about as well as you’d expect.

Post author By Ed Muzio
Post date February 22, 2024

The Situation

As a management consultant with lots of HR experts, other consultants, and “people people” in my feed – from solo practitioners to giant organizations – I see a lot of posts about the importance and value of things like leadership, compassion, empathy, and engendering engagement in the workplace. I am in full agreement, conceptually speaking.

But…

As a former engineer with a systems focus on habituating new cultural norms that serve to improve the processes and outcomes which create those elements, I have the unshakable sense that many of those posts are some combination of buzzword bingo and search engine optimization – so many, in fact, that even when people try NOT to write that way, they end up doing so accidentally. It’s like our language is so watered down, it’s hard for us to talk about real things anymore.

On a whim, I recently posted an off-the-cuff wish that someone would use AI to work on this. I mean, if authors can use AI to recycle previous content and present it as new, why can’t I use AI to catch them at it? I pay for ChatGPT-4 plus with plugins and extra guacamole, but I don’t let it write for me because I think it’s bad at that. It might as well earn its keep somehow.

I want to be clear that I’m not an expert in ChatGPT. You can tell by how the guacamole got all over everything. Seriously though, I’m not. OK hold on. Quick side trip here, what is an expert on ChatGPT? In my mind that term would describe people who work the algorithms and technology full time and understand what they do and don’t know. I’m not one of them. Of course, a whole lot of other people out there claim “expertise” based on having used it. I think that’s weird. I mean, drive a lot, but I don’t go around claiming to be an internal combustion engine expert. In any case, I’m not one of those people either. I’m just a guy who pays my nominal monthly fee for a more sophisticated Google that I can occasionally take with me on 90 minute side quests when my curiosity is piqued.

I gained two big things out of this particular side quest: First, it taught me ChatGPT, at least like this, is not up to the task of noticing when writing is bad. (I’d argue that’s a big hint about why it doesn’t write well, but that’s a side quest for another day.) Second, it forced me to clarify my own thinking about what makes content useful versus fluffy.

The question now, for you, is how deep do you want to go? That’s up to you. For the whole story including lots of ChatGPT dialogue and how I realized it was more yes-man than analyst, continue with “The Dialogue.” If you have no interest in ChatGPT except what it taught me about defining non-fluffy content, skip down to “The Model” at the end. If you’re a real glutton for punishment, you can also read the nearly 100-pages of dialogue verbatim, though I suspect you can find a better use of 45 minutes.

Once again I’d like credit for being the only management consultant writing choose your own adventure blog posts. Anyway, let’s get started…

The Dialogue

I started pretty much with the wish from my original post

Me: I would like you to analyze the articles and determine a score from 1 to 100. The idea is that higher content density means the ratio of useful and/or practical ideas to the number of words is greater. This should make articles written for the purpose of providing information score higher than articles written for the purpose of broadcasting content. And, it should make articles written primarily for human consumption score better than articles written with a large focus on SEO Optimization.

To begin, I provided some articles to calibrate the scale with a very small data set. By the time I got to six articles, watching I realized I wanted to make an adjustment:

Me: I’d like to add one more element to the content density score – a factor of how unique the information is. My thesis is that an article that provides new or different information has more value than an article that is recycling well-known truths just to garner clicks.

I settled on a multiplier, applied to the first score, between 0.5 and 1.5 (lowest to highest uniqueness), and asked ChatGPT to re-run the articles to check calibration and see results.

It seemed like we were making progress, and it seemed like the algorithm was learning. Here’s one particularly encouraging interaction:

Me: Can you help me understand why you gave the…(first article) a 1.5 multiplier? I do not think the notion that a leader should take responsibility for his organization’s mistakes is at all novel.

ChatGPT: You’re correct in questioning the uniqueness multiplier… The principle that leaders should take responsibility for their organization’s mistakes is indeed a well-established concept in leadership and management literature. It’s not a novel idea but rather a fundamental aspect of responsible leadership that has been discussed and advocated for extensively over the years.

Given this clarification, it would be more appropriate to assign a lower uniqueness factor to [that] article, reflecting the well-known nature of its central message. A more fitting uniqueness factor would be 1.0, indicating that while the article provides a valuable case study, the underlying principle it discusses is not new or particularly unique to readers familiar with leadership practices.

I re-ran the six articles, defined some intermediate points in the uniqueness scale, and was feeling pretty encouraged. By this point I was calling it Content Density & Novelty (CDN) 1.1, and I started plugging in some more articles. By the eight article I thought I was refining the algorithm and ChatGPT was learning:

Me: I think there may be a flaw in CDN 1.1. Please correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the basic list of problematic employee behavior [from the article just analyzed] something that has been well-understood for decades? If so, shouldn’t the score be lower? Is it because the algorithm is overemphasizing the importance of trends?

ChatGPT: You’ve raised a valid point regarding the evaluation of the article on problematic employee behavior using the Content Density & Novelty 1.1 (CDN 1.1) scheme. Reflecting on your feedback, it’s clear that the foundational concepts of problematic employee behaviors have indeed been well-understood and extensively discussed in management and HR literature for decades. The novelty factor in CDN 1.1 aims to account for the uniqueness and freshness of the information provided by an article, considering its publication context.

For the article discussing well-established issues like negativity, taking credit for others’ work, perfectionism, rudeness, and bullying in the workplace, a higher novelty multiplier might not be justified if the article doesn’t introduce new research findings, innovative solutions, or unique insights into addressing these behaviors. Instead, such an article might more accurately be assessed with a lower novelty multiplier, reflecting the well-trodden nature of its content.

Notice how ChatGPT agrees with me and agrees to revise the algorithm in the ways that I suggest, with a nod toward the rationale behind them. I was thrilled. Unfortunately (spoiler alert), none of that was actually happening. But I didn’t know it yet. For the moment we had reached CDN 1.2. I directed ChatGPT to re-run all articles through it, and the scores seemed to be making sense.

In retrospect, the first red flag was when I got confused about how many articles we had run, and ChatGPT went along with me into confusion. Specifically, I said something factually incorrect: “We have analyzed nine articles, please list them for me.” Instead of correcting me (we had only analyzed eight), ChatGPT proceeded to pad the list by doubling up on one article. This was the first hint of “I’ll tell you you’re right no matter what you say” taking precedence over actual analysis. But I took it as a glitch and sorted it out, pressing on and adding an actual ninth article for CDN 1.2 analysis.

It was at this point I started to notice something else interesting: in its analysis, ChatGPT was taking at face value the claims authors made about their own content. I wasn’t sure if it could correct for this, so I asked if it could do that, it answered in the affirmative, and we had some clarifying and satisfying dialogue:

Me: Part of my thesis for creating this scoring system is that authors are overstating their own novelty, utility, qualifications, etc., in a bid for more attention on social media and other internet platforms. Can you retune CDN 1.2 so that it deprioritizes the author’s own claims about expertise, novelty, and utility, and instead prioritizes the assessment you make based upon the overall body of data you are trained with?

ChatGPT: Adjusting the Content Density & Novelty 1.2 (CDN 1.2) framework to deprioritize authors’ self-claims about their expertise, novelty, and utility, and instead prioritize an assessment based on the overall body of data I’m trained with, is a thoughtful approach to refining the evaluation process. This adjustment aims to mitigate potential biases introduced by self-promotion and focus more on the intrinsic value and originality of the content as it stands in the context of existing knowledge.

Red flags be darned, this felt like progress. The bot even offered a new summary of the criteria and upped the revision number to CDN 1.3 without being asked. So I tried a tenth article. That’s when I started to learn just how influenced by “trends” and “buzzwords” the algorithm really is:

Me: So you’re saying the primary thesis [of Article 10] is that it is better to staff accurately for the work required and focus on efficiency tools and processes, than to simply hire more people as an easy fix?

ChatGPT: Yes, precisely.

Me: How novel is that thesis?

ChatGPT: The thesis that organizations should focus on accurately staffing for the work required and enhancing efficiency through tools and processes, rather than primarily relying on increasing headcount, is not entirely novel…However, the specific application of this thesis to the post-Covid-19 economic landscape, as discussed in the article published in February 2024, adds a layer of timeliness and relevance. The pandemic accelerated many trends, including remote work, digitalization, and the use of AI, making the thesis more pertinent as businesses navigate the recovery and growth phases in a changed world.

Whoops, looks like we went from novelty to trendiness. But maybe I can correct:

Me: OK I see an issue. I think CDN 1.3 is confusing actual novelty with apparent novelty. Here’s what I mean. An “actually novel” solution to a problem would be something that is relatively new. I don’t mean no other human has ever talked about it, but it’s a relative newcomer on the scene of solutions. An “apparently novel” solution is when someone takes a new SITUATION, like COVID-19, and applies a solution that is not actually novel. There’s nothing wrong with this if it is positioned as “back to basics” or something, but it is not legitimate novelty. Do you see what I mean?

ChatGPT: Yes, I understand the distinction you’re making between “actually novel” and “apparently novel” solutions, and it’s an important one for refining the evaluation of content’s novelty within the CDN framework.

At this point you can see me struggling with what I was trying to define. Maybe that was why things started to get weird. But I re-ran the analysis for all ten articles, and although ChatGPT claimed to understand what I was adjusting for in article #10, I was surprised by the result:

Me: I expected that article 10 would score lower under our new definition of novelty, since the idea of hiring the right number of people instead of too few or too many and working efficiently is as old as business itself

ChatGPT: Given the updated criteria under CDN 1.4 and the distinction between actually novel and apparently novel solutions, your expectation for a lower score for article 10… due to its discussion of hiring practices and efficiency being long-established concepts in business, is well-founded. Let’s reassess the article with this perspective.

Article 10 was reassessed and rescored, and it seemed like we were back on track. Maybe I got too far ahead of myself, but all the struggling with novelty had led me to some clearer thinking about the difference between novelty and honesty. I decided to upgrade to CDN 2.0

I added a letter grade for intellectual honesty, the degree to which the author acknowledges the novelty or lack thereof of the content. It seemed like we were about to arrive at something good here, but when I re-ran all the articles through CDN 2.0, it led me ask the question that brought the process to a screeching halt:

Me: I can’t tell if you re-analyzed that article or just made an estimate. Please re-analyze the text of the article with CDN 2.0

ChatGPT: …Since the full text of the article isn’t directly provided, I’ll base the re-analysis on the summary and discussion we’ve had about its content…

Me: Are you saying you can’t go back and re-analyze previously pasted articles, so that whenever you are saying you are re-analyzing articles you are really just reviewing a prior analysis versus re-reading the text?

ChatGPT: Yes, that’s correct. My responses are generated based on the information provided in each interaction and the context established within it. I don’t have the capability to “remember” or access past interactions or the content of previously pasted articles within this or any conversation.

If you were at home that Sunday afternoon in Austin and heard a giant slapping sound, that was my giant facepalm. Every time I thought the algorithm was “learning,” it was just parroting back what I was telling it most recently. When I recovered, I told it I would paste in all 10 articles again so it could re-run every analysis on CDN 2.0. I did, and it did. Supposedly.

Except that it stopped using CDN 2.0. Somehow it forgot to use numerical values or multipliers and just started reporting high/medium/low type scores. Plus, those results didn’t match prior results when they should have.

The thread of consistency was lost, and I finally understood the real implication of the “I can’t go back and re-read” statement: the learning along the way was mine, but not ChatGPT’s. I may have been learning what the model needed to be, but it wasn’t learning how to do it. It was just telling me it had because that’s what I wanted to hear.

That’s when I walked away.

The Model

Here’s what I landed on as a model, though I’d hasten to call it a starting point, not a final conclusion. Still, even though ChatGPT was telling me what I wanted to hear rather than doing the analysis I requested, the back-and-forth of ideas with the tool was quite helpful in defining this. And since I believe we badly need a practical framework for thinking about the real value of web content completely divorced from ‘likes,’ ‘shares,’ and clicks, I still consider the whole process time well spent.

Summarized by ChatGPT:
Content Density & Novelty 2.0 (CDN 2.0) is an evolved evaluation framework designed to provide a more nuanced analysis of written content, particularly articles. It aims to assess articles based on three main criteria:

Content Density Score (0-100): This score evaluates the richness and depth of the content on a scale from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate more substantial, detailed, and informative content. [This is a measurement of the ratio of ideas/content/advice to number of words and number of SEO-type optimization passages.]
Content Density and Novelty (CDN): This combines the content density score with a novelty multiplier. The novelty multiplier adjusts the content density score to reflect the uniqueness and originality of the information presented in the article. It ranges from 0.5 (common knowledge or widely discussed topics) to 1.5 (highly novel or unique insights).
Intellectual Honesty Grade (A-F): This grade assesses the alignment between the article’s claims of novelty and the actual novelty of the content. It evaluates whether the author accurately represents the uniqueness of their insights, with ‘A’ indicating high alignment (true novelty or accurate representation of common knowledge) and ‘F’ indicating a significant overstatement of novelty.

CDN 2.0 provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating articles, offering insights into their depth, originality, and the honesty with which they present their novelty.

So… is anybody out there an actual “expert” who can get AI working on this? I would love it if someday soon, any article, blog post, or web page could be quickly scored (“80/120/A” or “45/45/C”), and the scores could easily lead to visual cues regarding density, novelty, and intellectual honesty. Maybe even someone will figure out how to tweak my feed so I get better content.

Maybe.

———-
Like this and want more? Watch Ed Muzio’s new TV Series, “One Small Step” on C-Suite Network TV. And, Visit the Group Harmonics Industry Intelligence Archive for ideas, whitepapers, and case studies about changing culture and how management culture impacts so many facets of the organization.

Best Practices Growth Leadership

Get Everyone Looking Up (C-Suite TV)

Post author By Ed Muzio
Post date February 2, 2024

Do you ever feel more like a referee than a manager? Do you constantly field complaints or resolve arguments between your people? Is being asked to take sides in your employees’ disagreements wearing you out? You need your people working on your goals, not bickering about theirs. In this episode of C-Suite TV’s One Small Step, learn to quit your job as the dysfunctional parent of quarreling children and get back to running your organization through the professionals who oversee different parts of your output.

Human Resources Leadership Operations

The Secret Culture Choice You Don’t Know You’re Making

Post author By Ed Muzio
Post date January 28, 2024

I’m a guy who specializes in helping teams of leaders and managers decide how they want to run their organizations, and I want to tell you about a subtle yet profound choice made in that area. Actually, it’s not so much a conscious choice as the result of an accumulation of individual actions (or inactions) triggered by assumptions embedded in the ether of culture. I’d wager many executives and managers don’t recognize it as a choice at all, and I can’t blame them because it’s so well-hidden. Still, it has huge implications for everything that happens in the workplace. It’s the choice between Power Over and Power With, and it has ripple effects at both the macro level (including the caliber of results the organization can achieve) and the micro level (including how day-to-day operations look).

What am I talking about? Let me explain. No, it’s too much. Let me sum up.

Power Over is embedded in our culture, it’s silently prevalent in popular movies and TV, and it’s taught – largely unconsciously – as the default model for business, charity, and sometimes even personal relationships. It’s rooted in power differences: who’s in charge, who’s been around the longest, who knows the most, and who wins the argument. In an organization, it usually looks like well-understood pecking orders and internal negotiations between leaders and experts. This isn’t all bad, of course; hierarchy exists for a reason, influencing is important, and we need people who take responsibility. But too much Power Over has been known to coax leaders into questionable ethical spaces, to put it mildly. Plus, it doesn’t work well for matrixed, complicated work. That’s because as Power Over stifles the less popular, less normalized, and less powerful – that’s the ethically dicey part – it simultaneously robs the system of crucial information. Let’s remember, we’re not just talking about any people, we’re talking about people we hired for the skills and knowledge they bring.

Power With systems, on the other hand, are rooted in power sharing. They run primarily on something I’ll call collaboration, though I probably mean something different from what you think of when you see that word. They recognize that real results happen when individuals pool their information, efforts, and strengths. Power With is less about figuring out whose favor to curry and whose dominance to co-opt, and more about understanding who can contribute what and how. To be clear, orchestrating divergent contributions to achieve something greater than the sum of their parts isn’t easier than politicking one’s way through the day. It’s often harder, and it still involves an element of hierarchy. But when managed effectively, Power With systems engage, satisfy, and include all involved to a greater degree; they adjust quicker and more effectively when things change; and they outperform their Power Over peers by a solid margin. It’s no wonder they’re more exciting places to work, if not easier jobs to hold.

I’m not talking about collaboration lip service. In a Power With system, diverse perspectives are not just tolerated, but actively sought. Novel and necessary solutions come from the intersection of different ideas and experiences, and innovation is less about office floorplan or furniture and more about who gets to offer ideas and what happens when they do. Power With leaders aren’t all that worried about teamwork posters or beanbag chairs – they do worry, daily, about creating an environment where problems, challenges, and unusual ideas can be voiced because people are trying to benefit from each other, not override, overrule, cajole, or impress each other. When someone in a Power With culture says, “this doesn’t work for me,” the first answer they hear will probably sound something like “why not?” as opposed to what they’d hear in Power Over: either “too bad” if they’re not the powerful one, or “let’s change it” if they are.

It’s no surprise engagement soars. The more other people care about your ideas and contributions, the harder you’ll work to make them clear and high-quality. A Power With culture fosters personal pride not just in completing tasks, but in being part of a team pursuing a shared set of results. One of the age-old questions of management is how to get people to take ownership of objectives and actions born of decisions they didn’t agree with. Power With cultures know the secret answer: people will engage when they didn’t agree with the outcome of a decision if they agreed with, understood, and noticed their contributions being valued in the process of reaching it.

(That’s really being valued, by the way. Not like, “my manager followed the script he learned in mandatory training of, ‘I hear you saying X and I would add Y’ before he ruled against me.” More like, “my manager and peers have a history of listening to and discussing what I think because they understand and value my work, but in this case the decision didn’t go the way I’d hoped.”)

Power With organizations don’t just feel more encouraging qualitatively; they enjoy consistently greater agility and measurable results, and it’s no mystery why: The system is synthesizing information not just from the top, but from the sides and the bottom. More information from more sources leads to more informed, timely decisions – which leads to appropriate actions, taken sooner. Where Power Over decisions create short term frustration that accrues to long term dissatisfaction, Power With decisions create short-term gains that aggregate into long term successes.

In real life, this looks like multiple timeframes coming up during decision-making; it looks like taking a longer view of future needs for talent, funds, and equipment; it looks like cutting resources mid-cycle on less important projects to ensure the most important ones succeed; and, it looks like having a deeper focus on developing processes and people for the future. This isn’t easy. It doesn’t happen because a motivational speaker at a conference said it should, or because one leader is charming and well-loved, but because everyone has decided it’s in the best interest of both the organization and all the individuals within it to all look forward and act in tandem.

If this all sounds great in theory but you’re not sure how to do it, don’t feel bad. The only reason I have a job is because this is hard. Still, regardless of how high up you are (or aren’t), or how empowered you feel (or don’t), here are a few things you can do right now:

1. Lean in on shared results: Make it clear that while individual achievements are important, the ultimate goal is the team’s success. Encourage alignment with the team’s objectives and foster a culture where success is shared. Reward your whole staff when your organization’s goals are reached. Rewarding individuals for subordinate goals is tempting, but in reality it just creates silos and infighting. Do as little of that as you possibly can, despite the urgings of the Power Over masses.

2. Emphasize collaborative action: Move away from glorifying the lone wolf and the individual superstar – those are just alternative currencies of power to trade on. Normalize raising future problems early and often so that they can be solved by the group while there’s time to react – that’s Power With. If you find anyone getting their work done “despite their coworkers,” don’t reward it – don’t even tolerate it. Make it clear that the person needs to think differently about the work, and/or the group process needs to be improved to reduce the tendency for individuals to fly solo.

3. Develop laterally: Encourage your team members to share information and understand each other’s roles. Facilitate one-on-one conversations to deepen the collective understanding of the work. This not only benefits team dynamics and improves peoples’ ability to make recommendations that help higher level goals (as opposed to helping themselves at the expense of their peers), it also prepares staff for future roles with wider scope. Management development isn’t just for a few key “high-po’s” on a spreadsheet. (Is it a coincidence that this sounds like “high power”?) When it’s part of the work as it should be, it’s for everyone, all the time.

4. Get debriefy with it: OK, that’s not a word, but you know what I mean. Spend time talking about how the meeting just went, who needs to contribute more or less, how effectively you’re making group decisions, and in what other ways your process needs improvement. Look through the lens of “this team exists to achieve our higher-level goals, not our members’ individual goals,” and ask: “how could we do this more effectively?” Debrief often and act on your conclusions.

The shift from Power Over to Power With isn’t a change in style so much as a strategic move towards a more dynamic, innovative, engaged organization. It’s about activating the full talent and perspective within your team to tackle the complex challenges of the business you’re in. Power With isn’t easy, but it’s a path to a richer, more nuanced, and ultimately more successful organizational culture. And it happens to be a great answer to the question of how you’ve decided to run your organization.

Like this and want more? Watch Ed Muzio’s new TV Series, “One Small Step” on C-Suite Network TV. And, Visit the Group Harmonics Industry Intelligence Archive for ideas, whitepapers, and case studies about changing culture and how management culture impacts so many facets of the organization.

Best Practices Growth Human Resources

Tougher on the Top: Why I Hold Senior Team Leaders to a Higher Standard

Post author By Ed Muzio
Post date October 23, 2023

Some people claim life is easier at the top, but I’ve never seen a management team at any level that was exempt from the regular challenges of humanity: confusion, misdirection, politics, posturing, and the general worry that the decisions being made together aren’t as good as what someone could have accomplished alone. The problem of getting a management team of any sort to act nimbly and deliver optimal results for the organization is a tricky one. I’ve written this book (and others) on the subject, I’ve made a whole career helping leaders do it well, and I’m here to tell you: I don’t think it’s easier at the top – I think it gets harder. To make matters worse, I expect more, too: the higher in the organization I’m working, the tougher a grader I become for my clients.

Why? First, because whatever the content of the conversations, the human side of the work – never easy in any group – is often hardest at the top. Ideally, management is a group of humans who come together in such a way that they develop accountability for their own results, a clear understanding of each other’s work and how those results relate, a direct interest in seeing all that work succeed (as opposed to just their own), and a set of habits that keep them focused on what’s coming instead of what’s already happened. All of this is challenge enough. Add to that in senior teams the more complex coordination of whole organizations, the additional layers of management over which information is distributed, and the increased cost of mistakes – to say nothing of the strength of the personalities involved – and it’s that much more treacherous. If you’re running a team of senior managers or leaders, and you’re not extra careful to do it well, you’re quite likely to do it poorly.

But that’s not the only reason I hold senior leaders more accountable to management processes. Heck, it’s not even the biggest one. I’m tougher on upper levels mostly because those team meetings act as prototypes for subordinate levels. I’m not speaking metaphorically – this is something I’ve seen first-hand, in real life, multiple times and in multiple companies. It looks something like this: I attend a senior leader’s staff meeting that uses, let’s say, a particular template for a mundane function like tracking open action items. Then I attend a subordinate’s staff meeting and notice, hey, this person is using the same template. Then I attend the staff meeting for one of those team members. I’m now two levels off the original meeting, and lo and behold, the same template appears again. The senior leader doesn’t instruct or even expect subordinates to propagate the template, the subordinates don’t directly ask the senior leader for it, and the second-level employee has never even been to the senior meeting. And yet, they’ve all “agreed” on the template – which is to say, they’re all using it voluntarily.

It’s a great example of my favorite operating definition of organizational culture: patterns of behavior start as solutions to practical problems and then become unconsciously repeated as “normal.” I need an action item tracking template, my boss has one, I copy it, my subordinate sees it, she needs one, she copies it, and on down the line. Pretty soon it’s no longer a template we all use – it’s simply the template.

More importantly, it’s not just the template being replicated, but the associated behavior. Think about it: the act of recording action items isn’t something that happens in every staff meeting, though I’d argue it should. It is something that happens in every meeting run by someone who adopts that template from her boss. She sees her boss doing it, decides it would work well in her own meeting, and picks up the practice. This is the very definition of cultural propagation of behavioral norms; it’s how the senior meeting makes the whole organization run better in ways the leader may never even notice.

Well, maybe it makes it run better. Let’s talk for a minute about quality. If that senior team routinely captures action items in such vague terms that nobody knows what they mean a week later, I promise you’ll see the same thing happening in the junior teams. But if the senior team does a good, diligent job of capturing the relevant agreements and holding people accountable to them, with enough detail and without going overboard recording every word, and if everyone takes the time to review and understand what’s been agreed upon, well, then…

Then, uh, the subordinate teams will do so too. Right? Right?

Sometimes. Sometimes they’ll do just as good a job as the senior team did. Sometimes, they’ll do a little worse. Sometimes, they’ll do a whole lot worse. But they’ll almost never do better. The downward duplication of patterns of management behavior is something akin to making copies of copies of copies on your office machine. If the originals are high quality, the copies will all look ok. But the fuzzier the originals, each generation of copies deteriorates. The real reason I’m so careful to make sure my senior team clients run their meetings well is that their subordinate teams probably won’t execute better than the modeling they get from above – but there is a good chance they’ll do a little worse. So I want the initial example to be as strong as possible.

Now I may not be harshly grading you, but that doesn’t mean you can’t harshly grade yourself. If you run a team at any level of seniority – meaning you have managers reporting in, or especially managers of managers – remember: You’re not just running a staff meeting, you’re producing the example of how you want all your subordinates to be managed. Ask yourself what you want that to look like, and then do your best to make it happen visibly and obviously in your own staff meeting. Tell people what you want, yes, but also show them what you want. Hold yourself to the highest possible standard. Because if you don’t – if you just take the approach of, “whatever happens in my meeting happens, and everyone else will figure it out,” then you’re consciously making the choice to set up an organization of chaos, confusion, and noise.

Of course, if you’re concerned you’re not a strict enough grader, don’t worry. Just call me. I’ll have a look at what you’re doing, and I promise not to let you off easy – not even a little.

Want an easier way to be a tougher self-grader? Visit IterateNow.com and register for access to the Assessment of Iterative Management Practices.

Originally published on LinkedIn

Best Practices Growth Human Resources

Accelerating Decision-Making and Action in Complex Organizations: A Guide for Leadership

Post author By Ed Muzio
Post date October 9, 2023

Ah, the joys of multi-layered organizations! Where a team of brilliant minds can somehow make a decision that no individual member would’ve EVER approved of on their own. Where meetings can feel like marathons without a finish line. And, where communication, approvals, and processes designed to make things faster actually slow your progress to tangible results.

Things change fast and often don’t go as planned. You need a blend of accountability, coordination, and oversight to handle the thorny beast of reality every day. And yet, bureaucracy kills results. Ideally, you’d like your teams to compound their individual intelligence instead of checking it at the door. Can you have it both ways?

The answer is yes, but it’s not as simple as saying buzzwordy things about flattening hierarchies or irresponsibly bypassing processes. It’s about creating a culture of what I call “Iterative Management” – one that values rapid decision-making using light, scalable processes, and one that recognizes that it’s better to move forward than to wait for perfect clarity. Here are some tips to help you achieve the balance:

1. Help Middle Management Move Faster: Middle managers are the unsung heroes of organizational decision-making, regularly sitting through meetings that could’ve been emails, and emails that should’ve been meetings. They often find themselves sandwiched between executive directives and ground-level realities. This is the job. You can’t make it go away, but you can help them understand the often-challenging reality of their position: They must constantly make trade off decisions that remove resources from “good” options to ensure the success of slightly better ones. Shower them in tools, training, and trust so that they can make those decisions confidently, without seeking approval from those above (or fearing their wrath if they do).

When middle managers can decide confidently, they can act swiftly, ensuring that projects don’t stall and that the most important ones get the most attention. Conversely, if you micromanage or force them to peanut-butter resources thinly over too many things, they will fail… and you’ll be the one responsible.

[[RELATED VIDEO: Iterative Management Has Been Transformative]]

2. Allow More Trial-and-Error: Perfection is overrated. If you’ve ever been in a meeting where you’re waiting for that one elusive piece of data to make a decision, and it feels like waiting for a plot twist in a never-ending soap opera, you know a decent decision today often beats a perfect one tomorrow… or the next day… or… never. Embrace the iterative process! Make the best decision you can today, then refine as you go.

What of those those who say “we can’t build the plane while we’re flying it”? Well, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but that’s already happening. You’re either doing exactly what you’ve always done, or you’re trying to improve… something. As soon as it’s the latter, you’re venturing into uncharted territory, at least a little (and maybe a lot) – and you don’t get to take a pause from the rest of the business while you do. Encourage teams to adopt a “decide, act, review, refine” approach, so that risks are quantified intelligently, decisions are made quickly, and results can be improved in real-time based on outcomes and feedback.

3. Lean In on Transparent Communication (Way In): Everyone likes to say that communication is crucial to trust. And sure, trust is the backbone of rapid decision-making (and everything else). It’s obvious and true: when everyone is on the same page, decisions happen faster and issues surface sooner and more completely. And yet, how often do individual managers and even executive teams spend more time on “positioning” than on real information transfer? It’s too easy for managers to fall in the trap of making things look good – especially when it seems like that’s what their superiors want. Instead, reward your employees and their employees for bringing “bad news” sooner. Turn meetings into channels where concerns are addressed promptly, and heads-up’s on future issues are not just tolerated but welcomed and actively sought.

When you eliminate the detective work of trying to sort out the truth hidden in heavily stage-managed status presentations, you get to use that time to engage in group problem solving that deals with actual future issues. Once that becomes a habit – once every meeting, every week, is always looking forward at what’s coming up and what should be done about it through a lens of total transparency, the whole organization gets smarter and more agile.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln and/or Peter Drucker (!), “The best way to predict the future is to create it.” I’d add “one step at a time.” As a leader it falls to you to create a world in which your subordinate managers collaborate on incremental creation of your shared future instead of cherry-picking information to pitch each other on how well everything is going. If you succeed, you’ll find yourself running an organization that’s not just reacting to changes as they happen, but is agile and proactive in incorporating reality and common sense into decisions which are both made more quickly and adjusted more easily when things go differently than expected.

Which – let’s be totally clear – they absolutely will.

Co-published on LinkedIn

Best Practices Human Resources Operations

You’re Wrong, but Not Alone: Four Horrible Truths for Surviving Matrix Management

Post author By Ed Muzio
Post date August 14, 2023

One of the first jobs of my professional career required me to serve as a technical link between Intel Corporation’s mask operations experts and its factory yield specialists. The challenge stemmed from the fact that, at the time, we were on the bleeding edge of what was technically possible, inventing the future as we went. Specifications and requirements that at first seemed straightforward and uncontroversial quickly became difficult to create and confusing to interpret. It wasn’t uncommon for the two organizations to think they were on the same page only to discover that their agreement didn’t work, that it wasn’t fully understood, or – maybe most often – that what originally appeared to be a complete set of parameters suddenly seemed inadequate in light of new information.

Of course, when I say it this way, it makes it sound like we uncovered these discrepancies over coffee, in comfortable chairs, with smooth jazz playing in the background. Actually, the discoveries tended to look more like one hard-charging-part of the organization suddenly realizing that the other part had done something that DIDN’T WORK FOR THEIR NEEDS and would create CRITICAL DELAYS and cause FINANCIAL IMPACTS if it wasn’t corrected IMMEDIATELY even though what they wanted might be TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The capitalization isn’t mine, by the way – it’s based on which words were pushed across phone lines at the highest volume. I know this because it often fell to me, a 25-year-old engineer just a couple years out of university, to get these highly intelligent, heavily goal-driven, and (ahem) relatively headstrong technical managers and leaders to have conversations, gather data, share information, come to agreement, and make adjustments that they DIDN’T WANT TO MAKE – especially since the two groups reported into different bosses and structures.

It turned out, I wasn’t bad at this – maybe because I have thick skin, and definitely because I was lucky enough to work for managers who supported my potential rather than overriding my every move. So I suppose it’s not hugely surprising that I ended up progressing from an engineer, to a leader in matrixed organizations, to a weirdo former engineer-turned-unusual-management-consultant who is more concerned about how management works as a complex, open, dynamic, emergent, coherent system than about what results it gets on any given day.

The thing is, because of that progression, I now know something I didn’t know back then: I wasn’t alone. Plenty of people in matrixed organizations find themselves hamstrung between competing structures, just like I was. So, whether you’re a senior leader or middle manager, should you find yourself caught this way too, pulled apart by various parts of your company debating each other in capital letters, I wanted to offer you four truths that might help. They’re excerpted directly from my bestseller Iterate: Run a Fast, Flexible, Focused Management Team, and they come with a warning: they’re not just truths – they’re horrible truths. If you’re a Ted Lasso fan, you no doubt remember Dr. Sharon telling Ted that “the truth will set you free, but first it will p**s you off.” Be warned:

First, management isn’t sexy. Making incremental adjustments to organizational resources to keep the enterprise on target may be the least attractive part of the work, as viewed from the outside. It’s not high-tech, it’s not customer facing, and it’s not terribly exciting to talk about. The fact that acting as the feedback system for the organization is critically important—and that it can be interesting and engaging to the manager who’s actually doing it—doesn’t change any of that.

Second, management is about being “wrong.” In Iterative Management®, every step leads to new information, and every new piece of information informs every step. Management is about making the best decision possible and then discovering upon implementation that things aren’t going as planned. Often that discovery comes packaged as criticism: “Why didn’t you see this coming?” The truth is, often management can’t see it coming. All it can do—must do—is adjust and adjust again. Fail forward, fast.

Third, management can only allocate resources. The management team can’t change the customer, the products, the services, the marketplace, the board, the ownership, or the future. All it can do is assign resources—people, money, and equipment—to get the work done. And since most resources are fully assigned, all it can really do is contemplate changes to resource assignments already in place. The only decision management ever makes is whether to leave resources alone or, if not, how to move them around. (Sometimes, some managers can change goals too – but not always, and not all of them.)

Lastly (maybe worst of all), management is succeeding when it’s resource constrained. Moving resources around almost always involves taking them away from something else. That’s because the balance between opportunities and resources is never perfect, and it’s preferable to have too few resources rather than too few opportunities. In the best-case scenario, management is all about stealing resources from good opportunities to apply them to better ones. And while that sounds good on paper, in reality it makes for some terribly difficult decisions, especially since those not-good-enough options always have strong, emotional advocates.

(Source: Iterate: Run a Fast, Flexible, Focused Management Team by Ed Muzio, An Inc. Original)

It sure would have been nice to know these things back in my 20’s: To know that I was serving an unpopular but important function, that I was destined to be “wrong” over and over, and that my possible avenues for action mostly involved taking resources from those who didn’t want change. The knowledge wouldn’t have made my job easier, exactly, but it would have lowered my stress while doing it. That would have made my life better, for sure, and maybe even increased my level of performance. Unstressed brains are creative brains, after all.

If you’re leading or managing in a matrixed environment, I hope you can take some solace in the fact that you’re not alone. It’s hard, it’s supposed to be hard, and all you can do is take your next best step from here. I wish you well, and I hope that, after it p**ses you off, this truth sets you free. Because either way, you’ll still be wrong again tomorrow.

Quick links

Follow Us