Wednesday 20 December 2017

Stories are very, very powerful - maybe too powerful?



I am reminded of the phrase: Never let the truth get in the way of a good story?

Reading Michael Lewis' The Undoing Project, there are some great lessons for all professionals, management and leadership.  The examination of perception versus reality and the bias of personal experience over worldly fact is unnerving.

Too many decisions are based on flawed thinking, influenced by emotional circumstances with more effort spend on excuses (stories?) rather than pursuit of the truth. If something appears true-enough then people look no further.

Plausible stories (fake news?) undermines projects and change, management and leadership which are based on combination of Trust and Truth.

Key points

People predict by making up stories
People predict very little and explain everything
People live under uncertainty whether they like it or not
People accept any explanation as long as it fits the facts

The problem appears to be that stories based on feelings and scenarios are emotionally engaging and gather followers whereas facts demand too much effort. In the pursuit of eQ have we sacrificed iQ?

Stories deliver power to orators.

Rhetoric, or the art of persuasion, is an ancient topic that's no less relevant today. We are in a golden age of information sharing, which means you are swimming in a pool of rhetoric every day, whether you realise it or not. 

Hitler understood the power of words: He saw them as a tool which he needed to master if he wanted to achieve his goals. He had a strong vision which he believed in passionately and he knew that he needed his people to share that passion if he was to succeed.

FURTHER READING
https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2016/11/words-like-loaded-pistols-wartime-rhetoric/

RECOMMENDED BOOK
https://www.amazon.com/Undoing-Project-Friendship-Changed-Minds/dp/0393254593

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story: Your review of 2017?



Reading Michael Lewis' The Undoing Project, there are some great lessons for all professionals, management and leadership. The examination of perception versus reality and the bias of personal experience over worldly fact is unnerving.

Too many decisions are based on flawed thinking, influenced by emotional circumstances with more effort spend on excuses (for errors) rather than pursuit of the truth.

The after the fact justification for failed prognosis or planning is prevalent even in expert professions including doctors and lawyers as well as those predicting elections or referendums. Subjective probability (A hunch of 60% chance of xxxx) is rife and undermines projects and change, management and leadership which are based on combination of Trust and Truth.

Given that most project and change efforts fail this is sobering and worthy of scrutiny as we reflect on 2017 and plan for 2018. How can we better anticipate error, omission or failing to better recruit support and ensure success?

The problem appears to be that stories based on feelings and scenarios are emotionally engaging and gather followers whereas facts demand too much effort. In the pursuit of eQ have we sacrificed iQ?

FURTHER READING

https://www.amazon.com/Undoing-Project-Friendship-Changed-Minds/dp/0393254593
http://lenzwelling.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-undoing-project.html

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is a Qualified Change Practitioner and PRINCE2 Project Manager, with an MBA in Management Consultancy. Past projects have included the incorporation of Ports of Jersey and Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI and NatWest. He has also helped SME's streamline systems and scale-up operations and managed growth by acquisitions. He is a tutor/lecturer for the Chartered Management Institute.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhjrogers

CONTACT

tim@timhjrogers.com @TimHJRogers +447797762051
http://www.timhjrogers.com

COMPANY

TimHJRogers@AdaptConsultingCompany.Com
http://www.AdaptConsultingCompany.Com
Consult CoCreate Deliver
#Leadership #Management #Process #Change #Analysis
#GDPR #CyberSecurity #CMI

Tuesday 15 August 2017

Coaching, Mentoring, and Change Management in a Business Environment.



Like many I have been viewing Wimbledon and more recently the World Athletics Championships. I have noted the role and responsibility of coaches towards their athletes and the goals they achieve. I have also noted that in many cases champions find that at critical points they need to change the coach and approach.

I have recently read (and highly recommend) Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead by Sheryl Sandberg, and Nell Scovell. I note Sheryl’s view is that mentoring need not be formal, structured or necessarily agreed, but instead can be as simple as an exchange of views or advice.

This got me thinking about the role, responsibilities and accountability of coaching and mentoring in a business environment and in particular in the context of managing change.

COACHING AND MENTORING – THE DIFFERENCE

Coaching and mentoring use the same skills and approach but coaching is short term task-based and mentoring is a longer term relationship. The CIPD differentiates between coaching, mentoring and counselling.

Once the coachee successfully acquires the skills, the coach is no longer needed. Mentoring is development driven. Its purpose is to develop the individual not only for the current job, but also for the future. This distinction differentiates the role of the immediate manager and that of the mentor.

Factor
Coaching
Mentoring
Key Goals
To correct inappropriate behaviour improve performable and impact skills
To support and guide personal growth
Initiative
The coach directly directs the learning
The protégé is in charge of the learning
Volunteer
Volunteering not necessary (although agreement to participate is essential)
Mentor and Protégé volunteer
Focus
Immediate problem and opportunities
Long-term personal career development
Roles
Heavy on telling with appropriate feedback
Heavy on listening, role modelling, making suggestions and connecting
Duration
Short-term as needed
Long-term
Relationship
Coach is often the boss
Mentor is rarely the boss

See further reading below for references




APPLYING SPORT COACHING TO BUSINESS CONTEXT

As a sports coach I am used to understanding aims and methods and breaking these into processes and behaviours which I can analyse, improve and measure.

Aim and method
Win British Championships by becoming faster, stronger, better, more stamina, less injured, healthier.

Process and behaviours
May include sleeping, training, eating, resting, stretching, thinking, planning, learning. I can analyse and measure fitness, power, strength, efficiency and knowledge (of conditions, equipment, technique) and much more.

Is it possible to compare business coaching with sport coaching and hold them accountable for business performance as much as a sport coach is responsible for athletic, team, national or Olympic performance?

Is it a step too far to hold the coach accountable for delivering performance? It seems to me some people who describe themselves as coaches are actually "mentors" or "therapists”, more interested in the relationship and wellbeing of the individual and won't think of themselves as responsible for performance outcomes.

I am wondering if it is unreasonable to judge a business coach by business performance, or indeed hold a coach accountable for culture and behaviour of those they support on the basis of their coaching interventions. This is what appears to happen in sport.

Should we not have the same for business coaches?

THE CHANGE MANAGEMENT KPIS OF A BUSINESS COACH

In a business context we may have critical success factors [CSF] (clearly identified things that make a difference) and key performance indicators [KPI] (clear measures that can be applied to monitor and measure progress, improvement and performance).

In a change management environment, we might look at values and behaviours, skills and competencies all of which can be applied in a skills matrix which assess current ability and performance and necessary changes.

Is there a way we can combine CSF and KPI and matrixes above to form a structured and co-ordinated approach which aligns people and process, values and behaviours, skills and competencies sufficient to create the capacity, drive and desire to achieve the planned changes and business performance?

Feedback and Discussion Welcome.

FURTHER READING

The Differences Between Coaching & Mentoring
http://www.management-mentors.com/resources/coaching-mentoring-differences

Coaching V. Mentoring
https://www.slideshare.net/wooded01/coaching-v-mentoring

6 Ways Of Measuring Coaching Effectiveness
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/6-ways-measure-coaching-effectiveness-ruma-biswas

Evaluating Coaching
https://diane-foster.com/articles-newsletters/025CanCoachingEffectivenessBeMeasuredBacon.pdf

Practical Methods for Evaluating Coaching
http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/430.pdf

I am interested in this topic, if you have materials, case-studies or references that you feel would be useful please get in contact.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is a Qualified Change Practitioner and PRINCE2 Project Manager, with an MBA in Management Consultancy. Past projects have included the incorporation of Ports of Jersey and Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI and NatWest. He is a tutor/lecturer for the Chartered Management Institute. 

Thursday 6 July 2017

How (not?) to run a helpdesk



In what is a slightly longer than usual article I want you to consider two very different models of providing a helpdesk service to customers, and consider the relative merits of each at satisfying customer needs and exceeding customer expectations.

ABC CO LTD

At ABC Co Ltd it is a requirement that all uses of their products attend a FREE training course on how to use it. The first aim of improving customer services is surely to ensure that they don’t need it!

Anyone who has been on a course can ask for help, but don’t bother trying to make a helpdesk call if you haven’t had any training or haven’t asked someone who has. The second aim must be to discourage pointless calls which could be resolved by reference to the training material or consulting a colleague.

Getting people to attend training is rather like sheepherding cats, so ABC Co Ltd  say the first course is FREE but if you want more there is a charge for that. By insisting only people who have attended training can make calls this further adds value to attending the training.

People seldom value anything that is free, and often will abuse the generosity of the provider. Unless your product is truly broken most calls are from people who can’t be bothered to help themselves and calling you is the first option not the last resort.  You don’t necessarily want to prevent them from picking-up the phone, but you do want them to pause for thought first!

Putting a nominal fee on follow-up training and making a pre-requisite of service is a triple-whammy:

1.       it encourages people to attend training.
2.       it creates revenue from those that don’t.
3.       it resolves many problems at source by educating the user.

When ABC Co Ltd do pick-up the call they first identify the user and problem and resolves to have an expert call them back within a short period (well within the SLA) .

This is a significant difference from XYZ Ltd (which we will look at further, later).  XYZ Ltd will attempt to resolve the problem right there and then, demonstrating to the customer the value of an on-demand service.

ABC Co Ltd places someone on first response whose key skill is empathetic rather than technical. Their role is first to address the needs of the, sometimes distressed, user and then to elicit the information which will help identify the best person and quickest route to resolve the problem. They then check a convenient time for the user to receive a call from the expert. This is helpful because many users are in the middle of something or on their way to somewhere when the need to make a call and (obviously) don’t have the current moment scheduled in their diary to talk to a technician.

The benefits of this are manifold.

1.       The user can generally get on with something else whilst a solution is being sought;
2.       The highly skilled technicians are focussed on solving problems rather than answering calls;
3.       The technicians can also specialise, and rely upon first response to recognise and route the calls appropriately
4.       The first response person can better focus on the person rather than the problem, and both calm and guide and support the person to providing the information which will expedite a solution to be delivered by the appropriate expert.

A COMPARISON TO EMERGENCY SERVICES

Consider for one moment a super 999 or 911 service which rather than route your call to Fire, Police, Ambulance, Coast-Guard, (or Vehicle Recovery Service) instead insisted that you were speaking to someone who had all the skills and experience of all the above.

Would you believe them?

As a user you might be sceptical how the humble operator at the end of the line could have all these skills, on-demand and without reference to anyone else.

If any organisation does provide such a comprehensive service, I would be interested on how they identify recruit, train, remunerate and retain such expertise and then persuade them to sit patiently by the phone.

BACK TO ABC CO LTD

By making the customer wait (for 20mins or what-ever the SLA is) ABC Co Ltd is achieving three things.

1.       They are creating an opportunity for the user to think “…err, actually if its 20min I think I can fix this…” and thus nullify pointless calls.
2.       Once they realise the standard response that someone will call back in 20 minutes they may think before they dial, possibly referring to documentation or a colleague before making a call.
3.       They are creating an opportunity for the technical expert to think, refer to a knowledge base or colleague and thus be better informed and prepared before attempting a fix.

Hopefully if the product or service is any good resolving the issue should be straight forward.  If the call transpired to relate to training issues this is logged and when sufficient similar issues are noted ABC Co Ltd will suggest to the client that refresher training would be wise.

If, as happens often, the call for support relates to something other than ABC Co’s product or service (eg advise on someone else’s product or service (because your helpdesk is nicer or cheaper than theirs!) then this too is logged and if it gets out of hand ABC Co will either sell training (prevention) or charge for support (cure). This way the operation whilst flexible and friendly doesn’t become a unsustainable charity which will inevitably fail the needs of both customer and provider.

COMPARISON TO XYZ LTD

As noted above XYZ Ltd prides itself on rapid response providing on-demand solutions.

They don’t provide training, but will provide telephone support providing there is a happy coincidence between the needs of the caller and, by random selection, the knowledge of the person answering the call.

For the expert or technician picking up the call, this is more a game of Russian Roulette than an opportunity to exploit a particular expertise that you have honed.

Often the expert or technician is more focussed on the problem than the person which may affect their demeanour and rapport [ an essential element of customer service] and this may be made worse if their disposition is dependent on whether the telephone Russian Roulette has yielded a harmless click or a skull crunching BANG!

At this point the technician may be relieved and confident, or surprised and stressed by the revelations coming down the phone line. In the worse circumstances they will have to juggle satisfying the emotional needs of the caller and resolve the technical need of the problem all, if possible, right-first-time.

This is not impossible. I have seen some remarkable people be both customer focussed and technically brilliant, however their scarcity is what makes them remarkable!

The above, perhaps, doesn't give XYZ a reasonable case even though XYZ (probably) represents the industry standard.

I would concede that the XYZ model can work where there is low variety of products and service requests. Clearly if there only 2 or 3 products or 2 of 3 request types then expecting the person at the end of the phone to have reasonable expertise on-demand isn’t unreasonable. This then necessitates a strict approach to standardise and streamline.

Going back to our previous analogy it is rather like calling the Vehicle Recovery Service. If you call the AA, RAC or Green Flag you can reasonably expect them to know something about cars, engines and possible causes for breakdowns. It would however be unreasonable to expect them to opine on car accessories, holiday destinations or indeed provide driving lessons.



FEEDBACK

What is interesting about ABC and XYZ is that I can name at least 4 companies for each model and I am curious as to which is actually better. I personally think ABC is better (and I acknowledge some bias in this article) but I am interested in others’ opinions, experience and possibly other models.

I would especially welcome feedback from customers who are the recipients of these services and organisations who need to recruit, train and retain the people that provide them.

As always, feedback welcome.

If you are in Jersey (Channel Islands) I am always willing to share a coffee, croissant and chat about your ideas and experiences.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is a Qualified Change Practitioner and PRINCE2 Project Manager, with an MBA in Management Consultancy. Past projects have included the incorporation of Ports of Jersey and Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI and NatWest. He is a tutor/lecturer for the Chartered Management Institute.