One way to bridge the gap is to rethink our views of leadership and teams.  In this regard, the folks at Zappos have some interesting things to say about what constitutes good leadership and team membership:

The best leaders are those who lead by example and are both team followers as well as team leaders. We believe that, in general, the best ideas and decisions are made from the bottom up, meaning by those who are on the front lines and closest to the issues and/or the customers. The role of a manager is to remove obstacles and enable his/her direct reports to succeed. This means the best leaders are servant-leaders. They serve those they lead.

The best team members take initiative when they notice issues so that the team and the company can succeed. The best team members take ownership of issues and collaborate with other team members whenever challenges arise.

Zappos’ focus on giving responsibility AND authority to the folks closest to the customer is a radical departure from a command-and-control structure that often gives the responsibility to the folks on the front lines without giving them the necessary authority to do what needs to be done.  If I’m reading the Zappos statement correctly, team members solve problems where they find them.  They don’t merely duck those problems by delegating up.

Now take this approach and apply it to an Enterprise 2.0 deployment:  “We believe that, in general, the best ideas and decisions are made from the bottom up, meaning by those who are on the front lines and closest to the issues and/or the customers.” Suddenly, this does not seem quite so anarchic.  Rather, it is about giving the front line experts the tools and flexibility to get the job done.  Above all, it’s about hiring good people and trusting them to do the right thing — with your customers and with your E2.0 tools.

And what about managers?  “The role of a manager is to remove obstacles and enable his/her direct reports to succeed.” Facilitating rather than restraining action is quite a change from command-and-control.  And, this rule for managers applies equally to knowledge management personnel.  Our job is to provide support to the front line staff and help remove obstacles in their path.  In an E2.0 implementation, this means helping the front line staff get started and then stepping out of their way so that they can bend and shape the tool to suit their needs and imaginations.

If you’ve tried to bring this spirit to an Enterprise 2.0 deployment, you most likely can attest to the fact that wonderful things happen when the subject matter experts finally have simple (and fun) tools that allow them to collaborate and interact with each other and their information base.  Equally, if you’ve tried to provide Enterprise 2.0 tools on a command-and-control basis, I’m willing to bet real money that you’ve got a failed implementation or two on your hands.

What’s your experience? Will I win my bet?

[Photo Credit: Windy]

Rather than pursuing these head-on methods, perhaps we should take a leaf out of Emily Dickinson’s book and try a slanted approach. For example, a recent post by Jon Katzenbach and Zia Khan in the Harvard Business Review Blog discusses the power of Spreading Critical Behaviors “Virally“.  In this case, the managers in question did not attack the problem head-on.  Instead, they identified other managers who were exhibiting the right behaviors and put them in touch with their counterparts:

If most other supervisors were not doing what these few knew worked, it was high time to do something about it. But their strong recommendation was counter-intuitive. They argued for a kind of “viral” cross-organizational exposure and interaction. No more programmatic confusion. Instead, simply get groups of supervisors together with respected counter-parts to share experiential `tricks of the trade’ in ways that would promote self-discovery. Simply put, set up small `cells of energy and insight’ — that is, credible people telling credible stories of how to get people emotionally committed to the few behaviors that matter most.

In short, they let the converted preach to the nonbelievers.

Can you identify folks in your organization who are exhibiting helpful knowledge management behaviors.  Can you match them up with skeptics and let the enthusiasts tell their story?  If you can, you may well create a grassroots movement towards better knowledge management.

[Hat tip to Euan Semple for pointing out this HBR blog post.]

[Photo Credit:  KiltBear]

It’s a direct reflection of the boss’s leadership. When a workplace isn’t compelling to people — where employees lack the desire and ability to be accountable for their own success — misbehaving or slacking in the boss’s absence is merely a mask for boredom.

If a lack of employee engagement is a consequence of supervisor behavior, then that’s important feedback for the boss.  Accountability expert, Linda Galindo, believes that bosses in this situation need to”raise their game.”  This can mean adopting a radically different approach to management, as recounted by one supermarket manager:

Not content with the absolute misery of the hourly employees I was responsible for, I tried to inspire and entertain them. It worked; those under me had the highest productivity rate, got the best raises, were promoted faster and would do just about anything in the world for me because they knew I would do anything in my power for them.

For you cats in management, is there something about your leadership that stops your colleagues from investing in their jobs and the success of your group?  Are you focusing on the right things?  Is it about punching the clock on time  — or producing great results on time? Is it about providing a way for your staff to shine — or are you too busy promoting your own interests over those of your team?

Perhaps mice are predisposed to play a little when the cat’s away.  Just be sure that you aren’t creating the conditions at work that drive your mice to act out more than normal.

[Photo Credit: yukari]

The stone — as big as a chicken egg and weighing just over 100 grams (3.53 ounces) — was estimated as among the world’s top 20 high-quality rough diamonds. It was discovered in September at South Africa’s Cullinan mine.

What would someone pay for the potential embodied by your team?  If not a record-setting price, why not?  Thanks to the economic downturn, there is some terrific talent on the market looking for new opportunities. Perhaps it’s time to reassess and augment the strength of your bench.

And let’s not forget that the key to a rough diamond is a masterful diamond cutter.  Your ability to prioritize and shape the efforts of your team will go a long way to realizing their brilliance.  Do you have the skill to reveal the myriad glittering facets hidden in the rough diamonds of your team?  If not, what are you doing about that?  It may be past time for you to polish your skills.

[Photo Credit:  Times Live]

Some have reported that in their view the safest course through the economic downturn was to pursue tactical goals rather than grand visions.  They have taken comfort in the sense of forward motion generated by their incremental gains.  However, while achieving these goals can be satisfying (in the way that crossing something off a to do list can be satisfying), they too rarely provide the competitive advantage that our firms are looking for.

What works better?  Pursuing a BHAG: a Big Hairy Audacious Goal.  Jim Collins and Jerry Porras coined this phrase to capture the kind of grand vision that a company articulates and then uses as an organizing principle and a spur to greater action.  Google doesn’t just want to be the go to search engine. Google’s BHAG is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”  Amazon doesn’t just want to be a great bookstore.  Rather, Amazon’s BHAG is a little grander than that:  “to be Earth’s most customer-centric company for three primary customer sets — consumer customers, seller customers and developer customers.”  That’s all?

What audacious, outrageous goal are you trying to achieve with knowledge management?  Is it big enough to keep you and your team energized and focused?  As we emerge from the economic downturn, bold ideas are going to help the surviving firms thrive.  What’s your bold idea?

********************

Here are some additional resources on BHAGs:

• Jim Collins, Good to Great
• Jim Collins, How Can You Tell if You Have a Good BHAG? [video]
• Alyssa Gregory, What’s Your BHAG? How to Create a Big Hairy Audacious Goal

[Photo Credit: jiruan]

Elan Gil has given this some thought and provided a list of characteristics he thinks are important, as he reports in Hiring the First 5 Engineers – What Sort of People Do You Want on Your Team:

1. Do what it takes-edness (to coin a term). Willingness to dive in and fix any problems that come up and to take charge since there will not be anyone else to do so. This includes the willingness to do lots of grunt work – there is no one to delegate to.
2. Persistence/tenacity.
3. Ability to deal with uncertainty and not freak out. You may end up with multiple pivots depending on company stage. You need people who will stay calm and keep with it.
4. Generalist technical knowledge. You will not have a “front end team” an “ops team” a “backend team” and a “database team” etc. You need someone who can optimally work on all parts of the stack.
5. Not religious about technology (or anything really). This is useful at any size company, but at a startup you really don’t want to waste time debating the merits of Python versus Java. You just want to build stuff and get it done. No engineering ego (I find the most confident engineers often don’t need to reinforce their ego – they already know they are very good so dont feel threatened easily) and no drama.
6. Get a lot done. You need people who can just crank on product. They need to be able to problem solve independently and go figure stuff out.
7. Do “just enough”. Focus on the 80% of stuff that needs to get done, not the 20% edge case which most users won’t care about (i.e. hire people who buil things that are very solid, but not “perfect” – this applies to an internet company, not e.g. a later stage hardware co)
8. Get along with the team. This does not mean the person is not quirky or lacks personality. It does mean that you will be 5-10 people in a room every day and you need people you and the rest of the team get along with.
9. Bonus points: financial stability. This could be a low personal burn rate, or ability to take a low salary either through a past financial success, being straight out of school so living costs low, or other means. This means the person may be more willing to take a low salary in exchange for more equity, which helps the company survive longer on less.
10. Lots of other stuff, but I think the above is important.

He goes on to suggest that while there is no perfect way of ensuring that the person you’re interviewing has what it takes, you can gather important information through reference checks, taking them out for a beer or dinner to see how they fit culturally with the team, and hiring them for a day and giving them a problem to solve.  The important thing is to keep digging until you’ve got a good sense as to whether this person meets your criteria.

This list of key traits applies to a knowledge management dream team as well.  KM is a cost center with few traditional means of proving ROI.  As a result, the KM group will most likely be small and will have to operate with the energy, enthusiasm and tenacity of a classic start-up.  If you’re managing a group like that, you’d do well to hire the sorts of people Elan Gil recommends.  And, don’t forget the beer!

[Photo Credit:  Roscoe Van Damme]

When I say “use credit,” I don’t mean to suggest that you give your colleagues IOUs.  Rather, you should find many and varied means of letting them (and others) know how much you value them.  In fact, studies have shown that cash is sometimes the least effective way of motivating others to perform.  So look at this year as a wonderful opportunity to learn more effective methods to manage your team.  Here are some tips:

• Be unstinting in your praise for work well done by members of your team.  I know they are getting a paycheck to do a good job, but that paycheck provides few of the psychic rewards most people crave.
• When you are commended for work done by your team, be sure to let your superiors know who on your team shouldered the laboring oar.  (If you are the insecure type who hogs the credit in an effort to shore up your personal position within the organization, let me tell you a secret about this.  When you highlight the excellence of individuals on your team you actually remind others of your good judgment in hiring and managing great people.  The fact that you look generous as well doesn’t hurt one bit either.)
• When anyone outside your team does a terrific job, thank them.  Better still send a note to their supervisors letting them know (and copy the employee so they know as well).
• Be straightforward and sincere.  Most of us sense a con when we hear it.  Credit works in lieu of cash only when the emotion and intent behind the praise is genuine.
• Saying “thx” rarely is sufficient.  If the work done is deserving of praise, then surely it merits more effort from you than is required to write “thx” in an offhand, reflexive manner.  (The only possible exception to this is when you are facing the 140 character limit in Twitter!)

Above all, I’d recommend that you read Charles Green’s fantastic post, Pin the Credit on Someone Else, and adopt that as your modus operandi going forward.  This will be a challenge for the insecure manager, but it will make a world of difference in the way members of the team view their work and their manager.

In this season of gratitude and generosity, try being grateful and generous at work.  It’s a gift that keeps on giving.

[Photo Credit:  chrisjohnbeckett]

********************************

The editors of the ABA Journal have recognized Above and Beyond KM as one of the top 100 law blogs of 2009.  They are requesting your votes to help them determine which of these blogs are the most popular.  To vote for this blog and your other favorites, please click on the picture below.  Thanks a million!

While there has been lots of conversation about the impact of new Gen Y employees in the workplace, Dorsey believes that the biggest challenge most companies are facing is the enormous span between the oldest and youngest workers.  In many offices, you can find members of the following demographic groups attempting to work together:

• Matures/Traditionalists – Born before 1946; while some have retired, finances have forced others back into the workplace
• Baby Boomers – Born between 1946 – 1964; while they should be on  the verge of retiring, finances are keeping them on the job
• Generation X – Born between 1965 – 1976; they should be moving into upper management, but are stymied by Boomers who won’t leave
• Generation Y/Millennials – Born between 1977-1995; they have perfected “adult-olescence” and value lifestyle and relationships over work

As Dorsey pointed out, each of these groups was shaped by distinctly different experiences and, as a result, has a distinctly different outlook on life.  For example, Gen Y (which, according to Dorsey,  was raised by their parents to prize personal fulfillment over duty) seeks instant gratification while the Matures (formed by the Great Depression and World War II) have confidence in their ability to survive and thrive, and believe strongly in delayed gratification. Or contrast Baby Boomers whose approach to work is defined by paying one’s dues a certain number of hours per week  (hello face time!) with Gen Y, which prizes time flexibility and whose approach to work is to blur the lines between work time and personal time.

Perhaps the starkest difference among the groups was summarized by Dorsey as follows:  Boomers define themselves by what they accomplish at work.  Gen X and Gen Y define themselves by what they do after work. According to Dorsey’s calculations, Gen X and Gen Y combined now exceed 50% of the workforce and will redefine how we think about work.

Because of these conflicting approaches to work, Dorsey believes it take a skillful manager to find a way to engage each generation effectively based on their workplace preferences and priorities.    Here are some strategies he recommends to managers:

• Generation Y: Since this group often lacks work experience and key workplace skills, they cannot always interpret your instructions properly.  Therefore, provide explicit examples of the performance you expect — don’t just state goals.  This group needs to feel that they are in touch with you, so deliver continuous feedback in short bursts rather than waiting for the annual review to let them know how they are doing.  Give Gen Y a wide range of challenges with clear outcomes and then when they succeed reward them with time.   This group values recognition, so provide reviews and rewards that they can show their family and friends.
• Generation X: This group is inherently skeptical and wants you to prove what you’re saying.  Therefore, be prepared to explain why you have chosen  a particular strategy and what your backup plan is.  This group values reliability (they don’t like to be surprised) so be sure to keep the promises you make with them or give them plenty of warning if things aren’t going to work out as expected.
• Baby Boomers: Acknowledge their contributions and how hard they work (they really want to know that you have noticed).  Because of their time focus, try to accommodate their schedules by arriving early and leaving on time.
• Matures/Traditionalists: Show respect by listening to them and asking questions based on their experience.  They are unlikely to brag (or to respect braggarts) and prefer to fit in rather than stand out.  Therefore, find ways to assure them that they are part of the group.

Generational differences are going to push managers to the limit over the next few years as they find ways to identify and deploy the skills of each group in a constructive way.  Failure to meet this challenge could well result in miscommunication, underperformance and conflict at the office.  As far as Jason Ryan Dorsey is concerned, you’ve now been warned.

*************************************

If you’re interested in indulging your skeptical inner Gen Xer and checking Jason Dorsey’s facts and assertions, you might start with the following resources:

• Dorsey’s data on Gen Y are drawn from over 500,000 interviews he has conducted with Gen Yers.  For further information on Gen Y, see Jason Dorsey’s books, including My Reality Check Bounced.
• For non-Gen Y information, see the work of William Strauss and Neil Howe.

[Photo Credit: Brian Fitzpatrick]

Marion Chapsal recently reiterated this truth in her post, Play, laughter and creativity in coaching.  In it, she refers to recent studies in neuroscience that “show the correlation between the ability to make people feel good and the global productivity at work.”  Taking this one step further, she cites Daniel Goleman, who has done landmark research in the area of emotional intelligence.  According to Goleman and Richard Boyatzis (Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership, Harvard Business Review, 1 Sept 2008):

Mirror neurons have particular importance in organisations, because leaders’ emotions and actions prompt followers to mirror those feelings and deeds.

Here’s an example of what does work. It turns out that there’s a subset of mirror neurons whose only job is to detect other people’s smiles and laughter, prompting smiles and laughter in return. A boss who is self-controlled and humourless will rarely engage those neurons in his team member, but a boss who laughs and sets an easygoing tone puts those neurons at work, triggering spontaneous laughter and knitting his team together in the process. A colleague of Daniel Goleman, Fabio Sala, found that top-performing leaders elicited laughter from their subordinates three times as often , on average, as did mid performing leaders. Being in a good mood, helps people take in information effectively and respond nimbly and creatively.

In other words, laughter is a serious business.

As you start this new work week, consider if your leadership style is depressing your team and its success.  Perhaps it’s time for you to lighten up and create an environment that enhances both productivity and personal satisfaction.

[Photo Credit:  Allie Wojtaszek]

I’m not advocating the mindless generation of meaningless statistics about how busy you are.  That exercise doesn’t do any of us credit.  Rather, I’m advocating periodically setting aside the time to do a private, honest inventory.  During the last 100 days, what new means of collaboration have you enabled?  What projects have you completed?  What new initiatives have you begun?  What seemingly intractable problem have you dented?

There is no magic about the 100-day period.  The secret lies in the honest assessment, which allows you to change your pace or adjust your course, as necessary.  When you don’t do this periodic analysis, you run the risk of drift.

In reality, the last 100 days aren’t your most important.  The next 100 are.  However, understanding what has just happened will better prepare you for what is to come.  And, it may even give you a measure of control over the future you create.

[Photo Credit:  BBC world service]