Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts

Friday, December 2, 2022

Project Management without the Leadership Seminar



The Back Story


5th Grade:

The Superintendent of Schools came in as a guest
teacher to teach a science class.

He began the process of who would be working on which
science projects--This with no knowledge of the students' abilities, preferences, or social interactions.

I raised my hand for. "Who wants to do the report on
volcanoes?" I was selected.

Then, he announced that I should really work with someone
on this project. [Wrong. Unnecessary] He then proceeded
to seek an interested person, then chose one of my classmates to be my teammate.  I would have chosen someone else.

3 major management blunders before he finished.


I've discussed this in part in another articles in 
LinkedIn posts.

1. When you assign someone to head up a project, assign the person who is most capable to head up the project.

2. If you don't know who that person is, find out.

3. Let that person choose his or her team That person knows which co-workers are best able to handle the different aspects of the project.

4. Do not, and I cannot emphasize this enough, do not add
to or subtract from the team.

5. Do not allow others outside the team to manipulate their
want onto the team regardless of strategy. Especially when
that person's boss comes to you to offer the services of that
person [that the boss wants to get rid of for a while & shunts them off onto you & the project leader.]

6. Do not allow other bosses to borrow people from the project. And if you are a more high big boss [sic] don't approve the request from the little boss.

This should help toward tidying up the problems
in the operation.

Best wishes,

Slim

Box 33
Pen Argyl, PA 18072

Copyright © 2022 All rights reserved

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Delagating. Do & Do Not



What to do when you have to delegate authority.


1. Delegate authority to the person(s) with a proven track record.


2. Allow that person to pick his or her own team


3. Set Deliverables and Measurables.


4. Set a fair and transparent means for reassigning individuals in the group who are disruptive.

NB   Disruptive is not creative. Creative is not disruptive.


5. Receive regular updates on progress. (If necessary, offer validations)


6. Insure that the team has the resources necessary. For example:

Do not assume that the supervisor is smart enough to know that when the number of packers rises from 4 to 10 then the number of scissors should rise from 4 to 10. Or from 3 to 10 if he had 4 people working with 3 pair of scissors because 1 pair broke.


7. Establish the protocols in your company to insure that another manager does not feel comfortable usurping your prerogative to assign projects and staff by interfering with the project because he needs help, or supplies, because he is incompetent yet still works for you.


8. Communication: Make sure that a disruptive person has the opportunity to speak to you directly. He may not be the problem. Follow up on the information you receive.


Regards,

Slim.

Slimfairview@yahoo.com

Slimviews@gmail.com

Copyright (c) 2017 Bob Asken All rights reserved.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Social Eugenics

by 
Slim Fairview


Social Eugenics, in its most benign form, is the attempt to study a productive group or team, analyse it, replicate it, and reproduce similar results.

This, of course, is based on a faulty premise and on a well-intentioned but ultimately evil paradigm.

"Social Eugenics is the dehumanising field of study that reduces people to a list of component traits in order to organise them into groups to achieve a desired result." ~ Slim Fairview


Also From the Quotations of Slim Fairview

1. "Leaders are defined by their followers."

2. "Look behind you. If people are following you, you're a leader. If they're not, you're not."

3. "You can't lead if you can't manage."


The entire initiative is based on reducing individuals to individual components.

Various individuals are defined by isolating social genes--or demographic DNA.  Each may be valid and defensible in its own right. But it is not the skills that are being called into question. It is the end to which they are employed.

Such may include but are not limited to

Sympathy
Empathy
Listening skills
Validation
Etc.

Others may have more objective criteria--math skills, for instance.

There are reasons why some people become accountants and other people become artists.  One and perhaps most significant reason is that "They Want To."  Similarly, some people work better in groups, others work better alone, still others in pairs.

When used, however, to create a perfect team or group, even when the goal is to organise people to work together to be successful, they have dehumanised the people and have created a contrived arrangement.

Some of the tools are

Teach Consensus Building.  Aside from my having defined consensus building as group-think built by a consultant, Consensus Building is really influencing the members of a group to embrace a shared value or a shared vision to validate a preconceived ideal.

Leadership Training.  This is a series of exercises (where there are no right or wrong answers) to teach people presumed to have management skills how to lead people in such a way that will justify blaming the employees for any failures to meet standards or to achieve goals.

There is still the observer effect.

When a man is at the checkout at the supermarket sees an attractive young cashier, he stands up straight, sucks in his gut, and smiles.  When his wife is with him, not so much.  The observer influences the behaviour of the observed.

Appearance of Science.  With the rise of Social Eugenics, people attempt to portray opinions as facts so they can challenge facts by defining them as opinions. (SF.)

Who's to Say What's Right or Wrong?

"Circumstances if not consequences will determine who's right and who's wrong--too often when it's too late to benefit from the answer."


In an article I am writing about "personal robots" I pointed out that people who are affluent enough to afford a PSR (Personal Service Robot) will become desensitised to people in the service industry.  A robot can replicate a human, but a human won't replicate a robot.

Social Eugenics is based on an analogous principle.  That people are components in a group; and by analysing those individual traits, people can organise the component people into groups or teams that will become successful at achieving the desired results.

Warmest regards,

Slim.

If you find anything here to be helpful, please don't hesitate to send me one of those really tricked out Macbooks and to tuck a few dollars into the envelope along with the thank you note.  Slim

Robert Asken
Box 33
Pen Argyl, PA 18072




Copyright (c) 2016 Robert Asken
All rights reserved.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Can Leadership be Learned? See: The EuroCrisis

Let's not say learned.  Let's say aquired or developed.

I have been called upon a few times to fill a leadership role.  Usually, ex-officio.  However, as I posted in another discussion, I am a lone wolf style person.
 
This does not always mean work alone, however.  I have worked with people.  And it is nice.  But I don't aspire to leadership.

A few things are necessary.

1.  knowledge--know what to do on the job.

2.  delegate authority--authority is defined as permission--to others to do a job.

3.  be ready with real help. ("The fact that we have to do something is no justification to do something stupid."  The Quotations of Slim Fairview

Witness the EuroCrisis.

The "leaders" are educated.

Experienced. 

Even reasonably intelligent.

Yet, they cannot solve the EuroCrisis.

Why not?  Who will "follow" a leader who does not know what to do?

Europe: Analysis

Is everything "more high, good, better"?  NO

Is everything "More low, bad, worse"?  YES

Why can't they solve the problem?  Who will follow their lead?

Did you ever hear an employee say, "I'm not listening to him.  He doesn't know what he's doing." ?

Now you know why the EuroCrisis exists.

Can leadership be learned?  Well, ask yourself this: Can leadership be taught?  NO

Leadership skills can be developed, not learned.

You can learn the tenets of the "position"  (Of Leadership)  but you cannot learn to be a leader.




From: Slim Fairview

I am interested in working as a paid blogger, a columnist, a commentator. (This in addition to finding someone interested in publishing my novel or producing my screenplay.)

If any of what I've written has been helpful to large corporations or powerful nations, I encourage them to send me a tricked out laptop and to tuck their respective currency into the envelope along with the thank you note.

I don't want to be paid for what I do.
I don't want to be paid for what I know.
I don't want to be paid for what I think.
I want to be paid for the way I think.
Slim

ps. If I have been truly helpful to the powerful, the less fortunate will have benefited from the advice in the monographs I've posted.

Slim

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

You Can't Lead if You Can't Manage 2.0

 


In a previous monograph, I detailed the handling of a problem management is required to deal with all the time.

That problem ostensibly focuses on the non-performer.  Actually, it focuses on the non-performing manager.  It illustrates how someone who knows how to manage does, and why he is considered a leader.

That example was limited to a team working on a project.  Now, we will focus on a higher level of activity.  Team leaders working on different projects.

In order to do this, we must create an analogy.  This time, however, we cannot use Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and D’Artagnan.

This analogy involves Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, the fictitious Odious Thudpucker, and the big, important boss, Phil A. Bilgewater.

First, I will put two qualified individuals on display.

Wolf Blitzer and Candy Crowley are working on different stories at opposite ends of a large table.  Ms. Crowley is getting information together for a story.  She gathers what she needs, stands up, and says,

“Well, I’ve got what I need.  I’m going to head downtown to interview the Mayor; I should be back by three o’clock.”

“Good luck,” Mr. Blitzer says.

“Thank you,” Ms. Crowley says, and leaves.

The following day, Mr. Blitzer is still working on his story.  At the other end of the table is Odious Thudpucker.  Odious is gathering information for his story.  He gathers what he needs, stand up, and says,

“Well, I got what I need.  I’m gonna go interview the Mayor.  But first I’m stoppin’ off to talk to the director.  I wanna keep him in the loop.  Then, I’m gonna stop by and talk to the fact checkers, them I’m gonna go interview the Mayor.  I should be back by about three.  I may stop for a samwich, I dunno.  How you doin?  Okay.  If you need any help, I’ll be back around three.  Well, I guess I better go.”

He leaves.

Now, Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, and Odious Thudpucker all have their assignments.  In plain English, however, Odious is no good.  He was hired by Mr. Bilgewater.  Bilgewater is no good at his job, either.  So, he calls a meeting and tells the three they all must attend.  This disrupts Mr. Blitzer’s and Ms. Crowley’s work.  Mr. Bilgewater tells them, “This is important.”  What he means is, “I think I am important.”  They all attend.

Mr. Bilgewater discusses the visioning process, shared vision, the importance of avoiding groupthink.  He discusses the importance of consensus building, which is really groupthink you paid a consultant to build.

In order for things to go more smoothly and to improve the quality of the journalism, Mr. Bilgewater is going to have Odious work with Ms. Crowley.

Ms. Crowley doesn’t say anything.  She knows that Odious Thudpucker is no good at his job.  Nor is Mr. Bilgewater.  She knows she will be doing Thudpucker’s job for him.  She knows he will junk up her report.  However, she bites the bullet and goes along with it.

This is what Ms. Crowley knows:

If Thudpucker’s story comes off well, he will take the credit.

If Thudpucker’s story fails, he will blame her.

If her story comes off well, Thudpucker will take the credit.

If her story fails, Bilgewater will hold her responsible—After all, “I had Odious Thudpucker work with you on that story to help you.”

When her story fails, Odious Thudpucker defends her to Mr. Bilgewater.

“It isn’t all Candy’s fault.  I had some good ideas and suggestions but I hesitated to push them.  I didn’t really feel comfortable making too many suggestions to help Candy improve her story.”

Mr. Bilgewater looks to Ms. Crowley.  “The purpose of having Odious help you was for you two to work as a team.  You should be more receptive, open to the ideas of others.  Let’s not have this again.”

Well, a string of disasters would have ensued.  However, Mr. Bilgewater has a boss.  His boss, Mr. Hammerhead reads my blog.  Not that he must.  He already knows this stuff.

He calls Ms. Crowley, Odious Thudpucker, and Mr. Bilgewater into his office.  He wants an explanation about this new arrangement.  He does not direct his question to Ms. Crowley.  He looks at Odious Thudpucker and Mr. Bilgewater.

Odious know his stuff.  He isn’t going to try to pull any fast ones with Mr. Hammerhead.  He has plan B. ready.  Throw Mr. Bilgewater under the bus.

Mr. Bilgewater knows what to expect.  He defends his decision.

“I am trying to build consensus.  I want my people to work as a team.  I learned this stuff at the Really Big, Important Seminar we had here last year.”

“Shut up, Bilgewater.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“From now on, Ms. Crowley works on her stories.  Mr. Blitzer works on his stories, and Odious Thudpucker works on his stories.  Got it!”

“Yes, Sir.”

“That was not a question.  Meeting over.”


Now, this is the point at which the critics see their opportunity to barge in and shift the focus to advance their agenda.

Two heads are better than one.  One person can’t do everything.  People need other people to help them.  People, people who need people.... You get the idea.

However, that is not the point of this presentation.

Wolf Blitzer has a story to work on.  He has a researcher look up information.  He has a fact checker check facts. He has an assistant go to the film department to get some file videos.  He puts his story together.

Candy Crowley has a story to work on.  She has a researcher look up information.  She asks a fact checker to check facts.  She asks an assistant to get some video from the files. She puts her story together.

Now we come to Odious Thudpucker.

Odious has a story to work on.  He needs research.  His demands are not merely vague they are confusing.  The researcher digs up the information he knows will be needed for the story.  Odious criticises his assistant.  He decides to get the information himself. Odious has the fact-checker check certain facts.  The facts he wants checked are not in question.  The ones that are, he tells her not to bother checking.  He sends an assistant for video from the files.  He doesn’t like the videos.  He gets some himself.  He gets a clip of young women in bikinis, people at a bar drinking vodka, and a car-chase scene.  This, he knows, will hold the interest of the audience.  His staff is rushed, pressured, confused, overworked, and feels a deepening resentment for Mr. Thudpucker and for Mr. Bilgewater who can’t manage and certainly can’t lead.

Wolf Blitzer’s story is a success.

Candy Crowley’s story is a success.

Odious Thudpucker’s story is a disaster.

Mr. Hammerhead can now deal with the problem.  He calls everyone into his office.  I can assure you this is not a meeting.

“What happened?”

“My staff.  I’m new. They question my ability.  They challenge my authority.  They aren’t team players.”

Bilgewater chimes in, “That’s what I was talking about, Mr. Hammerhead. Team building, consensus building, shared vision—“

“Shut up.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“You have the best researchers.  You have the best fact-checkers.  You have access to the best video files.  There is no excuse for this disaster you call a project.  This will not happen again.  You can go back to work.  Bilgewater, you stay.”

“Yes, Sir.”

Everyone leaves except Mr. Bilgewater.  When everyone leaves, Mr. Bilgewater looks at Mr. Hammerhead and asks, “Are you going to fire Thudpucker?”

“No.”

“Do you want me to fire Thudpucker?”

“No.  I am not going to fire Thudpucker.  I don’t want you to fire Thudpucker.  I am going to have the new big boss fire Thudpucker.  Clean out your desk.”

Now Mr. Hammerhead can justify his decision to the people upstairs.  Mr. Hammerhead hires a new big boss.  The new big boss replaces Odious Thudpucker with a qualified journalist.

Sincerest regards,

Slim


PS.  I am not Paul Harvey.  However, I am open to becoming a paid commentator, columnist, or blogger. If you’ve found anything I said to be helpful, please don’t hesitate to send me one of those tricked-out laptops and to tuck a few dollars into the envelope along with the thank you note.





Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview
All rights reserved.






Friday, August 12, 2011

You Can't Lead if You Can't Manage

 

We keep hearing about leadership.  Why?  Why are we discussing leadership when we can’t even manage to manage?

For the purposes of this discussion, we will discuss a team in your company.  There are three members on this team.  Athos, Porthos, and Aramis. 

If you are thinking “All for one and one for all,” you are thinking of The Three Musketeers.  That was then.  This is now.

The Boss, Mr. Odious, has received several complaints from Athos and Porthos that Aramis is not pulling his own weight.  Mr. Odious tends to ignore these things.  That is until Mr. Hammerhead hears about it.

Mr. Odious calls the three into his office.  You’ve heard it all before.  You may even sell this stuff.

Mr. Odious says, “There is no I in team” and he proceeds to talk about the visioning process, shared vision, group-think, and consensus building.  When he is finished, and after having mentioned efficiency, productivity, and personal responsibility, he hands each employee a smiley-face key chain, and sends the three back to work.

Mr. Odious tells Mr. Hammerhead that he had a talk and things should be fine.  Mr. Hammerhead is not reassured. 

The Big Boss does not want to hear about problems.  He doesn’t even want to hear about solutions.  Why not?  Because solutions mean problems.

The problem of Aramis continues.  Now, there is a bigger problem.  Mr. Hammerhead calls Mr. Odious and Aramis into his office.

“Mr. Odious, do you have the sales figures for the first two quarters?”

“Well....”

“Yes or no!”

“No, Sir.”

“Do you have a draft of the Quilby contract?  Yes or no?”

“No, Sir.”

“Which person in your department was responsible for these assignments?”

“Aramis, Sir.”

“Mrs. McGillicuddy, have D'Artagnan report to my office.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“Odious, Aramis is off the team.  D‘Artagnan will handle the assignments.”

Yes, Sir.”

“You may leave now, Aramis.  Odious, you stay.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“Odious, I can easily see that you cannot manage.  You received complaints on more than one occasion that Aramis was not pulling his own weight.  We don’t have the sales figures, we don’t have a draft of the contract, and this is not acceptable.  I don’t want it to happen again.  Understood?

“Yes, Sir.”

“That’s all.”

It is not long before Mr. Odious is replaced by D’Artagnan.

The main reason is that Athos and Porthos lost all respect for Mr. Odious.  Athos and Porthos have jobs to do.  The company relies on their accomplishing their assignments.  Aramis was the weak link.  Mr. Odious was a weaker link.  Mr. Odious not only could not lead, he could not even manage.

This plagues American business.

Athos and Porthos have a great deal of respect for D’Artagnan.  He knows his stuff.  He is capable of helping Athos and Porthos.  He has the respect of Mr. Hammerhead.  Mr. Hammerhead already knows D’Artagnan will be replacing Mr. Odious.

Mr. Hammerhead is a leader.  He is respected.  People want fair play.  They don’t want smiley-face key chains.

Had Mr. Hammerhead not replaced Mr. Odious, he would have both lost the respect of his employees and he would have lost the confidence of his bosses.

We have had our ability to manage, and by extension our ability to lead, compromised over the past several decades.

Leadership is this simple:

“Look behind you.  If people are following you, you’re a leader.  If they’re not, you’re not.”  The Quotations of Slim Fairview


Regards,

Slim


PS.  I am not Paul Harvey.  However, I am open to becoming a paid commentator, columnist, or blogger. If you’ve found anything I said to be helpful, please don’t hesitate to send me one of those tricked-out laptops and to tuck a few dollars into the envelope along with the thank you note.




Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview
All rights reserved.


Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Can We All Come to a Consensus on Group Think?



We must liberate ourselves from the notion that a gutsy leader will arise to save us. Remember the admonition: "...a confederacy of dunces will rise up around him..."

I am now 4 decades into discussing group-think.

Let's assume for the moment that:

a. W still have group think.
b. We must get rid of group think.

Now, we are still discussing group think.

Is is possible that all the methods to get rid of group think have failed? As evidenced by the fact that we still have group think--yes.

Do we ever come up with a new way to get rid of group think? No.

Is that group think? Yes.

By constantly clutching to the notion that we must get rid of group think, and constantly pursuing the sames methods to get rid of group think, are we not merely perpetuating group think but also reinforcing group think?

The focus is always to narrow.

Bring as many different people into the group to get as many different ideas as possible.

Cultivate a culture of shared vision. (Shared vision?)
The visioning process.
Team building. (Cohesion)
Consensus building.(Group think)

Get rid of as many different ideas as we can until we have consensus.

Call this Leadership in Action.

I will be the leader. I will get as many different people on my team as I can. I will lead the group to share a vision. I will engage in team building exercises. I will achieve consensus.

If it works, I am a visionary leader. If it fails, I fell victim to group think.

And, now, you can see the process for what it is.

If you treat everyone to lunch, you will have achieved "Bread & Circus".

Regards,

Slim

Mail: Slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Thursday, May 5, 2011

GroupThink 2.0

I sat on an economic development committee for over two years. In that time, I observed a group of people, some professionals (CEO banking), economic development, etc. and community people. (Business people.)

I observed the group. There was no group think. It looked like someone trying to herd cats.

After two years of attempting to stimulate investment, attract business, deal with green fields and brown fields, we finally had the opportunity to entertain a state official of the department that hands out grant money. (It's their job to give money away.)

We put on a great presentation, tour, helicopter, luncheon, the works. We got shot down--unceremoniously. (As Mrs. Slocum used to say, "How ignimonious" sic)

Upshot. "We give money for projects, not plans."

They licked their wounds. Still, they did not accomplish much.

On another committee, (Finance committee of a government programme.) I opined on moving funds into technology related projects. Website development, improvement, etc. People listened to me. We voted, agree--unanimously--funds were moved. Subsequently, the web presence and technology use became vital. We were that much ahead of the game.

Group think is a result of consensus building which was a consequence of the absence of leadership. Too, an absence of followship.

I addressed that issue in another discussion where a budding expert was giving examples of how he/she helped groups avoid group think. In short, this individual encouraged group think.

It is somewhat disheartening to watch (as I watched the members of that economic development committee), people discussing the same issues that had been discussed, have been discussed, are being discussed and will continue to be discussed.

I've studied groups, been in groups, been in a group that studied itself, worked in groups, on committees, on a committee to form a committee to set up a programme to form committees, and I dissected the different structures used handle projects and explained why each does not work. However, as I am adamant in my opposition to articles that are descriptive and not prescriptive, I also set up an organisational chart that will work for one of my ppt. presentations.

As I read in clever book on management just the other night (While waiting for my cat to come home) Come Together: The Business Wisdom of the Beatles by Richard Courtney and George Cassidy.

"Parks are full of statues erected to honour leaders. There are no statues erected to honour committees."

"This too shall pass."

In the heat of battle, no one turns to a committee. Everyone looks to a leader. See who they are looking to. That is a leader. That is the leader.

In my much younger days, when I took a holiday job while I was working on a novel, the VP came in, furious, because the department was in a chaotic state. For the second time. He asked my supervisor,

"What do we have to do to get this straightened out?"

My supervisor looked to me. The VP looked to me. I had a second operation (holiday) up and running the following day. And I was not even an actual employee of the company. Only a holiday temp.

The VP did not say, let's form a committee to find a solution. I did not receive a smiley face key chain.

The flip-side to one aspect on group think is that people propose new ideas, however, 1. due to group think the ideas are rejected; 2. due to a lack of ability demonstrated by several members of the group, the new idea is rejected; 3 lack of ability of the "leader" the idea is rejected; there is a divisiveness among the group (for and against) we move into the mode of consensus building and the new idea is watered down to where it is palatable....

However! The biggest problem with respect to "group think" is hiding in plain sight. The word "group". In addition, if you do "win over" the other members of the group and all embrace your new idea you end up with [wait for it]

GroupThink 2.0

Now you have two conflicting ideas at play. 1. Getting rid of Group Think and 2. Consensus building. On the corporate level, you have Risk Management and Risk Assessment. There is a cost-benefit analysis that new ideas must go through.

Finally (or not) there is the needy member(s) of the group who, after having an idea rejected, refuse to accept that the idea was rejected on the basis of a lack of merit, but who feel personally demeaned, diminished, marginalised and so on.

A greater reason that people do not propose new ideas is a personal one--the lack of ability to make objective assessments.


Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com


Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview