Stephen H Baum Leadership

An object lesson from the execution workshop yesterday. Critical thinking is not everyone’s strength: you know, sorting things that are like each other together from unlike, understanding a logic sequence in which one fact leads to another and consequences, imagining the multiple possibilities for why something may be true or false. Understanding how a process works and why it is better than having a less rigorous process.

If you, as the boss, when you request an action and an approach to the action on something important your subordinate may interpret the request literally without understanding anything else. Or think what is important to you in how the task is done is not really important. How can you know what was heard and understood vs. what you said? How can you take the understanding up a notch if your gut says you need to?

First, ask a question that ferrets out what was understood and listen (preferrably one that gets at “why” the request and the desired outcomes and consequences — not just “tell me what you heard” or “tell me what you are doing to do” which can seem condescending).

Second, if the understanding appears limited, think of an easily understood analogy (sports, life, movies, whatever).

In yesterday’s workshop on rigorous advance planning of significant tasks needing execution excellence, a past project that might have gone better was examined for where the project was flawed in the twelve steps from execution design to enlisting the participants to execution and follow up. Listening to the participants, it was clear that more than one key player did not “get” that what happened at late stages could have been anticipated in the design phase and contingency options developed just in case. At the time things went different from plan, some options are no longer available. One participant stated: even if we had been more disciplined in planning, would the results have been the same because of the upsets?

One of the facilitators then used an idea from television and theater: “showtime.” If something can go wrong once it is showtime (an actor fails to show up, someone forgets his lines, the electricity fails, ….) what can you do then so the show can go on (answer: not much) ? What could you have planned for in the earlier stages (arranged for understudy actors, installed a prompter, made sure there is an emergency generator…)?

There is always a need to improvise, but many upsets can be anticipated. And many tasks, especially early contacting of those who have a stake in the outcome or a way to help cannot happen once it is “showtime.” The higher level of understanding demonstrated by the participants as a result of this back and forth was clear in the oral reports at the end of the exercise (which also included planning the next project).

And if you are making a request of someone who, themselves, will work through their subordinates or peers, teaching them this communication process is not a bad idea.

That’s my view. What’s yours?