Point of View Matters - Customer/External and Organization/Internal

Point of View matters in so many contexts when creating experiences, deploying product, or delivering services. And I've found that the predominant POV typically originates with the leader's perspective.

I actually believe the most impactful POV is very simple: Customer versus Organization, or how some have put it, External versus Internal.

Here are some examples where, as a coach, I get a good idea of predominant POVs by listening to language, inspecting success criteria, and analyzing value streams.

• Creating Experiences (Internal) - this is incredible and will allow us to leap frog our competitors.
• Creating Experiences (External) - this is incredible and has increased engagement by 10%!
• Deploying Product (Internal) - great demo, now we can work on that next feature. 
• Deploying Product (External) - great demo, let's get that into production today!
• Delivering Services (Internal) - these status reports really give us a good idea of where we are.
• Delivering Services (External) - did you hear that? I've never heard a client so pleases!
• Analyzing Value Streams (Internal) - that will definitely eliminate waste, even if lead time is the same.
• Analyzing Value Streams (External) - I don't believe that will improve getting this into the hands of our customers, c'mon let's keep looking!

Now, while I realize these may sound contrived, I've heard comments and even more involved conversations along these very lines. When I hear this the image that comes to mind is "team in a bubble." Such an internal or organizational point of view may feel good, be comfortable, and make teams believe they are progressing. But if there is no impact to your customer, then what progress is there really?

Some common leverage points include:

• Definition of Done - does it refer to getting it into customer hands?
• Assessing Impact - how are you measuring the true impact of work completed?
• Measuring Capability - what is the capability of the value stream, not just one component?

As a leader, talk in terms of customer impacts and value - model Customer POV behaviors and language; and as coach, awaken this insight in your team and get them excited about what is possible. As great as internal progress may feel - external, customer progress feels an order or magnitude better, and is necessary for long-term success.

Leading is never Dragging - even for "The Right Reasons"

I had a recent situation where a leader had a noble goal - to inspire others to follow a very compelling direction. But it turned into more about leading, then coaching, and finally dictating. But in a way it felt OK to this person because the people involved "should" have followed....the reasons were "so compelling" that they need to act like professionals and "get onboard."

The image came to mind of someone dragging a mule dying of thirst to water.....seems like leading would work given the circumstances....if not, then surely the hope of refreshing water is so compelling the mule would follow...and finally to dragging the damn thing to the water. While I don't know the psychology of mules, I do know that just because a leader believes the message is terribly compelling, there is still no room for dragging people along the path.

The root of this problem is relatively simple to understand and implement - and it continues to amaze me how often it is abandoned or not used: ask! Communicate! Try to understand their perspective! I know this has happened many times over the years for me - "I cannot for the life of me imagine why they are hesitant...." only to later learn of their point of view and think "oh, yeah, now that makes total sense."

So the warning sign is "I can't for the life of me understand......"
And the most impactful response is "I need to understand their perspective...."

....even in those cases where you see them dying of thirst and you keep trying to hand them a glass of water. Leadership is never dictating, dragging, coercing....ever, period.

An Analysis of Strategy Execution Systems - Aligment

A recent article in Harvard Business Review describing myths around strategy execution and failure modes¹ struck me as particularly relevant to my coaching and consulting in "operationalizing strategy" and, more precisely, designing and analyzing systems of work and execution.

And so I found it useful to summarize the ideas presented in the article in my own words and then relate them to the aspects of operations that receive my focus and inquiry; in essence, using the content to bring visibility and clarity to my own latent points-of-view in how each of these areas impact systems I work with.

I will address each one in turn as a series of posts, starting with this one about Aligning Execution, then moving through the others: Sticking to the Execution Plan, Communicating Strategy for Execution, Performance-Driven Execution, and Top-Down Execution.

Aligning Execution

Too often alignment is used as the singular dimension for improving execution – all we need to do is implement or improve alignment and all the pieces will then fall in place.

In actuality, cross-functional commitment is more often the source of the most challenging issues in complex organizations. Even when alignment is clear, explicit, and even defensible within a group or unit, the problems arise when execution relies on cross-boundary collaboration. Some typical situations and behaviors I’ve observed include:

• Ignoring cross-boundary needs or issues – “we don’t talk about that…”
• Identifying cross-boundary needs or issues with passivity – “yeah, but they didn’t respond to our needs…”
• Turning cross-boundary needs or issues into divisive flash points - “we’ll steal what we need if we have to”

The most common challenge I encounter is when organizational strategy is decomposed into objectives requiring collaboration across boundaries, yet are rewarded and measured within each distinct unit. In this case, alignment, per se, is not the problem; it is the decomposition of strategy and rewards along organizational boundaries, increasing the friction introduced by these boundaries.

What Would Attract my Interest?

• Can lateral, integrative, collaboration systems even be articulated within the organization? Are they formal (part of the explicit organizational system) or informal (dependent on interpersonal relationships alone)?
• While lateral competencies do not have to be formal, the more friction created by structural divisions, the more design is required to effect such integration.
• Structures that introduce boundaries are also most often reinforced by parallel incentive systems and no informal system of collaboration will be able to counteract that force – and few formal systems may either.
• How often are cross-functional commitments identified? How often are cross-functional commitments met?
• Obvious measures are the outcomes themselves.
• How are cross-boundary commitments met (willpower, directives, collaboration)?
• It is also important to understand the motivation and type of energy behind how commitments are met.
• What incentives are in place for collaboration behaviors?
• Whether there is a direct causal relationship or an indirect influential with incentives and shared goals tied to rewards, these must be part of the analysis.
• Sometimes I believe with a bit more focus and effort, an organization can actually re-design incentives not just for enabling collaborative behavior, but appropriately designing shared outcomes that naturally drive such behaviors. 

"Operationalizing strategy" is a complex, multi-dimension activity that requires a systems thinking perspective focused on the motivation that drives particular behaviors and identifying the most impactful levers.

While strategic alignment is a legitimate concern to investigate, my experiences indicate that it is less often about true misalignment and more often about the ancillary systems of communication and collaboration, which provide the channels for alignment, that require the most attention.

That said, this exercise has provided me with the opportunity to make my own POVs explicit and identify aspects of this challenge that I have overlooked or taken for granted in my own coaching and consulting – even very recently. Learning is never-ending and I appreciate the opportunities to become aware of my own blind spots.

1.     Sull, Donald, Homkes, Rebecca, & Sull, Charles. (2015, March). Why Strategy Execution Unravels – and What to Do About It. Harvard Business Review, 58-66.

What Bodybuilding Taught me about Sustainable Pace

As I've recently started to prepare for my next bodybuilding competition, I was walking on a treadmill and found myself wondering how I am able to keep up the effort throughout the process, year after year. And as I thought through the system components involved, it hit me that they might be of use to others trying to design a system for agile team sustainable pace.

So here is where I landed followed by some ideas for attaining true sustainable pace with a group.

The first question I asked is....what does sustainable pace really look like?
This was my starting point because I've experienced patterns of behavior that appear to be sustainable only to dissolve into failure. So here they are:

• Constant pace then hit a wall - doing well, feeling good, being productive, then all of a sudden the bottom drops out. This could not be considered sustainable as the root cause is typically the gradual build up of systemic fatigue. 
• Gradually deteriorating - in this case everything starts well enough but diminishes gradually over time until a pattern of deteriorating goals sets in and then the bottom falls out. I don't consider this sustainable as it usually means that systemic fatigue is delayed but not avoided. 
• Constant incremental increase then hit a wall - this is the most similar to bodybuilding where I am always trying for very incremental increases, and may keep it up for a good while, until I hit a wall and the bottom drops out again. 

In each of these, if you graphed productivity over time, it would appear to be sustainable or nearly so, until the cliff is reached. And the critical piece is not a given load or commitment for a short time period or series of periods, but the load of slowly increasing systemic fatigue.

How do you measure sustainable pace?

• In the short term, sprint velocity for teams; total volume of work for bodybuilding
• In the longer term, and more appropriately, average sprint velocity for teams; average total volume for bodybuilding. 
• Here is the first place I wonder if my bodybuilding can help - for measuring true sustainable pace with a leading indicator in bodybuilding, I use my morning resting heart rate. When I am working hard in a sustainable way, not only is my volume headed in the right direction, but my morning heart rate when I first open my eyes is between 40 and 44 bpm. When I notice it creeping up and falling in the 48-52 bpm range over several days, I know an adjustment is required.
• So what might be a good leading indicator other than volume of work to indicate the build-up of systemic fatigue in a team?

So then I really starting to get down to the nuts and bolts of how I can keep progressing while avoiding over-training (in essence maintain a truly sustainable pace)? And here is again where I think my bodybuilding experiences might help design such a system with a team or group of teams. See if any of these resonate or give you some ideas to consider.

A common pattern of short term load I use in the gym looks like a slowly rising ramp with a steep drop at the end. What this feels like is for a relatively short period of time, I start with a baseline volume, gradually increase it, and then drop off the volume to below the starting level. I would then start the next incline slightly higher than the last. The principle here is to achieve incremental increases followed by a period of recovery and allow that relative rest to fuel the next phase.

• Could the work for a team across the span of a quarter, release, some other concept be designed in such a way to reduce systemic fatigue?

NOTE: although the dip above appears just like when a team (or bodybuilder) hits the wall, there is a significant difference - it is planned and designed into the cycle in order to facilitate the next increase, it is not the result of pushing too hard. What that means fundamentally is that it "feels" very different - space to breathe, think; sustainability of energy and inspiration; and it is recuperative. That is a significant difference as it impacts cognitive load and neural / systemic fatigue. 

• Another tactic when I observe the beginning of fatigue and over-training is to mix up my workouts for a bit. I replace my standard exercises with something new; I spend a bit more time on stretching, core work, even plyometrics for a bit. The principle here is that a given exercise (or type of work) has a typical physical and cognitive load. By varying that over time, systemic fatigue is reduced - or probably more accurately, avoided through a different form of recovery - variety.
• Would mixing the type of work over time have a positive impact - spike work, quality work, new feature work, etc....?
• And one last form of variety is to keep the work the same, but vary the volume significantly through a cycle. My favorite cycle in the gym is to focus first on heavy weights with low repetitions (for maybe a month or so), followed by lower weights but very high reps, and finally my sweet spot, medium weights with common rep schemes. 
• Could it be as easy as mixing sprints of high achievement with lower and then middling be effective?

Of course it is the team who must decide on the commitments made based on the prioritization scheme used, but I wonder if these types of conversations between PO, SM and TMs might lead to some insights into actual, long-term sustainable pace.

So while this is obviously an imperfect analogue, I do think the following principles may be applicable to crafting a system of work for a team to truly achieve sustainable pace:

• Targeting longer term patterns of work load that include periods of recovery.
• Targeting a mix of work that requires a variety of cognitive load.
• Identify a metric that serves as a leading indicator that systemic fatigue is increasing.
• Varying absolute volume between low, medium, and high work loads. 
• Designing in recovery using any of these points or complete breaks for team building or other important but not urgent activities. 

Innovation Values and Principles

When coaching and designing systems, values and principles are the core concepts that drive my focus, analysis and synthesis.

 A Value provides the foundation for identifying relevant Principles.

A Principle provides the context and insight for identifying or designing relevant Practices.

I’ve also noticed that some of the most impactful system levers seem to reside in the Principles underlying the system components.

So after some conversations with @ChrisSpagnuolo and @rhensley99 last week, I’ve come to think about Values, Principles and system levers for Innovation as shown below. I’m interested to hear if others have come to identical, similar, or opposite perspectives. I believe this type of model is critical for the initial design and ongoing improvement of innovation systems.

Value	Why it Matters	Example Principles	Hypothesized High Leverage Impact
Autonomy	Group can operate how they need to – shift focus from execution to learning	·      Group is not restricted to existing processes. ·      Group is not managed or evaluated using existing systems. ·      Protect the brand.	Tactical Operations
Adaptability	Group should be able to and comfortable with learning and change	·      Learn through experimentation. ·      Tolerate failure.	Learning Capability
Creativity	Create the space to cause creativity, for creativity to emerge.	·      Constrain the system	Ideation Flow
Urgency	Provide sense of urgency to learning and attaining fit.	·      Learn and adapt fast ·      Constrain the system	Learning Capability
Focus	Focus creativity, focus effort, focus funding	·      Constrain the system	Learning Capability
Accountability	Explicit accountability of results and decouple from dependencies	·      Accountable for learning	Tactical Operations
Ownership	Attracts people with entrepreneurial perspective and risk / reward profile	Provide ownership incentives.	Entire Innovation System

I purposely left off Practices as I’ve found they are not difficult to identify once the system, system components, values, and principles are well understood. So that is our current focus – understanding and hypothesizing. Next comes validation.

Operationalizing Strategy with a Systems Perspective

While there are many books and much research on Organizational Development, this system view combined with some validated learning over time is a powerful way to look at organizational challenges as a coach / consultant.

Here are some brief definitions and then some validated learning from my experience:

Brief Definitions

• Business Outcomes - the outcomes desired from the business strategy selected.
• Org Structure - the structure of power and authority to facilitate decision making.
• Incentive Systems - rewards for individual and group performance.
• Work Systems - how people get work done in the organization.
• Collaboration Systems - systems to overcome the friction to collaboration introduced by the org structure.
• People Systems - hiring, firing, development, HR systems - both tactical and strategic.

Validated Learning (observations and experiences over time)

• Business Outcomes are required to even think about the other dimensions; and interestingly, in my experience even some top leaders can struggle to articulate these so it may require some elicitation and dialogue. I like to use the pithy "operationalize strategy" when discussing this topic.
• Incentive Systems usually mirror Org Structure fairly closely.
• The Org Structure will help determine both Work Systems and Collaboration Systems; however, Collaboration Systems have a stronger relationship because they must overcome the friction introduced by the structure itself. 
• Incentive Systems and People Systems strongly impact everything else except Strategy. 
• People tend to focus first on Org Structure and Work Systems because they are the most visible, tangible, and even "fun" to work with.
• Each organization design decision made will impact the other dimensions so as the design is created, the entire system must be reevaluated. 
• Organizations are typically good at People Systems when it comes to tactical training and development, but more powerful levers are hiring, firing, and strategic training needs. 
• The most common constraint on change involves Incentive Systems.

Leaning and Discovery Enables Execution

One of the most salient statements in Steve Blank's "The Four Steps to the Epiphany" - for me anyway - seems logically obvious in hindsight (one of the most prolific biases I experience). This is a common scenario of invisible wisdom that required someone insightful like Steve to call it to my attention. But I digress.

Here is is:

"In the early stages of a startup, focusing on "execution" will put you out of business. Instead you need a "learning and discovery" process so you can get the company to the point where you know what to execute." - page 20

What I soon realized after fully understanding the concept and how it applies to the Customer Development model, is that this is a powerful principle which, while appearing simple and intuitive, applies to so much more than I would first realize.

Coaching

As a coach, this same statement sums up how I approach a client engagement, regardless of what the SOW states. In essence, trying to execute without a process of learning and discovery may not put me out of business, but it may make me ineffective. Do you really know what to execute without a process to get in there and see what is really going on?

Organizational Development

In organizational development, without a clear understanding of strategy, OD design is rather meaningless - how can you assess the components of design - structure, work and collaboration systems, reward systems. or people development systems - without a clear strategy defined or discovered? I would like to say it is merely about understanding articulated strategy, however in real life it feels more like learning and discovery through dialogue with leadership.

Facilitation

Someone recently asked me how I designed a large group facilitation engagement. And as I thought through the process from beginning to end, I realized that while I have a framework with criteria for the actual design, I spend a significant amount of time in learning and discovery about all kinds of information - points of view, biases, tensions, motivations, desires....the list gets long when I really try to articulate all the dimensions I'm interested in learning. Then the execution - or actual design - is rather straight-forward - and without all that learning, nearly impossible.

So it makes sense why that singular sentence was so impactful - it articulates a pattern I use over and over in these and many other scenarios.

What is then more interesting to me are those instances where I don't seem to follow that pattern and execute before learning - probably some significant opportunities for improvement there.