Presentation tip: Don’t rely on the presentation

conference room presentationA few weeks back, Karen Martin authored a post for her blog entitled, “How to capture an audiences attention” in which she gave several good tips for remembering your audience and delivering a strong presentation.

Inspired by Karen’s post and a recent chance to address the MassBay PMI chapter (a presentation for which I give myself a B+) I’d like to add another, useful tip to all those would-be speakers out there:

Don’t rely on your presentation to capture the audience, rely on your ability to present.

By presentation, of course I mean PowerPoint decks or other visual aids.  Quite frankly, unless you have something technically complex that can only be understood with a graphical depiction, or you have something uproariously hilarious that can only project its humor when seen, then you really don’t need slides at all.

Yes, perhaps decorum necessitates that you have them, but you really shouldn’t need them.  You really ought to be so utterly devoted to your topic that you can carry the audience without relying upon the screen.  Take a look at many of the TED talks – there’s just a passionate person talking, not a smart instructor elaborating on words most of the audience can already read.

My short speaking experience is already telling me – don’t even think about opening that PowerPoint file until after you have perfected what you will say and how you will say it.  Else, the slides will guide you.  You need to develop that perfect ability to deliver your topic to the room first.  Then, if you must,  craft a few slides around it.

But only if you have to.

The height of disrespect for people: A UK Healthcare nightmare

The_Doctor_will_SEE_you_now_by_DaYDid

The Doctor will SEE you now by DaYDid

I came across this lengthy article from The UK’s Daily Mail detailing the nightmarish conditions at Staffordshire Hospital, where it is reported that between 2005 and 2008 as many as 1,200 patients died needlessly due to appalling conditions and neglect.

Keep those dates in mind – this is current.  The events described in the article did not happen in some long-forgotten past or in a third-world hell hole.  This scandal is unfolding, right now, in one of the most developed nations on earth.  If you want to know just how far an organization can stray from the Respect for People ideal that lies at the root of Lean and Operational Excellence, forget Foxconn and look at the UK’s NHS.

There are a host of other articles on the Daily Mail site.  This article shares stories from the families of victims of the hospital’s abuses, where people were so thirsty they drank water from dirty vases and patients were often left to soak in their own urine for days.

Of course, the man at the head of it all refuses to accept responsibility, blaming ‘the system’ for the problem.  I know Lean typically advocates looking at the system for the root of the problem and not blaming the individual, but this seems like a bit of a bastardization of that concept.

The scandal runs wide and deep, and would be shocking if it wasn’t so utterly disgusting.  The Guardian has published a guide to the scandal, demonstrating just how far-reaching this is that it requires a guide.

Amazing that, in an era where Lean Healthcare is gaining more and more momentum, a situation like this exists.

The value of delayed decisions

decisions by mihaibrrr

decisions by mihaibrrr

Most conversations about improvement revolve around finding ways to speed things up.  Whether by focusing on the elimination of unnecessary activities, doing less more often, reducing clutter, training the mind to avoid multitasking, or any other approach to speeding up decision making the prevailing message is clear:  do things faster.

The desire to do things faster necessitates making decisions faster, of course.  Process improvement schools of thought are, essentially, designed to speed up decision making to one degree or another.  Last year, I came across Frank Partnoy’s Wait, however, which advocated something different – slowing things down.

Partnoy investigates the cognitive science of decision making across multiple situations, from athletes making decisions in milliseconds to investors like Warren Buffet who delay decisions for weeks, months or years.  In his investigations, he discovers a seemingly simply truth:  That the longer you can delay a decision, the better decision you will make.

Partnoy’s take seems to be out of synch with improvement methods that look to speed up our ability to make decisions. Nonetheless, I think there’s more in common than might meet the eye.  What I see in Partnoy’s book  is that decision making needs to be slowed down in order for genuine improvement to occur.  Adopting continuous improvement methods allows  for as much information gathering as possible prior to making the final decision.

The iterations surrounding any approach that looks to fail fast and learn constantly are all doing 1 thing – allowing for as much learning as possible prior to making a decision that can’t be undone.  Partnoy’s work reinforces the wisdom of this approach and makes it clear:  slowing down your thought processes, rather than speeding them up, results in the best possible outcomes.

 

Managing the complex organization

Traffic Pro

Traffic Pro by marie carrion

A great read popped up over at inc.com this week.  The author, Ilyz Pozin, is a successful entrepreneur with several successful companies under his belt.  The article, entitled, “Want Happier Employees? Get Rid of the Bosses” describes his foray into the world of innovative management practices.  Along the way, he learns something about mentoring vs. directing, allowing teams to self-manage, the elimination of hierarchies based on titles, eliminating worry over salaries and incomes, and rewarding people for performance instead of activity.Those things are, in a nutshell, at the core of every bit of innovation in management writing over the last 30-40 years or so.  Which doesn’t make any of it a bad thing – it’s just a reminder that these ideas have been around for a very long time, and maybe we’re finally starting to see some of them come into fruition.

Unfortunately, despite all the cries to the contrary (including those coming from yours truly) – management is still, and always will be, quite necessary.

For instance, Pozin tells us that his innovative approach to managing his company – where people are organized into self-directed teams, has been going on for just 3 months. That is hardly long enough to declare sustainability to the approach.  He also declares, “Individuals need to be managed, but teams manage themselves.”  That statement, I believe, is wrong.  Or, at the very least, it’s mostly wrong…and it is mostly wrong due to a chronic misunderstanding and misapplication of what management is and should be.

Teams in simple environments are more able to “manage” themselves – which means they are able to organize their own activities and determine how to go about their work, assigning tasks to each person within the team.  Disputes are resolved, ideas are discussed, actions are taken.  All of which is to say that these teams, perhaps, don’t “manage” themselves – but, rather, that they lead themselves.  Managing is, of necessity, a bureaucratic and dogmatic process.  Coordinating the activities of a group of teams, especially as an organization grows increasingly complex, requires someone to help all those teams get organized.  In other words, someone must manage the interactions.Managing becomes necessary the more complex the organization becomes. Not “leading” or “coaching” or “mentoring” –  but “managing.”  Groups  of teams need coordination – Not in the childish way we push people around and call it “management” or bastardize such things into calling them “leadership,” but management – the coordinating of activities and the people who are going to perform them.

Someone needs to ensure the free flow of work throughout the organization.  Even the highest performing teams will need to have administrative things taken care of for them – facilities to work in, team members recruited, retained and substituted, legalities administered, etc.  Which, and especially in a highly complex organization, will require someone to coordinate the effort between teams and to identify and remove the roadblocks.  This means management.

The key is to make that management valuable and prevent it from becoming the hierarchical enigma we’ve all come to know – one whose only purpose is to maintain the hierarchy for its own sake regardless of the quality of work the teams that depend upon that management produce.  Management, when viewed as something that exists only to facilitate and enable the performance of work, becomes an important, vital and valuable function within the workplace.  When it exists to provide a layer of blind enforcement, unnecessary political and procedural activity, and as a salary enhancement vehicle for the technically proficient – its value diminishes to the point of being worthless.

Perseverance, intelligence and flexibility – 3 things that will never get you past HR

The Processor

The Processor by monkehranch on deviantart.com

A great, and yet depressing, article appeared on wsj.com last week.  Authored by David Wessel and entitled “Software Screening Rejects Job Seekers” the article references a forthcoming book from  Peter Capelli, “Why Good People Can’t Get Jobs.”

The focus of the article is “the now-ubiquitous use of software to screen applicants” in hiring practices and a downward spiral stemming from the use of software applications in order to handle the volume of resumes companies received.  Software made it both less necessary to employ a large number of recruiters and HR pros, as well as possible to receive a larger number of resumes, and those resumes came in droves.  The volume became impossible to handle, so more software support was needed, and the filtering of resumes has become so exact that a whole new skill – tricking the filtering software – has emerged.

All of which, in my humble opinion, is just another example of how the workplace culture inside of most companies has completely gone astray.  Although individuals are touted as “the greatest asset” by many companies, the emphasis placed on truly dealing with those individuals is becoming less and less.  Hiring is based on nothing more than technical skills, and even within that, the keywords describing those skills must match exactly to what the person who wrote the req thought of when they were writing it.

Since we all know that establishing supportive, long-term relationships are the key to enjoying work, getting the most out of people, fostering creativity and innovation – what sense does it make to put such a heavy over-emphasis on skill sets and key words?  If culture is the king that eats strategy for breakfast, shouldn’t the effort be expended on identifying people who fit within the company?  Personality, after all, is something that is innate – and doesn’t change.  Skills, however, can be learned.

The keyword – based paradigm is born from a belief that managers don’t really ever have to engage their employees.  The belief, instead, is that by finding someone who already knows how to do that job, that the person can be plugged into a role and left alone, forever.  Like buying a new gear for a machine – simply insert the right part correctly and it will run all by itself.

Unfortunately, humans don’t operate that way, and the “soft skills” that are fundamental to personality – things like perseverance, intelligence, flexibility, and other intangibles are what makes a person enjoyable to work with….or not.  Those are also things that need to be fed and cared for in order to grow – unlike skills, which can be learned through a training class, a book, a PowerPoint presentation or CBT module.

In spite of the teaching of many management thinkers from gurus such as Deming and Scholtes, to more recent works from Pink and Sinek, to the innovative discussions of “Maangement 2.0” taking place at the Mix, over the past 30 years the fundamental mindset of management has not changed.  What is needed, instead of “Managers” –  is a caste of teachers and mentors who aggressively look for raw material they can shape and inspire into becoming the workers and leaders that companies need.

Unfortunately, we may never get it, because anyone who had ever wished to rise through the ranks learned to do so not by developing and inspiring others, but by figuring out the keywords to make it look like they did.