KSA Integration — Empowering the Warrior

Making a Difference

Posted on August 4, 2015 by ksanew

“Each one of us can make a difference. Together we make change.” Barbara Mikulski

The really gifted leaders do it because they have a passion to make a difference, to, as Steve Jobs once said “..make a dent in the universe.” Leaders owe that level of caring and commitment to their employees and organizations so together they can do the challenging things necessary to make the change that Barbara Mikluski spoke about. Without it, the true potential of people and organizations can’t be realized.

We see them every day. Companies that are on auto pilot, doing the same things they have done for years, even decades. Their people are going through the motions, showing up, marking time, getting by, and living lives of quiet desperation. A few businesses may even be profitable in the near term, but the life has left them and they are getting by on borrowed time. In government and the not-for-profit worlds, the distorting effects of free money can delay inevitable failure for decades, absent a public and catastrophic event. But even that may not reverse the trend and those organizations continue to plod along. We hear about these organizations almost daily in the news; OPM, Veterans Affairs, and others.

The essential element of passion for the mission, people, and organization can only come from its leaders. They must genuinely care and want to “put a dent in the universe” by bringing together and empowering the forces of change. This passion can be infectious in the best possible way and is imparted throughout the company to inspire and motivate employees, who recognize and empathize with authentic caring and commitment.

Conversely, leaders whose primary motivations are to “make money and entitle themselves in other ways,” appeal to none of the loftier instincts of their employees, who are just as quick to understand the motivation of self interest as they do that of the inspiring leader. They will respond accordingly to both models.

No matter how highly developed an organization’s products, processes, structure, and expertise, the indispensable element of the leadership’s commitment to making a difference is the ultimate determinate of triumph.

Leaders have to care about caring; and not about themselves.

“Make a difference about something other than yourselves.” Toni Morrison

Keith Stalder, #55

Keith Stalder has over 40 years of leadership experience in organizations from the very large and established to small technology start ups and everything in between. With a broad and deep appreciation for, and understanding of, the fundamental challenges of organizations and businesses, both in government and the private sectors, his passion is to help all organizations become all that they aspire to. He is the founder of Keith Stalder and Associates, LLC, a company dedicated to advancing organizational visions and fundamentally transforming how businesses everywhere are run. Visit www.ksaintegration.com for more information.

Agreeing and Disagreeing

Posted on July 31, 2015 by ksanew

“A lot of lip service gets paid to being honest, but no one really wants to hear it unless what’s being said is the party line.” ― Colin Quinn

We can’t always agree on everything and should not. Leaders at all levels need to welcome informed, genuine, even impassioned debate. It’s the lifeblood of healthy organizational development, introspection, and ultimately growth and reform. Yet it is all too rare in so many companies and government organizations, especially at senior levels. People go along to get along, ultimately depriving the mission and organization of their insights, wisdom, and knowledge.

An organizational culture develops that rewards obsequious personalities, promotes manipulators, rewards opportunists, and propels sycophants to the highest levels. It is a culture that values personality over character, tolerates only “happy talk”, and revels in relationship connections and cliques. Eventually, no debate, dissent, or even discussion is allowed and the effects on organizational performance are truly suffocating.

It’s a dynamic that leaders must avoid at all costs. Truth is not defined by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so if the whole world disagrees. It is only through informed dialogue, genuine listening, and passionate disagreement that we find something larger than an isolated point of view or mindless support for the boss’ ideas. We find comfort in those who agree with us, but growth in those who don’t.

When scientists disagree, it’s usually because they have insufficient facts/data. From that common vantage point they can agree on what kind of facts/data to get. They then get the facts/data. The facts/data show the way to a solution. Either one point of view is right, or another is right, or both are wrong. And from there, they move on. That kind of conflict resolution process is needed in every organization and business; what are the facts/data that matter? What do they mean? What should we do about it? Let the debate begin.

Setting the conditions so that occurs is something only leaders can do and it’s an essential role. If everyone agrees or isn’t willing to debate, the best and brightest people and their ideas are wasted.

“I love argument, I love debate. I don’t expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that’s not their job.” Margaret Thatcher

“Unlike top management at Enron, exemplary leaders reward dissent. They encourage it. They understand that, whatever momentary discomfort they experience as a result of being told they might be wrong, it is more than offset by the fact that the information will help them make better decisions.”— Warren Bennis, New York Times, 2/17/02

Keith Stalder, #54

Incrementalism

Posted on July 27, 2015 by ksanew

“Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one–the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts,…Your affectionate uncle, Screwtape.”― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

At the most foundational level, the role of leaders is to solve organizational problems and to prevent new ones. Especially big problems, the kind that might keep the company from thriving, imperil its future, harm the employees, threaten the mission, and/or degrade its growth and potential. These are all examples of large problems; fundamental problems, the very kind that effective leaders absolutely must solve and prevent. Fundamental problems require fundamental solutions; large solutions commensurate with the size and nature of the challenge, decisive action, enduring commitment, and laser-like leader and organizational focus until they are solved or prevented.

But the temptation to incremental problem solving is enormous. Incrementalism requires less change, is more “comfortable”, preserves flexibility for the future in an uncertain environment, requires no admission of error and provides the appearance of prudence. I see it all the time in organizations large and small. Decisions about the future are deferred until the future, when it’s now the present and the circumstances have inevitably gotten worse, not better, and the way ahead is even more muddled than before, with a solution substantially more painful to implement. Additional damage has occurred in the intervening time, opportunities have been lost, and resources squandered that would otherwise have been applied to an enduring fix. It’s a terrible abrogation of leadership in most situations and has enormous consequences for companies and employees.

The root causes of incrementalism mostly lie in the personalities of the leaders, in my experience. Leaders who value personal comity and the easy (for them) dynamic of a comfortable status quo over the necessary and challenging needs of greater organizational good are usually skilled practitioners of the incremental arts. The results can be devastating.

As Lawrence Summers, the former U.S. Treasury Secretary said: “Yet the American experience in Vietnam should be cautionary to those inclined to yield to the temptation of incrementalism. At every step, policymakers did enough to avoid disaster but not enough to offer a prospect of success — until the moment when helicopters left the Saigon embassy and U.S. policy ended in failure.”

Leaders have to play to win, not play to “not lose”. There is a difference. Clear-eyed, bold action is what leaders must provide for their organizations. I hope that against much of the experience of recent years that it will be forthcoming.

“Incrementalism guarantees only one thing which is mediocrity”

― Faisal Khosa

Keith Stalder, #53

The Power and Misuse of ‘No’

Posted on July 23, 2015 by ksanew

“You have to decide what your highest priorities are, have the courage – pleasantly, smilingly, unapologetically – to say ‘no’ to other things. And the way to do that is by having a bigger ‘yes’ burning inside.” – Steven Covey

For leaders, ‘no’ can be a dangerous word. It’s a difficult word for leaders to use; we would all like to say ‘yes’; to agree, to do most of the things we are asked for. It’s human nature to want to be agreeable, likable, conforming, supporting, and part of the team. But there are organizational consequences when leaders too easily say ‘yes’. These are some of the things that happen:

An ever growing number of “priorities” that change on an almost daily basis.
Employees quickly lose track of the latest commitments and cease to pay attention to them.
Initiatives are added that have no relationship to long term goals, strategy, or broader organizational purposes.
Leaders evade their responsibility to decide what not to do.

I see this in government and not-for-profit organizations in particular. It renders them adrift on a sea of whims and impulses transmitted from their leaders’ desires to be agreeable. The real work of the organization is lost or seriously diminished.

Conversely, the over-use of ‘no’ at the lower levels of companies, by those closest to its customers and partners, is equally damaging. ‘No’ is frequently employed at that level to reduce work, ease the personal circumstances of employees, repel inquiries, and generally increase the ease and comfort of those who should be working hardest to satisfy those who are the object of the company’s mission; customers. Most leaders don’t know who, or under what conditions their employees say ‘no’. Leaders should though. I led an organization of almost 17,000 people a few years ago. I told my staff and line leaders that I was the only one empowered to say ‘no’. It really works.

‘No’ may be the most powerful word in leaders’ and employees’ lexicons. Leaders need to understand its meaning and effects at all levels to ensure that it’s used appropriately for the circumstances.

“People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully.” – Steve Jobs

Keith Stalder, #52

God Is In the Detail

Posted on July 6, 2015 by ksanew

The leaders of all organizations have a duty to ensure that their plans, guidance, decisions, and the processes that govern activities actually work in the best possible ways to serve the needs of customers and employees. In order to do that, leaders, especially senior leaders in large organizations, must understand how things work at a reasonable level of detail so there is confidence that they actually do work. The company, its employees, and customers all deserve to know that those making the decisions have invested the time and thought necessary to appreciate and comprehend the mechanisms and actions they have set in motion. And to answer the question; “Will this really work?”

It’s surprising how many senior leaders believe that involvement in and understanding of the workings of their own decisions and plans are somehow beneath them or the exclusive province of their staffs or line managers. We see this kind of “thinking” from political candidates who espouse simplistic “solutions” for enduring national challenges like border security. They would have us believe, for example, that it’s possible to completely seal the entire border of the U.S., an unaffordable and impractical task. There are rarely mentions of the root causes of illegal border crossing activity and the recommendation is to build a fence around the country, or at least along significant parts of the border.

Altogether, this kind of reasoning is superficial, casual, and neglectful of a serious problem that deserves thoughtful consideration, deep understanding, and comprehensive plans. All followed by nuanced policy and detailed security actions that are well understood by the leaders who sanction them.

Big problems take big solutions. Leaders are playing checkers with a chess opponent when they resort to slogans instead of honest solutions for their companies. The net effect of a slogan approach to problem solving is to export the problems elsewhere in the organization to be dealt with by others. There, removed in time and space from the source of the so-called solution, the original problem continues to fester and grow while employees deal with it as best they are able. Eventually it will return to the leader, worse than ever, and much more difficult to resolve; it’s no way to run a company or organization.

There is a saying that “the devil is in the details.” This is usually taken to mean that it’s difficult to develop the implementing mechanics of broad prescriptions and concepts. I agree and also suggest that for leaders, “God is in the detail.” Detailed, enduring solutions, at the right level, are the prizes and objectives of thoughtful leaders who want to help the organization, its people, and customers succeed.

Keith Stalder, #51

The Marketplace of Ideas

Posted on June 23, 2015 by ksanew

The “marketplace of ideas” is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The “marketplace of ideas” belief holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse.

The same is true in organizations. Leaders are the consumers of ideas in the business marketplace. In organizational behavior, a well functioning market place of ideas yields many benefits:

The best creative thinking of those closest to the customers, the employees, are put into action.
Assumptions are examined, checked for validity, and if needed, revised.
Competitive conditions and the company’s evolving operating environment is refreshed and can be used in strategy, planning, and daily execution.
Employees understand that what they think matters.
Customers understand that what they think matters.
Leadership horizons are broadened and perspectives deepened.
Risks are evaluated and opportunities seized.
Innovation and adaption can occur.

In the summer of 2003 I was the Deputy Commander of the I Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), in Iraq. We had defeated the Iraqi Army and Air Force in our sector but were fighting small unit enemy forces in a huge geographic area of southern Iraq. Up to this point we had employed time tested combined arms and maneuver to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy. It worked well against conventional enemy forces. But as we defeated Iraqi units, very small elements and even individual terrorists continued the fight. Traditional combined arms and maneuver did not work very well against them. The fight had changed.

Thankfully, we realized this in relatively short order because the leaders of the MEF, including the 1st Marine Division, 3D Marine Aircraft Wing, 1st Force Service Support Group, and our principal Coalition Ally, the U.K., practiced within a healthy and energetic marketplace of ideas. The leaders of these organizations capitalized on initiative, open communications, and proactive implementation of insights and recommendations from the lowest levels of the MEF; those closest to the enemy and the civilian population, the latter which we were very much trying to help.

Not only did the MEF leaders recognize that the fight had changed, but we tapped this treasure trove of thinking to transition from primarily kinetic actions to counter insurgency operations. The MEF shifted to helping and protecting the civilian population as best we were able, putting Iraqi men to work with jobs, building hospitals, restoring electricity, providing clean water, and targeting the enemy in precise ways to avoid hazarding the civilian population. All of these activities came from the marketplace of ideas in I MEF. Later, other units all over the country recognized and adopted the same approach, a tribute to the power of the producers and consumers in I MEF’s marketplace of ideas.

Years later I worked at a very senior level in a different large organization. It was highly centralized in its decision making with staff functionaries wielding extraordinary influence, effectively suppressing initiative and creativity from those closest to the customers and the organization’s products. The effects of this environment on organizational performance and the ability to adapt and thrive were as negative as the I MEF model had been positive. It is a lesson I will never forget.

Every healthy organization needs a vibrant market place of ideas. If leaders consume its products, the producers will more than amaze with their ingenuity and effectiveness. But the key to success is having leaders who consume the products and help create even better ones.

Leaders have to look to the marketplace of ideas for new and better products every day.

“What we see depends mainly on what we look for.”

— John Lubbock

Keith Stalder, #50

Leaders and Innovation

Posted on May 21, 2015 by ksanew

“Creating a better future requires creativity in the present.” Matthew Goldfinger How do leaders understand and operationalize the business of adapting and innovating?

This is how:

Understand the difference between adaptation and innovation. In the business of smart phones, Apple innovated, Samsung adapted. The difference really matters.
Understand the forces acting on the organization’s domain, from now through the next five years; the external market and environmental forces and how they interact with the company’s mission and purpose. Given those external factors, what are the things the organization must do, should do, would like to do?
Develop an organizational strategy (ends, ways, and means) to accomplish the things that the company must do to thrive for the next five years. A strategy that makes choices of what not to do.
Create actionable organizational plans from the strategy.
Talk with customers, get their feedback and understand their needs.
Create an organizational culture that rewards innovation, adaptation, and change. Innovation can’t be “bolted on”, it has to be “built in”.
Nurture environments where employees’ ideas can connect. Focused meetings, discrete study projects, well thought out projects from employees.
Challenge authority and break rules, your own and others.
Be willing to stop doing something old in order to do something new.
Encourage genuine and informed debate through the company.
Listen to the voices of change. Act on those voices. Reward and tolerate those who are different and speak up. Make sure that everyone does too.
Challenge and check your organization’s assumptions. Are they (still) valid? If not, they represent risks to your planning and the company’s future.
Create a responsive process to identify, promote, and operationalize the most promising innovations and adaptations. Personally promote this process. Use it, and be seen to champion it.
Assess your innovation and adaptation against your strategy and planning. Did you do what you said you would? If not, why not? What do you need to do to get back on track? Then do that; or change your plan.

Innovation is the only insurance against eventual irrelevance and the only guarantee of long-term customer loyalty and success. It requires:

the willingness and ability to collaborate and share ideas with other people
talking to customers
thought
imagination
hard work
friction
heat
change

“You have to have a big vision and take very small steps to get there. You have to be humble as you execute, but visionary and gigantic in terms of your aspiration. In the Internet industry, it’s not about grand innovation, it’s about a lot of little innovations: every day, every week, every month, making something a little bit better.” Jason Calacanis

Keith Stalder, #49

Organizations and Innovation

Posted on May 6, 2015 by ksanew

“Innovation has nothing to do with how many R & D dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R & D. It’s not about money. It’s about the people you have, how you’re led, and how much you get it.”-Steve Jobs

Innovation is enormously important. It’s the only insurance against eventual irrelevance. It is our only guarantee of long-term customer loyalty and success.

The topic of innovation has been written, spoken, and thought about as much –or more than—any area of management and leadership. But, a great deal is aimed at innovation “per se”, not the organizational dynamics of innovation or how to lead innovation. In this post, I hope to impart some useful insights on the nature of innovation as it relates to how organizations really work and the role of leaders. My focus is on the relationship between organizational behaviors and innovation.

First, I’ll begin by making a distinction that is usually missed: adaptation and innovation. Adaptation is the altering, modifying, redesigning, remodeling, revamping, converting, and reconstructing of known or existing things and processes. Innovation is new, transformational, originally creative, novel, ingenious, and inventive. Both are admirable pursuits but there is an important difference in the desired outcomes that most leaders under-appreciate. True innovation takes hard work, the right organizational support, and inspired leadership. Adaptation does too, but not to the degree that innovation does. All leaders should ask themselves and their employees if the company is adapting or innovating? It really matters.

Once you’ve answered this question, it’s essential to appreciate how all organizations drive toward self-optimization in order to understand how to manage successful innovation. As I’ve previously written, all organizations work relentlessly to optimize the personal convenience, circumstances, and betterment of those in the organization and in doing so sub-optimize all other things, especially the aims of the organization and its customers. Organizational self-optimization eventually creates a transformed organization that exists entirely for its own self-promotion and the perfection of every aspect of the employees’ work environment. This applies to every organization no matter what size: one person to tens of thousands. It is simply human nature: We all want things on our own terms, and in our personal lives are constantly engaged in an effort to evolve our worlds to suit our deepest desires. We transmit that to our work places and subtly, but relentlessly, impose it on our organizations.

An organizational environment based on self-optimization is toxic for genuine adaptation and innovation. Most organizations are way too happy making their own circumstances more cozy, inviting, and free from newness of every type for innovation to survive–let alone thrive. In these types of environments, people who want to innovate are viewed as troublemakers and are punished or flatly ignored.

How do leaders create environments where innovation and adaptation thrive? It starts from creating a safe environment where employees’ ideas can connect; free from those that punish newness and preserve the status quo. To do so, leaders must cultivate an environment with the following critical elements:

Human interaction
Healthy conflict, even argument, and informed debates.
An ability to challenge authority and bend rules.
A willingness to stop doing something old in order to do something new.
Acceptance that bureaucracy destroys innovation and adaptation—Innovators must be given the authority to cut through bureaucratic red tape.
Direct access to end-users and customer

At the end of the day, innovation requires the willingness and ability to collaborate and share ideas with other people, to talk with customers, get their feedback and understand their needs. Innovation and adaptation requires thought, imagination, hard work, friction, heat, and change.

“Where all think alike there is little danger of innovation.” ― Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire

Keith Stalder, #48

Risky Business

Posted on March 9, 2015 by ksanew

“Let’s make a dent in the universe.”— Steve Jobs

Life rewards risk. Helen Keller was an American author, political activist, and lecturer. She was the first deafblind person to earn a bachelor of arts degree and an inspiration to her own generation and several that followed. She is an example of someone who overcame enormous adversity to change the world she lived in for the better. She said that “Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.”

The lives of organizations and businesses are no different. Leaders would do well to understand the nature of risk and develop a world view of it that serves their customers, workforce, and mission better than most that I encounter.

Risk is usually defined as the potential of losing something of value from a given action, decision or activity. But this view entirely misses the understanding that value can be gained from exposure to risk. It is in the potential to benefit from risk that sophisicated leaders can do their finest work. Risk requires the intentional interaction with uncertainty, a possibility that many leaders are not willing to entertain, unfortunately.

This equation is usually used to describe risk:

Risk = Threat x Vulnerability x Cost
Threat is the frequency of potentially adverse events
Vulnerability is the likelihood of success of a particular threat
Cost is the total cost of the impact of a particular threat

But, as commonly used, it virtually ignores the up side of risk, of deciding what not to do, and the duty of leaders to assess and accept strategic risks.

The most common mistakes that I see are:

Not understanding the up side of risk; that there is value to be gained from exposure to the consequences of uncertainty and risk,
Focusing completely on the down side of risk,
Not specifically defining the down side and the up side, detailing the possible specific effects and probabilities of a possible course of action,
Not comparing the down and up sides to assess the net organizational benefits of success,
Not separating tactical from strategic risks; the former should be easier to assess and accept,
Not identifying tactical risks that can have strategic benefits,
Not accepting strategic risk,
Being completely risk averse. This is very common in government.
Being unwilling to decide what not to do.

Leaders owe their people and businesses keen judgments and high quality decisions on risk and that doesn’t mean avoiding it altogether. This is what I recommend:

Understand that the province of enlightened leaders is in maximizing the realization of opportunities by accepting risks that pay off on the up side, not simply avoiding down side risks,
Define the up side benefits very specifically,
Define the possible down side consequences very specifically,
Assess the probability of both,
Compare benefits and consequences along with their probabilities,
Separate tactical from strategic risks,
Be willing to accept strategic risks,
Be willing to decide what not to do.

For leaders it’s riskier not to take informed risks. If you don’t, you guarantee that things will remain the same; certain death for any organization.

“Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go.” — T.S. Eliot

Keith Stalder, #47

Challenge and Complexity

Posted on March 7, 2015 by ksanew

“Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it.” ― René Descartes, Discourse on MethodOne of the most common mistakes that leaders of large organizations make is to mistake challenge for complexity. I describe challenging organizational issues as those that are laborious, arduous, requiring well considered decisions, solid planning, disciplined execution, assessment, refinement, and perseverance. Complex issues are those which require additional research, analysis, consideration, input from the workforce, collaboration with stakeholders, and insights that will lead to an understanding of the company’s course in the matter. A complex issue is one in which the solutions and path forward are not (yet) known. All too often senior leaders conflate the two definitions, mistaking the challenging or difficult for the complex.

In their minds, complexity is overwhelming, too much for them or the organization to resolve and understand. So they don’t. The issue is simply left to drift as a matter of too much complexity to deal with. In reality, it’s likely that it is not complex at all, it is only challenging, requiring hard work, planning, thought, communications with employees, time, persistence, relentless focus by leaders, and it can be resolved.

Transforming organizational culture is one such area that I see almost every day that applies. Enlightened leaders in a few organizations recognize that their culture needs to be changed, but they don’t understand how it is created or how to change it. For them organizational culture is an enigma, a mystery, a matter of great complexity, so it’s left unaddressed and the organization continues to under perform. Just as a person does not drown from falling into a body of water; she/he drowns by staying there, so it is with the organization. But the (mis)perceived complexity inhibits the solution.

In actuality, transforming organizational culture is not complex. Leaders need only to:

Define it,
Understand what creates it,
Decide how to change it, and
Get to work.

But that takes work. It is challenging but more than worth it in the end. It requires hard work, planning, thought, communications with employees, time, persistence, and relentless focus by leaders. But it’s not an enigma, a mystery, or a matter of great complexity.

The key for leaders is to:

Recognize that there is a difference between complex and challenging matters for their organization.
Distinguish between the two.
Reduce complex issues to actionable understandings. These will usually be challenging, but that’s good, at least the company knows what to do.
Separate challenging issues into the simple actionable components and steps.
Get to work.

The best analogy is one we all understand; losing weight. How does one lose weight? Consume fewer calories and exercise more. That’s it, that’s all we need to know. But we must do it. No kidding, eat less and burn more calories. Relentlessly over time. But this simple and challenging issue has been made enormously complex by the plethora of products, processes, literature, and distractions of the image and weight loss industry. It needn’t be so.

It’s the job of leaders to make complex and challenging things simple, then to do them.

Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better.” ― Edsger W. Dijkstra

Keith Stalder, #46