[Marco]

What's your opinion about the following:

If you have to choose between the following what would you choose and why...?

For solving one of your top business problems you need a Black Belt to lead the project and drive the team to excellent performance. You can choose between two BB's
1) A High Qualified and Educated BB with average communication skills. You know when you give him the lead the project result will be above expectations but when the project is closed he will allude that it was due to his effort, not of the team...
2) A Qualified BB with excellent communication skills. You know that when you give him the lead for the project the results will not reach it's full potential but he gives the team fun in solving the problem and give the team the credit. They embrace the solution as theirs.

Which one do you choose and why?

[sparky]

Very good question Marco.

[prabh]

Well purely from a management perspective i would give wieghtage to results. Communication skills are a coaching oppurtunity and thus can be rectified...

[Marco]

Originally Posted by prabh

Well purely from a management perspective i would give wieghtage to results. Communication skills are a coaching oppurtunity and thus can be rectified...

Isn't that shortsightned? Are results that important or do MT also want a "healthy" company?

[prabh]

Originally Posted by Marco

Isn't that shortsightned? Are results that important or do MT also want a "healthy" company?

No not really...it is easier to fix behavioural issues as compared to skill set issues of course we assume that the leader who is managing a resource likes this has the wherewithal to identify and fix such issues.
Also since we are talking about a specialized field here it maybe possible that fixing skill set issues maybe out of scope for the leader who is managing this resource hence easier to hire people with sound skill sets, the softer aspects can be addressed with counselling and training interventions..

[Lakota]

Originally Posted by Marco

What's your opinion about the following:

If you have to choose between the following what would you choose and why...?

For solving one of your top business problems you need a Black Belt to lead the project and drive the team to excellent performance. You can choose between two BB's
1) A High Qualified and Educated BB with average communication skills. You know when you give him the lead the project result will be above expectations but when the project is closed he will allude that it was due to his effort, not of the team...
2) A Qualified BB with excellent communication skills. You know that when you give him the lead for the project the results will not reach it's full potential but he gives the team fun in solving the problem and give the team the credit. They embrace the solution as theirs.

Which one do you choose and why?

Marco,

Nice question and provides a perfect example of management's responsibiloity to both understand their followers skills levels and strengths and most importantly to be able to coach based on specific -- laser focused need.

1. This fellow could not be considered Highly Qualified -- even though well educated and well trained. He has missed a key and fundamental characteristic of being a good leader -- developing team work. His manager needs to identify this behavior and activity in very specific terms and be able to provide very specific examples.

The specifics must be such that they can be "seen and/or heard" by others. They need to be specific rather than generalities, lables or assumptions. Next, the manager needs to ask if these behaviors or activities have legitimate need for change.

Next, if I were this manager I would ask if the answer is "yes these behaviors and/or actions are legitimate for change -- do they involve others or just this individual. To learn the answer to this question -- data must be collected and analyzed. Very quickly this could be done with developing your MSA to include both "direct and indirect observations".

With the answers in hand -- say these behaviors and actions include 40% of our supervisory stakeholders not perfroming as expected in terms of building teamwork, trust, and loyality. Your answer must be that it is legit for change. Next, you would need to understand why these behaviors and actions were not being performed as expected.

Easy, set up a group from the 60% that are performing as expected and list all the antecedents (events or conditions preceeding the desired behavior. Next, create alisting of response as to the consequences (personal and individual kudo's that the performer realizes).

Next, evaluate the antecedents for gaps. These are 80% owned by management -- (e.g., training, support materials, signs, coaching, etc.)

Next, evaluate each listed consequence. If you can determine the consequence to the individual or group is Personal, Immediate, and Certain -- you can predict they will repeat this behavior or action about 90% of the time.

You do the same process and evaluation for the 40% of "undesired behavior" folks.

Finding the key triggers or motivations for these behaviors and actions will lead you specifically as to exactly "what" needs to be changed -- and provide you with very strong clues as to the "how" of making successful change.

The number two fellow has failed for a similar reason -- he lacks the competency to successfully execute the project -- yet he and the team have had a wonderful time and become owners of the project -- yet failed to deliver.

We need to be able to develop both our people and as well our systems. One to the exclusion will lead to failure. Having all the technical competency does not a team make. Having all the people skills does not make a problem solver. This manager needs to balance both and needs to develop his/her people via coaching. This may include additional training -- without the knowledge of why these people are doing what they do -- we are (this manager would be) simply operating by "gut feel".

So, developing people is every much as important as developing and improving your systems. And yes -- behavior and actions can be measured -- if you can see it and hear it -- it can be measured. The failure here is not as much the fault as it is a missed responsibility of their manager (champiopn) who should be training them, coaching them, grooming them and providing all they need to be "successful".

Thanks for this example.

Lakota

[Marco]

Originally Posted by Lakota

Marco,

Nice question and provides a perfect example of management's responsibiloity to both understand their followers skills levels and strengths and most importantly to be able to coach based on specific -- laser focused need.

1. This fellow could not be considered Highly Qualified -- even though well educated and well trained. He has missed a key and fundamental characteristic of being a good leader -- developing team work. His manager needs to identify this behavior and activity in very specific terms and be able to provide very specific examples.

The specifics must be such that they can be "seen and/or heard" by others. They need to be specific rather than generalities, lables or assumptions. Next, the manager needs to ask if these behaviors or activities have legitimate need for change.

Next, if I were this manager I would ask if the answer is "yes these behaviors and/or actions are legitimate for change -- do they involve others or just this individual. To learn the answer to this question -- data must be collected and analyzed. Very quickly this could be done with developing your MSA to include both "direct and indirect observations".

With the answers in hand -- say these behaviors and actions include 40% of our supervisory stakeholders not perfroming as expected in terms of building teamwork, trust, and loyality. Your answer must be that it is legit for change. Next, you would need to understand why these behaviors and actions were not being performed as expected.

Easy, set up a group from the 60% that are performing as expected and list all the antecedents (events or conditions preceeding the desired behavior. Next, create alisting of response as to the consequences (personal and individual kudo's that the performer realizes).

Next, evaluate the antecedents for gaps. These are 80% owned by management -- (e.g., training, support materials, signs, coaching, etc.)

Next, evaluate each listed consequence. If you can determine the consequence to the individual or group is Personal, Immediate, and Certain -- you can predict they will repeat this behavior or action about 90% of the time.

You do the same process and evaluation for the 40% of "undesired behavior" folks.

Finding the key triggers or motivations for these behaviors and actions will lead you specifically as to exactly "what" needs to be changed -- and provide you with very strong clues as to the "how" of making successful change.

The number two fellow has failed for a similar reason -- he lacks the competency to successfully execute the project -- yet he and the team have had a wonderful time and become owners of the project -- yet failed to deliver.

We need to be able to develop both our people and as well our systems. One to the exclusion will lead to failure. Having all the technical competency does not a team make. Having all the people skills does not make a problem solver. This manager needs to balance both and needs to develop his/her people via coaching. This may include additional training -- without the knowledge of why these people are doing what they do -- we are (this manager would be) simply operating by "gut feel".

So, developing people is every much as important as developing and improving your systems. And yes -- behavior and actions can be measured -- if you can see it and hear it -- it can be measured. The failure here is not as much the fault as it is a missed responsibility of their manager (champiopn) who should be training them, coaching them, grooming them and providing all they need to be "successful".

Thanks for this example.

Lakota

Thanks for the valid feedback, Lakota and I can go with this if the MT does have time to develop both of the two BB accordingly.

Just to make the question a little sharper, but we do not have to time to the develop both of the people. Again if you have to choose immediately, no other option left, who would you choose then...?

thoughts?

[Lakota]

Originally Posted by Marco

Thanks for the valid feedback, Lakota and I can go with this if the MT does have time to develop both of the two BB accordingly.

Just to make the question a little sharper, but we do not have to time to the develop both of the people. Again if you have to choose immediately, no other option left, who would you choose then...?

thoughts?

Marco,

I think you answered your own question with this comment, "Does this sounds familar to you: "Base your management decisions on a long-term philosophy, even at the expense of short-term financial goals."

What are we teaching here? Management has not done their job properly in terms of developing their employee's -- and that it is okay -- because we are looking at the short term goals -- that some how makes it okay?

Is it ever right to knowlingly do the wrong thing?

Sorry, not being a butt -- just pointing out we have seemingly "forgiven and excused" this manager from his duties (his poor performance) and laid the weight of performing excellence with a problem solving project execution (with the resources and people) -- and laid a heavy weight on (2) project managers (matters not which one you pick) that are not competent at leading nor growing the leaders around them.

Number one BB is teaching the team it is "okay" to take credit from others -- afterall rank has its privilages. Rather than build team work and interest in getting involved with this or any future management project of any kind -- it is more likely the team will run, hide, or give only what they must.

Number two fellow, while he churns up the excitement -- he too misses the mark with delivery of the full potential of the project. He can't mentor, teach or grow these future leaders in skills he does not himself possess.

Very important to your question is the duties of management -- to remove the barriers to excellent performances of their people. The reason for having a Management Champion in the six sigma process is (in part) to groom, coach and mentor their project managers. These project managers will likely return to line operations as the future leaders of this organization. In this case, this manager has just added cultural and skills problems to the organizations future.

Project managers were picked (or should have been) because they are among the best and brightest of the organization. After serving a few years as a project manager -- they should be returned to line operations in an advanced mangement capacity. Neither of these two project managers are ready for advanced assignment (IMHO).

Back to your question -- I would select the project manager that best suited this specific project -- knowledge and experience. Secondly, I would become directly involved with this project, identifying strong suits and short falls of the project manager selected. I would conduct coaching and mentoring sesssion (one on one) with this individual during the course of the project.

If I found this project manager lacked skills of any kind -- deemed critical and important to future project management executions or for his/her future career moves into next management levels -- I would provide that training or experience as soon as possible.

The whole idea about high performance teams is that each member has a responsibility to execute their specific position (duties) with a resolve for excellence. If all on the team perform with excellence -- you will gain a high performance team. This manager is part of the team -- yet failing to fulfill his duties with a resolve for excellence. He is too busy to be bothered with developing the leaders around him. Too sad.

Final point -- coupled with the organizations strategic plans (hence the need for this project assignment) are both systems and people. You must develop and grow both (systems and people) to reach your desired business results and competitive advantages. One to the exclusion of the other will lead to failure.

No excuses! If you intend to be at the top of the competitive heap -- it will only be gained with all stakeholders contributing with excellence in all they do towards delighting their customers. The managers duties include developing his internal customers --his people. Removing the barriers to their excellent performances and providing the needed resources so they can be successful is a vital role of this manager. His boss needs to be coaching him, removing the barriers to his excellent performance so he can do the same for his people.

You question points out a fundementally deeper problem regarding the cultural norms of this organization -- the written and unwritten laws about how things are done around this business -- and who does the doing -- and who is excused from certain responsibilities. Even at the expense of gaining world class performances.

Your thoughts?

Lakota

[Delphi]

Dang it... I hate it when I miss a really good debate!

Lakota, I have to agree with you on this. Sorry, gentlemen but the good Doc is right.

Looking at this from the outside in, I would say that neither and both are qualified to head up a project but the variables and desired outcome of the project would determine who would be the best pick with the Champion or MBB taking charge to groom and develop the BB in the areas of opportunity.

It's too easy to say one is better than the other because one either gets results or the other keeps the team happy. I would say that perhaps both of the BB's should be on a prjoect together for the purpose of learning from each other.

Too often it seems we are willing to sacrifice either results or people just to obtain the desired outcome of a project when you shouldn't have to pick which will be the sacrificial lamb.

Granted, the chap that takes responsibility for the success of the team and pushes for results might appear to the best option because he is results driven, people skills are not easily learned, IMO. I can hear this type of BB saying to his team "The beatings will continue until morale improves." Not a very happy environment.

Now, that doesn't mean that the chap who beleives in making his team happy but sacrificies results is any easier to develop. The road is just different and leads in the opposite direction. Rather than focus on pleasing the entire team the entire time, this BB must find a balance between "fun" and pushing for results.

These are just some of my thoughts for now.... Scary, I know.

[Lakota]

Delphi,

Thanks for your reply to this thread of postings on such an important topic. Appreciate your comments as we do all the comments of others as well.

Just wanted to say we are very happy to have you back posting again after your long illness. Realize it may take sometime before you are back to a full head of steam -- still we are most happy you are recovering and are able to post occassionally.

Looking forward to your full active return.

Lakota