Of Labor Relations . . .

Lechmere owns and operates a retail store in a shopping plaza in Connecticut. There are thirteen smaller stores between Lechmere's store and the parking lot, which is owned by Lechmere. In June 1987, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union AFL-CIO (Union), attempted to organize Lechmere's 200 employees, noe of whom belonged to a union. After a full-page advertisement in a local newspaper drew little response, nonemployee union organizers entered Lechmere's parking lot and began placing handbills on windshields of cars parked in the employee section of the parking lot. Lechmere's manager informed the organizers that Lechmere prohibited solicitation or handbill distribution of any kind on the property and asked them to leave. They did so, and Lechmere personnel removed the handbills. The union organizers renewed their handbilling effort in the parking lot on several subsequent occasions, but each time they were asked to leave the handbills were removed. The Union filed a grievance with the NLRB. The NLRB ruled in favor of the union and ordered Lechmere to allow handbilling in the parking lot. The court of appeals affirmed. Lechmere appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its appeal the U. S. Supreme Court held that under the facts of the case, Lechmere could prohibit nonemployee union organizers from distributing leaflets to employees in the store's parking lot, effectively reversing previous decisions. In making their decision, the Supreme Court cited the general rule that an employer cannot be compelled to allow distribution of union literature by nonemployee union organizers on its property. The Court noted, however, that an exception applies if the employees would otherwise live and work beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them. The Supreme Court held that this exception did not apply in this case. The Court cited the fact that the employees lived in a metropolitan area and that the union could advertise in the media and could stand on the public area adjoining Lechmere's parking lot to inform the employees of the union's organizational effort. The Court concluded that access to employees, not success in winning them over, is the critical issue.

Generally, employers do not have to allow nonemployee union organizers to solicit on their property if the union can reach the employees in other ways, such as through media.

A Good HR Practitioner ?

I am often asked – “What does it take to be a good HR practitioner?”

A successful HR practitioner is one who aligns their tasks with business strategies, is service oriented but time efficient in doing so, can add real value by being proactive to a situation at-hand, and provide open and frank advice on issues that affect the company culture or staff morale.

Now, some might suggest that being described as a people person or warm and fuzzy, makes for a good HR practitioner. The days of warm and fuzzy are gone. In today’s fast-paced and highly competitive economy, Human Resources must focus on delivering financial value. This requires that an HR practitioner must throw-off the shackles of “warm and fuzzy” and exhibit an ability to work in line with the business and be an integral part of the business strategic plan. By understanding the overall objectives of the business, and HR practitioner can avoid becoming overly bureaucratic, and focus on doing what’s ultimately right for the business and the unit.

Truth-be-told, not many people would want to work in HR. Go ahead, ask any employee, be they from marketing, sales, accounting, or customer service. The answer, time-and-time again is simple: no way. Why is this? Because HR practitioners must make difficult decisions, decisions that must balance the human element and corporate strategies of cost-effectiveness and profitability.

Generally speaking a good HR practitioner must:

• Understand problems assigned
• Stay competent and professional through self-directed study and research
• Maintain high standards of personal honesty and integrity (avoid gossip and excessive personal interaction with others – this will hinder one’s ability to make decisions)
• Consider the personal interests, welfare, and dignity of all employees affected by recommendations and actions – and, first and foremost, from a legal perspective
• Ensure organizations maintain high regard for public interest and personal interests and dignity of employees
• Prove through effective measurements how HR is contributing to the organization
  

Further a good HR practitioner must be equipped with following skills:

• Staffing (HR planning, recruitment and selection)
• Human resource development (Capacity development of all staff members)
• Award judiciously compensation and benefits to employees according to organizational rules and regulations
• Can take care of safety and health of employees
• Maintain a “professional” relationship with employees, and not a “personal” one
• Work with managers to care of employees’ professional growth
• Properly maintain the records of employees and his routine official matters
• Conduct HR research (providing a HR information base, designing and implementing employee communication system).
• Understand the interrelationship of HR functions

Following are skills required of a good HR practitioner:

• Effective written communication skill
• Effective verbal communication skill
• Effective presentation skill
• Good time management (keep meetings short and to the point; set aside for the administrivia as well as the strategic)
• Conflict management skill
• Team building
• Stress Management
• Rationale decision making (remove emotions from your decisions)
• Gender awareness
• Strong motivation and initiative skill; be self-directed; have a passion for your profession
• Coordination with other departments and organizations

I am reminded of an HR person who resigned and left a company. As she did so, and during her going-away party, it was clear that this person was popular. One manager even remarked, “I’m jealous as to how popular she was.” That’s fine; that’s very nice. But was she effective in her job? Can she name one thing, one major contribution she made where she put her stamp on the organization, where she successfully took initiative on a grand scale? Or, was she a great person to talk to, to share things with, so when you walked away you felt good? And, was she an HR person who wore a mask? In other words, did she treat employees one way to their face but another way behind their back? And, when it came time to make decisions, which mask did she wear? You see, there's a big difference between a strategic person and a “player.”

As I observed the going-away party, watching as many laughed with her I couldn’t help but think – did these people really know how she felt about them? No, of course not. At the going-away party she was wearing the appropriate mask. Always – the player.

The road to HR greatness is littered with the bodies of “mask wearers,” those who hearken back to HR’s roots, when the factory owner placed a secretary in charge of putting a picnic table outside so the workers had a nice place to eat lunch, or coordinating a birthday party for an employee. Yes, it was a simple time then, and yes, these were contributions – but not of historical grandeur. Such contributions pale in comparison to the contributions of the accountant, the marketer, or the sales representative. The “mask wearer” does not understand what HR is all about and sets the profession back hundreds of years.

As the person left her going-away party, there were some however, those who have an idea about what HR is truly about, those who get it - and these individuals did not feel a sense that the company was suffering a loss. One person even said, “I’m going to miss the gossip.” A senior executive said, “Nice person but can’t remember anything she did of any significance.”

When it's all-said-and-done, a good HR practitioner is in it for one thing, and one thing only – to contribute to organizational effectiveness. For those that cannot – please - just get out of the way.

The Independent Contractor

Here’s a great case that helps to explain the difference between an independent contractor and employee.

Jose Torres was a self-employed gardener, doing business under the name Jose Torres Gardening Service. From 1984 until June 1988, Torres performed weekly general gardening services at several homes in Torrance, California, including the home of Michael and Ona Reardons. In June 1988, the Reardons employed Torres to trim a 70 foot tall tree located in their front yard. At 11:00 AM on the morning of June 20, 1988, Torres arrived at the Reardons’ home with one helper. The reardons were not at home. David Boice, Reardons’ next door neighbor, cautioned Torres to take care cutting a large branch 25 feet from the ground that overhung the roof of Boice’s house.

When Torres was ready to cut the branch, Boice came outside to hold a rope that was tied to the branch, with the intention of pulling the branch away from his house as it fell. Torres positioned himself on the branch next to the trunk and began to cut at a point just beyond where he was standing. According to Torres, Boice pulled on the rope when Torres was not expecting a pull. As a result, Torres’s chain saw kicked back and Torres fell from the tree, landing on his back. Torres was rendered a paraplegic as a result of his fall.

Torres sued the Reardons to recover for his injuries, alleging that he was their employee and therefore could recover from them for failing to provide him with workers’ compensation insurance. The Reardons countered this argument by saying that Torres was an independent contractor to whom they were not liable. The trial court agreed with the Reardons and granted their motion for summary judgment. Torres appealed. The court of appeals held that Torres was an independent contractor and that the Reardons were not liable to him.

Uncontradicted evidence showed that Torres was engaged in a distinct occupation and an independently established business, Torres supplied his own tools and equipment used in the work, Torres hired his own employees, Torres was not hired by the day or hour but contracted with the Reardons to produce the specific result of trimming the tree for an agreed-upon price, the Reardons did not control the manner of means of accomplishing the desired result, and the work that Torres contracted to perform was not work ordinarily done in the course of the Reardons’ business but was maintenance work done on their home. Therefore, Torres was an independent contractor, not an employee of the Reardons.

Clearly, in certain situations businesses can reduce their liability by contracting with independent contractors. The key, of course, is to ensure the above elements as found in the Torres case are met.

Lemon Laws: A Sweet Deal

Before the advent of "lemon laws" the unlucky purchasers of cars with nagging mechanical problems could only seek recompense through costly and time-consuming litigation against the car dealer and manufacturer. The consumer bore the difficult burden. Often, the results were frustrating.

Spurred by consumers' complaints of a sour deal, state legislatures responded by enacting lemon laws, which give consumers a tough new weapon in this battle.

Lemon laws establish an administrative procedure for consumers who have purchased a vehicle that does not work properly. The dispute is usually heard by an arbitrator instead of a court. The procedure is less formal than a court proceeding and assures the consumer of a speedy resolution to the dispute. Most state laws require car manufacturers to bear the expense of the arbitration system.

While these law generally cover new automobiles for two years from the date of delivery, some state's statutes also apply to used cars purchased from a dealer and to leased cars. During the two-year period, lemon owners are entitled to return the car for a full refund if they can show that the manufacturer failed to eliminate the defect after a reasonable opportunity to do so. In most states, consumers must give the manufacturer four crack at fixing the problem before they can seek a refund. After that, the owner may go through the arbitration process or sue in court.

Proponents say that lemon laws put the squeeze on car manufacturers to respond to consumer complaints. Some consumer activists worry that the arbitration process may be biased in favor of the automobile industry, however. Critics argue that many lemon laws have not gone far enough because they retain the UCC's requirement that the consumer prove that the recurring defect "substantially impairs" the car's value, and that subjectivity and ambiguity remain the standard for winning or losing the claim.

Nonetheless, lemon laws will undoubtedly help hapless consumers who find that their cars are spending more time in the repair shop than on the road.

What Do You Get . . .

. . . when you cross a partnership and a corporation? A hybrid form of business organization called a limited liability company, or LLC.

In recent years, a majority of states have approved LLCs as a new form of business entity. This unique unincorporated business entity combines the most favorable attributes of both partnerships and corporations.

Forming an LLC is very similar to organizing a corporation. Two or more persons may form an LLC for any lawful purpose. To form an LLC, articles of organization must be filed with the appropriate state office. The articles of organization must state the LLCs name, duration, and other information required by the statute or that the organizers deem important to include. The name of the LLC must contain the words Limited Liability Company or the abbreviation L.L.C. or L.C.

LLCs have several unique attributes. Like shareholders of corporations, owners of LLCs, called members, are not personally liable for the obligations of the LLC.

Another major feature of an LLC is the ability to be taxed as a partnership. In order to be taxed as a partnership instead of a corporation, an LLC can possess only four of the following six corporate atttributes:

1. associates,
   
2. an objective to carry on business and divide gains,
3. limited liability,
4. centralized management,
5. continuity of life, and
6. free transferability of interests.

The easiest of these to give up are continuity of life (by choosing a limited duration) and free transferability of interests (by placing restrictions on the transferability of interests). If two of the six corporate attributes are missing, an LLC enjoys the same pass-through tax status of a partnership.

Why should an LLC be used instead of an S corporation or a partnership? Corporations and partnerships are subject to many restrictions and adverse consequences which do not exist with an LLC, including

• S corporations cannot have shareholders other than estates, certain trusts, and individuals (who cannot be nonresident aliens). S corporations can have no more than 35 shareholders, one class of stock, and may not own more than 80 % of another corporation. LLCs have no such restrictions.

• In a general partnership, the partners are personally liable for the obligations of the partnership. Members of LLCs have limited liability.

• Limited partnerships must have at least one general partner who is personally liable for the obligations of the partnerhip (although this can be a corporation). Limited partners are precluded from participating in the management of the business. An LLC provides limited liability to all members even though they participate in management of the business.

LLCs will provide new opportunities and alternatives for doing business, particularly to small and medium-sized businesses and professionals. However, because two or more persons are necessary to form an LLC, sole proprietorships cannot use an LLC as a business entity.

Of Agreement and Consideration

I have always been intrigued by contract law and not as it relates to employment.

One case in particular caught my eye as I surfed contract case law. It was a 1982 case brought before the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Alden v. Presley.

Elvis Presley, a singer of great renown and a man of substantial wealth, became engaged to Ginger Alden. He was generous with the Alden family, paying for landscaping the lawn, installing a swimming pool, and making other gifts. When his fiancee's mother, Jo LaVerne Alden, sought to divorce her husband, Presley promised to pay off the remaining mortgage indebtedness on the Alden home, which Mrs. Alden was to receive in the divorce settlement. On August 16, 1977, Presley died suddenly, leaving the mortgage unpaid. When the legal representative of Presley's estate refused to pay the almost $40,000 mortgage, Mrs. Alden brought an action to enforce Presley's promise. The trial court denied Mrs. Alden recovery; Mrs. Alden appealed.

The question before the court was this: was Presley's promise to pay the mortgage enforceable?

The answer, of course, was no. The supreme court held that Presley's promise was a gratuitous promise that was not supported by consideration. It was one-way. As such, it was unenforceable against Presley's estate. The court dismissed the case and assessed costs against Mrs. Alden.

Under contract law, gift promises are unenforceable because they lack consideration. The court found that Mrs. Alden had not given any consideration in exchange for Presley's promise. The court also found that the gift promise had not been completed by Presley. Therefore, the unexpected gift promise could not be enforced against Presley's estate.

Ladies and gentlemen - Elvis has left the building!

Yahoo - Putting the Ethical Cart Before the Horse

Recently, Yahoo’s CEO, Jerry Yang, faced blistering criticism at a congressional hearing over Yahoo’s handling of email records. In 2004, Yahoo handed over emails records of journalist Shi Tao to Chinese authorities. Tao used his Yahoo email account to send an email to the U.S. which included information on the government response to the Tiananmen Square massacre. Tao was imprisoned that December by the Chinese government and is serving a 10-year term. How could this happen?

The answer is simple: the lure of overseas markets. Like other corporations, in order to gain access to lucrative Chinese markets, Yahoo signed China's Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the Internet Industry thereby agreeing to support China¹s system of censorship and control.

But, Yahoo is not the only corporate entity lusting over the potential that the Chinese market promises. Not too long ago Google acquiesced to Chinese government requests and built a special Chinese version of its might search engine, one that screens and filters out words and phrases deemed harmful by government officials.

However, to truly understand Yahoo’s recent ethical dilemma, we need to place all of this in perspective. Let us not forget that it was at a June 12 meeting when Yahoo shareholders criticized then CEO Terry Semel for Yahoo’s declining revenue growth and stock price. The following week Semel resigned and was replaced by Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang. It was at this same meeting that Yahoo shareholders accepted two proposals specific to its international policies. Shareholders accepted proposals that asked the company to commit to not censor its internet sites in other countries, and establish a committee on human rights.

But is all this too little too late? Can Yahoo shareholders now have it both ways in China’s emerging market?

Yahoo, as with so many other entities, seem to justify their actions with a "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" defense. To enter the Chinese market, executives claim they must comply with local laws. But China's local laws present overseas companies with difficult and ethical choices that would be unacceptable in the West.

So what is the solution? In dealing in the international marketplace, US companies need to first determine an ethical baseline. For example, Seagate Technology says this about international ethics: “Every business must determine its standards in the global marketplace. Once these standards are determined, they must be clearly communicated to employees and enforced. Without clear standards, we place employees, the company, and its reputation at risk.”

In other words, a company must go into an international relationship knowing what its ethical standards will be. From that point on, from that baseline, a company makes decisions within the context of those ethical standards. Clearly, Yahoo’s ethical baseline was nonexistent. Yahoo did what was necessary in order to enter the Chinese market, knowing that Google had already singed on with the Chinese government. Instead of taking a stand, of creating an ethical baseline that would have differentiated it from Google, Yahoo opted to be like Google and like Google failed in its ethical approach.

Think about it for just a second: if Yahoo had drawn an ethical baseline in the sand, and opted out of the Chinese market for ethical reasons, it would then be in a position to present its case before the American public and differentiate itself from Google. Then, it would be up to the American public to reaffirm Yahoo’s ethical baseline and reward it over Google. Ultimately, an organization’s ethical approach is judged in the marketplace.

Unfortunately, as with Google, Yahoo put the ethical cart before the horse.

A Case Study: Of Decisions and Decision-Making

Don Rifkin, CEO of Nutrorim is faced with a difficult decision and one which cuts across ethical boundaries. Nutrorim’s stalwart product, ChargeUp, has undergone an upgrade with the additive Lipitrene, The new ChargeUp has just been released on a limited basis to local area retailers. Already, sales are up 20 %, but soon an investigator from a state department of health calls Nutrorim. He advises them that he is investigating 11 individuals who took ChargeUp who now have gastrointestinal distress. What is to be done?

Nutrorim decides to recall ChargeUp only to discover that the individuals with gastrointestinal distress became ill from a bug they got from their gym’s smoothie bar. The chain of events prompts Rifkin to question Nutrorim’s decision-making process. He invites a consultant to review his company’s processes. The consultant informs Nutrorim that for decisions that are routine and predictable, the process works well. However, when the decision requires clear winners and losers, the process seems to stall. The consultant, though, has only just started. He asks for volunteers to help him develop a better decision-making process. No one volunteers.

The problem with Nutrorim is not just about decision-making processes; the problem with Nutrorim is that it also faces a lack of true leadership.

True leaders are those who are able to exercise the right leadership traits at the right time, and to realize the best results. True leaders recognize that there are times when risks should be taken, and that there are times when risks need to be avoided at all costs. Also, a true leader knows when she or he must be firm and lead with conviction, and understand that there are times when she or he needs to be part of the team. True leaders know how to balance these traits and based on circumstances.

Rifkin is not effective at this balancing act. On one hand, Rifkin is a likeable person who has worked hard to build an "inclusive" environment within Nutrorim. Yet, on the other hand, he is inconsistent. For example, in a meeting with his executives and when a conflict arises between the Product Marketing Manager and the head of Research and Development, Rifkin simply asks the individuals to take their disagreement "offline." Rifkin did not attempt to facilitate a constructive conversation reflecting divergent viewpoints. This tactic would reaffirm his inclusive environment. Instead, Rifkin simply dispenses with the conflict in order to quickly gain consensus. The problem with this tactic, much like sweeping dirt under a rug - the problem remains, it's only hidden from view. In this one incident, Rifkin should have led a constructive discussion with a firm hand. Doing so would have culturally reaffirmed the value of an inclusive environment, while at the same time dealing with the polarity. True leadership demands the appropriate balance.

As it regards decision-making, clearly, a firm process needs to be established and in particular when there is a crisis. The decision-making process I would recommend is as follows:

1. Define and clarify the issue at hand.

2. Define both internal and external noise, that is, internal and external messages that are being received. Are the messages necessary? Are they reflective of the problem? Are they a hindrance? Define and clarify.

3. Gather all the facts; understand their causes.

4. Create a road map of options. Map-out the various consequences of potential solutions.

5. Read your road map. Which road takes you to where you want to be?

6. Select your best route, but also develop an plan if that particular road leads you astray. Avoid a route that is a compromise.

7. Explain your decision, follow-through with it, and stick with it.

The bottom line is this: the question is not whether or not Nutrorim made the right decision - the question is did it go about it in the best possible way? A firmer hand from Rifkin during the process would've 1) led to an appropriate decision, 2) gave everyone an understanding of potential outcomes and impact on the company, and 3) provided management with confidence so as to avoid "Monday night quaterbacking."

A Case Study: Of Silos and Collaboration

I found the HBR case study entitled Intuit Inc.: Transforming an Entrepreneurial Company into a Collaborative Organization to be very interesting. Basically, the case study reviews the cultural change methodology employed by Intuit’s new CEO Steven Bennett. Bennett goes about instilling cultural change in a very systematic manner. He accomplishes what he believes to be a critical mission, but in a highly un-collaborative manner, and one which resonates a “take no prisoners” mindset.

Here is a synopsis of Bennett’s activities:

1. The new CEO (Bennett) wants to move Intuit from a “siloed” culture to a highly collaborative organization. Bennett believes Intuit underperforms relative to the market, and the move to a highly collaborative organization is therefore critical in order to improve results.

2. In terms of leadership, Bennett also believes a collaborative culture is critical. For Bennett, successful organizations are those that compel leaders at all levels make decisions that are best for the “whole” rather than for “one person or a business unit.”

3. Bennett moves Intuit to a highly collaborative organization in two ways. First, he establishes an organization-wide process by which individual goals are set and people are held accountable for attaining them. Secondly, he fosters cross-unit collaboration and integration by establishing an organizational structure where individual teams require contributions from other teams in order to succeed.

4. Specifically, Bennett’s transformational process is as follows:

• Bennett increased the CEO’s span of control from 8 direct reports to 20. He called this “delayering” the organization. In doing this, Bennett wrote job descriptions and performance standards for all of his direct reports, emphasizing being goal-driven.
• Bennett brought a top-down planning process to Intuit. He also instilled “nonnegotiable budgets.” Regarding the top-down planning approach, Bennett implemented a basic corporate planning model, namely corporate goals are set, then unit goals are set to support corporate goals, and finally individual employee goals are set to support unit goals.
• Bennett instituted measurable performance reviews. He tied bonuses to individual goals and helped to develop more objective measurements. All of this resulted in fewer higher rated employees and a trend more to the “bell curve” of managing overall performance.
• Bennett proceeded with monthly operational reviews. Here, he used metrics to measure each function and business unit’s contribution. Bennett used these meetings to re-focus his team on critical goals, reaffirm ownership of goals, and to generate ideas.
• Bennett’s changes resulted in high turnover within the senior management level ranks.

5. Bennett develops a “leadership success profile” which he uses to define success for Intuit leaders. The “profile” becomes Bennett’s method of communicating company-wide leadership expectations. This helped to develop a common language within Intuit’s leadership ranks. Also, the concept of a common language was used throughout Intuit, as senior management began to use phrases from Bennett in their meetings with their own groups.

6. Intuit leaders also adopted a spirit of shared vision from Bennett. Again, a common language practice was used at the end of meeting, and for example, “does everyone have shared vision o that?” This too was used as a means to build collaboration.

7. Collaboration was built into performance reviews as higher performance ratings were given to those who achieved goals through collaborative methods. Additionally, the use of 360 degree performance reviews provided managers with input to their development plan.

8. Bennett also developed cross-functional metrics as a means to emphasize the absolute need for collaboration.

9. Bennett also bulked-up corporate functions as these functions seemed weaker than the decentralized business units. Bennett increased corporate budgets and also the number of corporate functions.

What is interesting to note is how Bennett went about building a collaborative organization – in a very un-collaborative manner. He adds functions that directly report to him and in doing so refers to this as “delayering.” While this makes the organization more horizontal, it increases the number of functions which in turn creates more formal silos. Also, his top-down planning approach is anything but collaborative as compared to a bottom-up approach. And, Bennett uses financial incentives through a re-vamped performance review system as a means to reinforce collaboration, rather than developing collaboration as a value so that it occurs in an intrinsic manner. Finally, Bennett bulks-up a corporate structure rather than allowing the strength of a decentralized structure to emerge.

Simply put, Bennett creates systems that force accountability and collaboration instead of building it from within and nurturing it. He does so with both carrot and stick.

Yet, for all his hard work and effort there are conflicts and polarities within his new culture. First, there is tension between the need to attain individual goals and the need to attain/give cross-unit collaboration. Another conflict or polarity evolves as the organization attempts to enhance collaboration, namely centralization versus decentralization. And, in establishing his goal-centered organization, Bennett raises the bar by setting aggressive goals. This only serves to heighten the tensions and polarities, and in particular within IT.

In IT, difficulties arise when the CIO, facing an ever-increasing complex IT infrastructure and previous decentralized mindset, goes about attempting to decide on a specific IT architecture and standards. Senior management is looking for increased technological standardization, yet business units want a decentralized approach that allows them flexibility. The choice seems to be between a centralized or decentralized approach. Regardless, how will the decision align with Bennett’s new culture?

To better understand the CIO’s dilemma, let’s review the concepts of centralization and decentralization within the context of IT. I am fortunate enough to have IT as part of my function. In an IT context, centralization refers to organizing all IT-related services into a single functional unit that then provides services to the entire company. A non-IT example would be Human Resources and how many companies handle this particular function. For most organizations all HR activities are centralized through a main corporate office. Ancillary units would receive HR-related services as required through requests to the central office. This type of organization make things run more efficiently and standards are more easily maintained through one unit versus several hundred.

On the other hand, decentralization gives individual functions or units responsibility for control over their own IT resources. Here, there is little consideration of other units or the company as a whole. There is value to this approach in that functions or units have the ability to make their own decisions and do what they believe is in their best interests for them to succeed. A major drawback may be interconnectivity between systems and the company and support cost structures.

In a nutshell, you have to view this dilemma as a contrast of the control, efficiency, and economy of centralization versus the flexibility and also efficiency that decentralization brings in meeting a function or unit’s goals.

In this case study the CIO must examine the alignment between IT centralization and the need for information sharing in the organization. In my view, the best solution is a shared internal services model, or hybrid between centralization and decentralization. The hybrid model captures the efficiencies of a centralized organization while keeping the support functions focused on the functions or units. Here, the central IT function would establish rudimentary standards to ensure data portability and effective communications between the functions or units, while allowing application and support flexibility within each function or unit. Each function or unit would have it’s own IT presences, reporting directly to the function or unit’s head. There would be no dotted-line to corporate IT, but rather periodic communication on technological issues where collaboration was needed to resolve issues of data portability and communication.

Lifelong Learning – A Commitment to Teachable Points

Lifelong learning is an ongoing commitment to learning. This requires developing a system that provides a person with opportunities to explore new ideas and experiment with new methodologies. It is a learning system that integrates a person’s own personal experiences, to include reading, observing, and listening.

Of critical importance to lifelong learning is a person’s ability to keep their mind open to those teachable points that may occur at the most unexpected times and places. Perhaps it is a magazine article that is particularly insightful, or perhaps it is a recently attended seminar, or even an idea from a colleague. The key here is to be aware of such teachable points and not only learn from them but act on them.

Lifelong learning is a classroom without walls or desks, without report cards, and without grades. You are the student and teacher. Here, you have the benefit of being able to spend your time learning those teachable points important to you, and you do so whenever you want to learn and at whatever pace you choose.

But in order for lifelong learning to be successful you must dedicate time to learning, and put a system in place that nurtures your learning. Also, you must commit to curiosity by exploring strange and new ideas, by asking questions of others, by reading articles, by simply listening to others and asking for their opinions.

Seek out teachable points and expand your world.

I’ve Learned to Clip My Wings, and Soften My Ways

The manager sat there unmoved and without emotion. This was this manager’s way, for she was, in her mind, perfect in every respect. After all, this manager had a solution for every problem. She knew exactly what strategies the company should implement, how to resolve process issues, how employees should be deployed, and those employees the company should terminate. Unlike others, this manager had an uncanny power to understand each and every employee, and was the ultimate judge of character and abilities, and best of all; she had a pigeon-hole for everyone. Yes, there was a spot for everyone and once you were placed in your special spot you were there forever. Oh, this manager was relentless in her pursuit of perfection; everything was mapped-out and in its proper place.

And there the perfect manager sat, as another manager sat across from her. The perfect manager sat motionless, indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain. She sat totally impassive, unwilling to accept constructive criticism from the other manager, unwilling to listen to the other manager, and unwilling to accept any effort of reconciliation. There was no need for the other manager to reach-out or attempt to reconcile their differences - none whatsoever; for the perfect manager knew all about the manager who sat across from her. She knew exactly what was in that manager’s heart and mind and she didn't care for it. She had already placed this manager in his little pigeon-hole. The die had already been cast; the game was forever played-out.

Of course, the perfect manager didn’t have to be human because she was warm and secure in her small little world. No harm could come to her. She was comforted by the knowledge she was right, always right, and the other manager was wrong. Of course, she had a plan, and this was it: She would let the other manager reach-out, apologize, and take responsibility for things. The perfect manager would allow this to happen and this would make her feel victorious. She would outlast the other manager, allow him to show his weakness, and this would reaffirm her superiority. She would do this with few words and no sign of emotion. Her coldness of expression and coldness of heart would be her guide. "In time . . . in time . . . it will happen," she thought.

. . . and it did.

The other manager reached-out and took partial responsibility for the situation. The other manager had taken the high-road, but the perfect manager refused to meet the other manager half-way. "There," she thought, "it's over." There was no smile on the perfect manager's face, no indication of emotion at all. Yet, deep inside the perfect manager was overjoyed in her perfection. In her mind, she overlooked all of her pigeon-holes, located the other manager in his special spot, and looked down upon him with a smile. She saw herself extending her hand and gently stroking the little manager’s head. "It’s okay," she said softly. "It’s okay. I understand."

As I sat watching the scene unfold before me, I was not angered by the perfect manager’s reaction. Instead, I became profoundly saddened by her behavior. For someone who was so perfect she was blind to her own faults and frailties. Here was person so warm and secure in a world she created, a world that protected her from reality and from herself. Indeed, the perfect manager had constructed the perfect world.

Then, it came to me. I remembered someone like the perfect manager. He was a young man and it was many years ago. And, he too had built a similar world. But in time, he matured and learned how to deal with people. He discovered that the perfect world he had built was not all that perfect, and that in time reality would consume him. I remember this young man because I am that person.

When the meeting was over I decided to listen to some music. I do not recall the name of the song that was playing or artist, but the first line of lyrics was this . . . I’ve learned to clip my wings, and soften my ways.

Diversity of Thought - Advocacy and Inquiry

In my organization our Employee Handbook addressed the issue of the importance of nurturing diversity of thought. Specifically it states the following:

“As a learning organization continuously seeking to attain and maintain the competitive edge through innovation, your Company places an extremely high value on diversity of thought. Diversity of thought is critical to reaching the most innovative, customer-focused solutions to the many issues, problems and challenges confronting our business. As such, it is the responsibility of every manager to value and secure diversity of thought in his/her work unit by employing and developing the highest caliber individuals differing from one another culturally, intellectually, experientially, as well as by race and gender. Attaining and leveraging diversity of perspective and thought is consistent with our values as a company. The processes of securing diversity of thought and outreach are inextricably linked -- both entailing expansion of our internal and external applicant pools to attract the most qualified individuals from the broadest possible range of sources.”

This well-defined position clearly states not only the importance my company places on nurturing the diversity of thought, but also that “every manager” is responsible to ensure the sanctity of it. Further, it spells-out specifically how this is to occur, namely by “employing and developing the highest caliber individuals differing from one another culturally, intellectually, experientially, as well as by race and gender.” Specifically, the manager must demonstrate a willingness to share ideas and perspective and encourage others in the group to do the same. Sharing shows that it is acceptable; encouraging others to share embeds it as part of our culture.

For me balancing advocacy and inquiry is absolutely critical to nurturing diversity of thought. An imbalance can easily restrict an expression of ideas, and this would be unacceptable.

Advocacy, Inquiry, and Emotional Intelligence

I’ve always been a big fan of Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence (EI) model. I believe the concepts espoused by Goleman are critical to understanding how a leader will apply the advocacy and inquiry approach to decision-making.

To understand this correlation, let’s start with effective decision-making. Effective decision-making requires data analysis, effective listening and reflection, and use of a systematic process that weighs the pros and cons of alternatives. For a person to be effective in listening and reflection she or he must understand and control their own emotions. Without this control, a person may overly advocate one position over another, or become so entrenched in a specific viewpoint that the necessary questions go unasked.

Advocacy and inquiry provides a rather simple decision-making model, but one that may be problematic. This model includes two approaches: advocacy and inquiry. The advocacy approach can be viewed as a person taking an intransigent viewpoint, that is, entrenched in a willingness to defend their viewpoint and persuade others. Conversely, inquiry can be viewed as the person’s willingness to gain more insight into an issue, an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the issue.

When taken together, advocacy and inquiry defines a continuum or state in which the decision-maker exists as she or he tries to navigate toward a decision. The decision-maker can slide along this continuum employing varying levels of advocacy and inquiry.

However, here comes my warning: If the decision-maker focuses excessively on advocacy she or he will alienate those participants who are needed to ensure an effective decision. On the other hand, and at the other extreme, the decision-maker who excessively focuses on inquiry may become muddled in data gathering and analysis thereby becoming indecisive.

The decision-maker will need to determine the level of advocacy and inquiry required and based on the interpersonal relationships involved. For example, in a conversation where the decision-maker needs to gain a better understanding of a participant’s viewpoint, inquiry will be high. In turn, there could be a conversation where the decision-maker needs to share her or his viewpoint on this issue. Here, advocacy will be high.

A leader will naturally apply advocacy and inquiry based on the situation. Where it becomes difficult for the leader is when his or her emotions become entangled in the process. Left unchecked, a leader’s emotions can prompt the leader to an excessive state of advocacy.

But what will make a leader be intransigent and thereby overly focus on advocating a specific viewpoint? Most likely, it will be their inability to understand and control their own emotions.

Goleman’s model states that a leader needs to be able to understand his or her emotions and understand the impact such emotions have on the environment, control his or her emotions and as necessary change emotions based on the situation, to understand the emotion’s of others and react to them accordingly. For Goleman, a leader who is able to attain a high level of emotional intelligence will excel at motivating others, managing conflict, and making decisions.

It is therefore simple enough: To properly employ the advocacy and inquiry decision-making approach, a leader must have a certain high level of emotional intelligence. Without it, the leader is doomed to excessively advocate a position and thereby alienate those participants who are needed to ensure an effective decision.

Polarities - The Heart of Conflict

One of my favorite HBR articles comes from the October 2006 issue. The article is entitled The Tools of Cooperation and Change by Christensen, Marx, and Stevenson, and at its crux is this: “The primary task of management is to get people to work together in a systematic way.” The authors discuss the importance of collaboration in minimizing conflict. For me, in the leadership game of rock-paper-scissors, collaboration is rock while conflict is scissors!

No matter how effective you are as a leader, or how good you are as a coach, conflict will occur because you cannot control the behavior of others. Great leaders and coaches know how to manage conflict, and they do so through a collaborative style.

A key to managing conflict is understanding the behaviors which contribute to conflict. Researchers Blake and Mouton identified five distinct types of conflict behaviors. Their classification is based on two independent components of conflict behavior: (1) assertiveness, defined as behaviors intended to satisfy one’s own concerns; and (2) cooperativeness, defined as behaviors intended to satisfy the other individual’s concerns. These components combine to specify five styles. My focus is on the collaborating style. This style is high in both assertiveness and cooperation: the person works to attain a solution that will meet the needs of both people. This orientation seeks full satisfaction for all and has also been called problem-solving and integrative style.

In managing conflict, the ultimate goal is to find a win-win solution. The collaborating style is the only one which provides a win-win solution. Compromising, which we are generally encouraged to do, is actually a lose-lose solution.

Breaking down the barriers to collaboration is an important factor of conflict management. Creating a supportive climate helps to encourage accurate communication and supportive behaviors. Defensive climates, on the other hand, are perceived as threatening or ominous. Assertive communication, use of “I” statements, and descriptive language foster a supportive climate. Statements that evaluate or place blame on the other party are viewed as defensive.

Conflicts can easily spiral out of control when emotions and defensive climates exist. If you feel a conflict is spiraling, it is best to bring in a neutral third party. Human Resources can serve as the neutral third party or mediator. Human Resources also serves as a resource and sounding board for both supervisors and employees. Conflict will not just go away -- do not avoid it. Get help if you need it. Get COLLABORATION and remember collaboration beats conflict!

Leadership and Teams

I hate the dentist; I hate spending thirty minutes in that chair staring into the eyes of someone I really don’t know as they inflict pain. It reminds me too much like a prisoner-of-war being questioned by the enemy.

But there I was at my six-month cleaning, staring into those eyes once again, wondering when it would all end and trying to think of something else to ease my worried mind. As I sat there hoping that the hygienist would miss all those sensitive spots I took time to reflect on leadership and teams.

Just before being strapped into the chair (okay, I wasn’t strapped-in, but the imagery works), and as I sat pretending to read a magazine in the waiting area, I observed a well-functioning team at work. Two individuals sat behind the desks in the office. One was a receptionist who handled all outgoing patients and insurance billing. I would speak with her after my interrogation. Another greeted me, found my file, and placed it in a bin on a door, a door leading to my assigned interrogation room. I would only interact with this person once, upon entering the office, and she would check to ensure that all my paperwork was readied for the hygienist. When my hygienist completed the current interrogation, she would take a minute or two to take my file from the door bin and review it. She would then call me into her room for questioning. During the interrogation, my hygienist would make notes to the file, and when I was finished she would give it to the receptionist. I would spend but a few moments with the receptionist to complete payment for my interrogation and schedule my next interrogation. I thought to myself, what a well-functioning team. Why? There wasn’t a dentist to be seen; no leader in sight for miles as far as I could see! The it hit me . . .

A good team makes decisions for itself. Self-management is key to effective teams. Decisions on how to complete tasks and projects should be left to the members of the team, not handed down to them from management. This practice allows a sense of empowerment and allows workers to feel they are respected for their competency. Both of these concepts allow greater job satisfaction and more willingness to work. Work teams are much like social groups. They are capable of handling their own minor conflicts and workloads without outside assistance. Teams must be allowed to self govern or they will never be more than side-by-side workers.

Also, this team had specific roles and processes in place. There were clear lines of authority and responsibilities, lines that were not crossed. For the leader (dentist), all that was necessary was to provide the appropriate structure and let the team go to work. The only problem is this: team members must have the ability to self-manage. If a team member is unable to work within the given structure, or perhaps feels it necessary to cross the lines of authority and responsibility, overall team performance will suffer and the leader will find it necessary to make a correction.

My leadership style is similar, that is, I try to provide structure for my team mates to operate within. I will coach those who do not operate well within the structure, or who have difficulties working within the constraints of their given authority. Eventually, if coaching efforts fail a correction is required.

Okay, next time I visit my interrogator I will need to think of something different. Perhaps, I will focus on decision-making within teams, and how certain magazines are selected for the waiting room.

Reflection on Leadership

Over the years I have greatly increased my leadership skills. And, over this same time frame I’ve been better able to adapt my style to the many styles I often deal with. After so many years you begin to learn about yourself, and about how you interact with others and how they perceive you. The Insights Profile has reaffirmed my leader style and helped reinforce areas where improvement is needed.

Since I have been in many varying leadership situations I’ve learned to switch styles. At times, and unfortunately so, I can use a coercive style, but I don’t often employ this style. As necessary, I will use an authoritative approach but try to avoid this as with the coercive approach. In all of my positions I’ve tried to be a developer of others, a coach and mentor.

For me there are six key leadership rules or principles to be employed and regardless of leadership style:

1. Take time out to reflect on your daily actions and behaviors. Reflection helps to put things in perspective, and heightens the learning process.

2. Trade minds with people you want to influence. Try to get into their head to better understand them.

3. Think progress, push for progress, and also believe in progress. Change is not only inevitable but it is desired.

4. When making decisions, make them as quickly as possible. As one CEO often told me: “There’s not a decision that you make that can’t be quickly changed.” He was absolutely right.

5. Learn from everyone around you. Don’t repeat your mistakes or the mistakes of others.

6. Apply continuous active learning. Make sure your Barnes & Noble member card is renewed and used often. Get the latest books published in management, leadership, ethics, and business processes. Subscribe to the HBR and as many trade publications as possible.

The above six practices will help a leader to identify his or her style and adapt it as necessary.

More on Henry Tam

As I continue to review the Henry Tam case I discovered a wonderful article written by Beck and Yeager. According to the authors teams pass through various stages on their way to productivity: forming, focusing, performing, and leveling. Forming is basically team members meeting and greeting. To work well, the team should clarify its work and establish rules for how the team will function. In focusing, the teams formulate and clarify goals and objectives. This phase can be a short phase if a clear purpose is provided through leadership. Once everyone knows what is to be accomplished the team moves to performing. In performing, the work is divided and team members begin. It is here that Beck and Yeager make an important point, namely that much teamwork is not performed as a team. Much is done by individuals and then combined with the work of others, and in a non-collaborative manner. Without regular meetings to keep team members focused on goals, to check progress, and solve problems, inertia may set in a leveling stage. Leveling occurs when efforts stagnate. Clearly, in my mind the MGI team has hit its inertia and is in the leveling stage simply because the team bypassed the focusing stage. Leadership is needed to guide the team through focusing.

My Insights Discovery Profile- Work In Progress

The Insights Discovery Profile is a self-development tool based Carl Jung’s concept of psychological type. It is somewhat similar to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and even the Harrison Innerview, other self-development tools that rely on identifying certain psychological and personality differences. With each tool a person’s responses to a simple questionnaire generates the data that is central to a final report, identifying the person’s strengths and weaknesses. However, unlike other profiles that simply present valuable information, the Insights profile is accompanied by a “How To” system to put action in place.

The Insights Discovery Personal Profile includes: An Overview; Key strengths and weaknesses; Value to the Team; Effective Communication; Barriers to Effective Communication; Possible Blind Spots; and Suggestions for Development.

I’ve been fortunate to now experience each tool and am most impressed with the Insights Discovery Profile. As I review my report I want to focus on what I view to be my three strengths, weaknesses, blind spots, and suggestions for developments.

Key Strengths:

Of ten key strengths identified, the 3 that ring true to me are objectivity, an orderly approach to the task, and consistency in standards. Now, all ten strengths clearly help to identify me as an HR person, but the three I want to focus on truly represent my behavior. As an HR professional I must be objective in my decisions and consistent in standards and application of those standards. Further, I am very organized and plan out my tasks.

Key Weaknesses:

Of ten key weaknesses identified, the 3 that ring true to me are tends to avoid social interaction, others may find me cold and distant, and could appear too unemotional or uninvolved. For me the noted weaknesses are an outgrowth of my work place behavior, a conscience effort on my part to keep my interactions with employees professional in an effort to maintain fairness and objectivity. Is this an extreme condition? Perhaps. Does this mean that I am unfriendly or aloof? No. It simply means I am careful with the level of interpersonal relationships I have with individuals.

Blind Spots:

According to the Insights Discovery Profile “blind spots” reflect less conscious behaviors a person may project that affect how others perceive that person. For me there are three blind spots, those less conscious behaviors I need to focus on. They are: neglect to involve others in my activities, does not openly share thoughts and feelings with others, not open to the ideas from others.

Suggestions for Development:

My Insights Discovery Profile reveals ten suggestions for development. For me, each is important and I want to address each individually. By doing so I can develop an action plan for improvement. Here is my list of ten suggestions for development:

• Greater interaction with all sorts of people.
• Trusting his feelings more.
• Identifying when extensive detail is not needed.
• Paying attention to people who are unafraid to put their foot in their mouths, rather than “tuning out”.
• Seeking the positive side of every situation.
• Taking the occasional risk by deciding only on the information available. It may be better to make a poor decision than no decision at all.
• Changing his perception of aggression being a weakness to that of an essential gift that is occasionally necessary to get things done.
• Engaging excitedly in general discussion.
• Attempting to respond more quickly to his more extraverted colleagues.
• Sharing responsibilities or processes.

My next step is to develop self-directed learning plan based on the above areas. A self-directed learning plan should include 1) identifying learning needs, 2) establishing specific learning objectives, 3) identifying learning resources, and 4) documenting measurable outcomes and evaluating those outcomes.

I will research the text For Your Improvement and identify those clusters that relate to these areas as a starting point.

Henry Tam and the MGI Team

Henry Tam is a student looking for a challenge and jumps right into one when he decides to assist MGI ownership as part of a school competition. MGI is a small entity led by three unique individuals two of which are considered accomplished composers. The third person is relied upon by the other two for his business savvy. As Henry’s involvement unfolds and as other students join the MGI team, Henry becomes embroiled in many concepts regarding leadership and teams.

To fully understand what Henry faces, let’s start at the end of the case study where Henry asks himself what he can do to help the team work more effectively. Henry’s dilemma haunts him throughout the case study as the team’s dysfunctional behavior slowly reveals itself.

For me the answer to MGI’s woes is a simple one, yet one that surprisingly evades two of MGI’s leaders, those who are familiar with musicians and composers. What MGI needs is a person who can orchestrate success, a conductor of sorts, a person who can provide strategic direction and like a conductor of a great orchestra get all the parts working together (the creative and the strategic), a person who can work with each person’s strengths and build on their weaknesses.

As the case unfolds, here is what we learn:

> MGI’s core leadership (Sasha, Igor, Roman) is comprised of diverse talents and viewpoints. Igor and Roman are known as accomplished musicians and composers; Sasha is a college graduate with business acumen and finance skills.

> MGI’s product is a software program where through game play the user can both learn and enjoy music. This presents a conflict. MGI’s core leaders believe the software program should be marketed as a game; the student team believes it should be marketed as an education tool.

> MGI’s product is a critical success but a commercial failure, most likely because it missed the Christmas holiday season. Two MGI core leaders who are musicians (Igor and Roman) place this failure at the feet of their business leader Sasha. They believe the problem was that Sasha did not focus on sales, but rather production and fund raising efforts.

> The group dynamic between MGI’s core leaders presents challenges: Igor and Roman have the same upbringing in the Ukraine; Sasha was born in Russia but is viewed as “Americanized” by Igor and Roman as he often refuses to speak in his native tongue; Sasha is also viewed by Igor and Roman as being key to MGI because of his business skills; Igor and Roman are viewed as having poor business skills; Roman is considered the creative person who has the ideas; Igor is considered a workaholic.

> Regardless of how MGI’s core leaders view each other Sasha believes that the group lacks the skills necessary to thrive in the industry. For Sasha they do not have the skill set to properly market their product.

> Much of this is reaffirmed when Henry joins the team as part of his school’s business competition. Yet Henry begins to see some things differently light than MGI’s core leaders. For example, he views Igor as someone who possesses great charisma, but is incapable of articulating anything to do with the business.

> The student team (Henry, Dana, Dav), brought together for the competition, presents yet another level of diverse talents and viewpoints. Henry is an MBA candidate with professional experience in the investment field; Dana is also an MBA candidate with professional experience in the banking; Dav (who joins the team later) is an MIT graduate student with experience in software development and music.

> As the student team meets with MGI’s core leaders they begin to formulate opinions based on observation. Dana discovers that Igor is experienced with teaching children; Henry and Dana are concerned with Sasha’s resume as he has jumped form industry-to-industry with limited accomplishments; Henry and Dana reaffirm their initial belief when they first meet with Sasha as Sasha seems unfocused and jumps from idea to idea.

> Henry and Dana want to establish their specific roles. They see themselves as developing a business plan. However, Igor is looking for a vision and strategy, while Sasha looks to the students as salespeople who can cold call on alumni for financial support.

> As the student team attempts to define their role Sasha and Dana find themselves in conflict over roles and expectations. The conflict is noticed by Henry and Igor, and Igor steps in to resolve the issue. Sasha views the students as learners and helpers while Igor views the student team as critical to MGI’s success.

> As the group continues to meet a new student is added to the team. His name is Alex and he is a music student and is invited to join the team by Igor and Sasha.

> Alex’s music background and expertise is unique. He has worked with MGI’s core leaders in the past. Alex believes the MGI’s software product is a smart way to teach music. From a management and leadership perspective Alex believes MGI lacks organization.

> Several perspectives come from a second meeting. Dana firmly believes leadership is needed as MGI’s core leaders have limited experience. Roman believes Dana takes a very broad view of things, that Sasha also views Dana this way, and that Dana believes Sasha simply as a salesperson. Dana believes the group focuses too much time on brainstorming. Sasha admits he has limited interpersonal communication skills, and this is exemplified by his attempts at suppressing Dana’s ideas. Alex views Sasha as aggressive and strong-willed.

> At the end of the second meeting Henry and David agree that they 1) need to take control of the situation in order to be successful, and 2) have to deal directly with Sasha. Henry and Dana agree to use Sasha’s conflict with Dana to their advantage. Henry and Dana’s plan is simple: Dana will present an idea knowing Sasha will disagree. Then, Henry will propose an alternative that Henry and Dana really want. Sasha will agree to Henry’s idea and simply to spite Dana.

> A third student is introduced at a third meeting. Dav is an MIT student with software development skills. He represents MGI in an MIT business competition. Henry and Dana are troubled by Dav’s introduction, and the fact that Dav was recruited by Sasha and just two days before MIT’s online application deadline.

> Dav spends a lot of time with Sasha and Igor and helps to get a rough draft of the business plan’s Executive Summary ready for submission. Dav also reviews the software program and believes it is excellent and more suited as a game than educational tool.

> Dav also spends additional time with Sasha and Igor and helps with technical aspects of their product. As Dav spends more time with MGI he believes his style is compatible with the MGI core leaders. He feels comfortable with the core leadership because he is not aggressive in a group setting.

> At a third meeting, Henry and Dana present a very professionally PowerPoint presentation that summarizes the work completed to date. The presentation impresses Igor and Roman. On the other hand, Sasha’s presentation is very basic and not electronic. Sasha expresses frustration as he feels he is being alienated by the group.

> At this meeting Dav makes a few observations. Dav feels there is conflict between the HBS students and MGI’s core leadership. Roman is disagreeable; Sasha and Igor believe there are too many people involved.

> Dav also notes cultural differences that impact the groups’ synergy, and uses stereotypes as a basis. According to Dav, Sasha is stubborn while Roman is less stubborn and gives reluctantly.

> Alex is less convinced of the cultural differences noted by Dav. For Alex, he views the differences simply as people wanting to be thorough, and coming from different experiences and skill levels.

> Alex views himself as a go-between, someone with similar skill sets to Roman and Igor, but someone close to Henry and Dana’s age. Alex views the major difference or point of conflict as that between the creativity of Roman and Igor and business sense of Henry and Dana. Dana agrees with this perspective.

> As the group moves ahead the conflict boils down to how to best market MGI’s product. Henry does a lot of market research and believes the product should be marketed to teachers and education market. Dana agrees with this perspective. Roman disagrees and states that the education market is small compared to the music industry. Sasha states that it would be a failure to focus on the education market because MGI has neither the experience nor interest to do so. Henry counters that in fact the education market is indeed smaller but it best suits where MGI’s product is in development. Dana adds a critical perspective by noting that MGI should take a short term and long term viewpoint. MGI’s core leadership begin to gain respect for Henry and Dana.

> As the group progresses, however, Henry and Dana find no clear leader. For Henry the leader was that person who at the time had the most energy to give to an issue.

Yet, the question remains – how can Henry help MGI be successful with so many varied challenges? For me, I believe Henry needs to direct MGI to find a conductor, a person who can direct activities and weave the diverse personalities together towards a set of common goals. Based on my experience, this is a person who can:

> Communicate a compelling vision and inspire allegiance to this vision.

> Walk the talk – a person who practices what s/he preaches, all the time, and regardless of conditions.

> Infuse an attitude of trust, integrity, and professionalism to the work place.

> Motivate teams to reach for goals; find ways for teams to experience success and gain a passion for being successful.

> Communicate and coordinate efforts to ensure effective implementation of programs that are needed and wanted by members.

> Help members to rise above weaknesses and to make full use of their capabilities.

> Encourage an attitude of lifelong learning. Ensure activities are put in place to develop new skill sets and to enable continued personal and career growth.

> Effectively blend people into teams as needed, and develop an appreciation for of thought.

With this in mind, the next question we must ask is this: is the conductor currently a member of the MGI core leadership or student team? Possibly. Alex could be that candidate. He already acts as a go-between, has a skill set similar to the creative Igor and Roman, and is close to Henry and Dana's age. Alex also seems to relate to the business side of the business. However, I am not convinced that Alex is the right person for the job because he tends to ignore the cultural aspect of the conflict.

My recommendation would be to bring in some one from the outside who has industry expertise. Ideally, I would look for someone between a blue and red, using the Insights Discovery Profile schematic. This would be an individual who would ensure:

> a shared approach to problem solving

> that issues are dealt with in a rational and logic manner

And someone who is red who would ensure:

> goal driven behavior

> respect for everyones talents

I would then structure MGI's organization in such a manner that would place Igor and Roman in charge of creative concepts, Sasha in charge of business operations, Dav in charge of production and deployment, and Henry and Dana in charge of business analysis and marketing. Sales would fall on several individuals but primarily the new person along with Igor who is viewed as charismatic. Alex can assist with Igor and Roman with the creative.

In my view, and in order to get MGI working towards success whomever is the leader should organize MGI in such a manner so as to maximize each member's strengths.

The Tip of the Iceberg

I've just finished the book "The Tip of the Iceberg" by David Hutchens, and in a cute and often times hysterically funny way it presents some great leadership lessons. For those who have not read this entertaining book, it tells the tale of two distinct species (penguins and walruses) and how they unite (collaborate) to mutually prosper on an iceberg. However, as with all poorly planned ventures doom settles in and takes many forms.

Here are some of my thoughts:

1. The initial protocol (agreement between penguins and walruses) was not well conceived. The protocol focused only on results and lacked specifics and measurements. There was no thought given to implementation or controls. Unlike a road map that includes a destination and pathways to that destination, the protocol only contained a loosely defined destination. Because of this expected results were not easily achieved.

2. Initially both sides viewed their agreement as a win-win when in fact during implementation each side was focused more on their side winning than ensuring mutual victory. In time, each species again became territorial as resources became limited.

3. A major lesson learned from this book is this: even though one may be unable to see or anticipate the "hidden forces that can make or break your organization" (underneath the iceberg), by undertaking a systematic and proper planning process one can anticipate or avoid the hidden forces.

4. Another major lesson learned from this book is this: a leader's primary role is to envision the future and the consequences of the many pathways leading to that future. For example, I recently coordinated my company's long-term strategic plan. We started by creating a list of where we want to be in 5 years (destination). We created simple yet specific and measurable statements. Based on each future statement we then developed specific and measurable strategies (pathways). From there we developed specific and measurable tactics, which are specific to-do's that if accomplished will ensure the planned-for outcome (more detailed pathways).

Each month, functional leaders report on their progress. They report actual versus planned results. Variances against planned results are thoroughly explained. Over time, variances show a pattern of success or failure and ultimately lead to modification (alignment). Here we review the original plan and think of other forces that may be in play. When you think of our planning process, it is clear that a) a future has been well-defined, b) specific and measurable tactics are codified to meet the planned future, and c) controls are established to benchmark/measure our success along the way. The planning process is an example of systems thinking.

Finally, the concept of systems thinking is parallel to the process I employ in implementing change. Here, the following must occur in order to ensure successful change: 1) preparation, 2) establishing urgency, 3) discerning a vision and pathway to that vision, 4) communicating the vision, 5) empowering change leaders, 6) developing an implementation plan that is measurable, 7) implementing controls, and 8) reinforce through alignment (appropriate modifications based on variances).

Overall, this was a great book and I intend to integrate it into our company's leadership development program.