Leadership

Progress is often considered a bad thing for some and good for others. Which is it?

This entry was posted in Communication effectiveness HR development strategy Leadership Learning and development and tagged growth leadership learning productivity progress on by

Do you have a mobile phone? If so, is it a smart phone? You know, a phone that has more computing capacity than the NASA teams that sent American astronauts to the moon and brought them back in the late 60’s. Some of you may not know what was available before those smart phones so the next few questions may not make immediate sense to you. Still read on as it will soon speak to you. How would many of you feel if you had to go back to the digital phones of the first decade of the second millennium? With many of them, most notably with a BlackBerry, you could send and receive emails, accomplish a number of tasks, and talk to people. Very few Apps were available. Paying bills, banking, booking a hotel or airline tickets, GPS navigation, watching television series or movies, consulting books, taking and editing pictures or videos, paying for groceries or restaurant bills, calculating your mortgage payments as you considered purchasing a house or apartment, dating, ordering food, ordering a car ride service, reading a newspaper, and a plethora of other tasks that are normal today were either impossible or really challenging.

What about analog phones before that? Texting and calling were the only things you could do. Would you go back to that?

If you like your smart phone or if you hate it but cannot see how you could function without it, it is fair to imply that you embraced or at least accepted progress.

What about cars? What about dial-up internet access? What about the advances in computers? What about fiber optics? What about flat screen TVs? What of the newest drugs to treat cancers, diabetes, auto-immune diseases, and genetic diseases? What would a large part of the population do without Amazon? While it is certainly true that all of the above come at a cost, would you be OK to go back to what was there before? If not, whatever that “not” is, you choose progress.

All that progress came from research, science, and people like you, thinking that it is always possible to do better. Dreamers like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Watson and Crick, Alexander Graham Bell, and Pasteur still, to this day, influence all of our lives. They used science to induce progress. But wait, what if they were simply the hands of God? What if all their inspiration came from the Supreme Guide? Then we should look at progress and science as good things, created by God. Things that must have been designed to make us better people. Isn’t curing diseases part of the plan for humans to be happier? Isn’t it benevolent to use progress to reduce suffering?

Progress is usually meant to improve our lives. Yet, we can also associate progress with terrible things. Those smart phones we love also make us stupid. We do not remember the phone numbers of the people we love. We depend on those devices to remind us to reach out to our friends for their birthdays. People have dinner together, on a round table, with great food served by hard-working people, but cannot look into each others’ eyes because they are too busy with another part of their lives, the one that lives on a screen.

We spend more time trying to connect our devices to our cars’ entertainment system than actually driving properly, with eyes on the road. We order food kits rather than learn to cook and create something that may reveal skills we never knew we were able to develop. We avoid talking to people because texting is cooler, and significantly less involving. We freely call people names and destroy their lives online because we never face them or even consider that what we read about them may be wrong.

Does this mean that progress is bad? Well, it is not always only good.  In 19th century London (UK), detritus was everywhere, most of the human excrement was left in the streets and found their way to the Thames.   People lived in disease-ridden filth.   Do people in London today want to go back to 19th century London? Probably not yet, who would like housing in London to be more affordable? Advances in medicine have saved millions of lives, we all have a friend or relative that is still here today because of it. Yet advancements are increasingly expensive and demanding on the system with some people having no true access to those advances. Computers have initially brought increases in productivity yet; it is more and more questioned because each of us using computers must do more than before. In fact, the productivity paradox depicts a bleaker picture when comparing the incredible advances of computing capabilities and the overall productivity of industrialized countries.

While there are disadvantages associated with progress, we mostly benefit from it. And progress being progress, we also evolve our abilities to deal with the less positive consequences.

By 1720, Nantucket Island was the hub of whaling in America. In 1853, American whaling reached its peak and employed around 70,000 people. At that time, it is estimated that the total population in what is now the USA was roughly 23 million. In today’s numbers, it would mean that over 1 million people were employed in whaling. While in 1853 there were over 900 whaling vessels, by 1895, only 51 remained in all the USA. The last whaling ship in the US was sent out in 1927. Progress can bring dramatic changes, and the population did adapt.

In 1950, we had over 1,340,000 switchboard operators in the US. By 1991, they were all gone. What about video store operators? Have you seen a milkman lately? How about typesetters? What about photo developing? How many music record stores are left today?

Things change constantly. Moore’s law states that computer chips double in transistor capacity every 2 years. This last comment certainly brings up the concept of “programmed obsolescence” for many. And with it the idea that much progress has been the result of increased profits, market shares, competitive advantages, and other means to generate revenue. Our economy is founded on growth. Reducing costs may lead to growth in profits. Increasing demand may also yield more profits. Scarcity brings prices up and potential profits. It may therefore be fair to say that progress is an economic phenomenon driven by greed rather than need. Afterall, the Middle Ages span over a thousand years and comparatively to the 500 years that followed (Renaissance, the Age of Exploration, Early Modern Period, and the Industrial Era), few meaningful innovations were made (eyeglasses, gunpowder, windmills, clocktowers, building techniques, printing machines, and agriculture).  Could we still live in that way? Of course. Would we want to live that way? The average life expectancy during that period was 30 to 35 years. And it was rough, really awful at most times. Close to 70% of the US population was over 35 in 2024. In 1024, those people would be dead already. Is that progress?

We can dispute the fact that a number of innovations may have caused more pain than benefits. When I asked AI to list innovations that have had more negative impacts than positives, it spat back, social media, Opioids, Automotive technology, Fast Fashion, e-cigarettes, and others. In each case, the net benefit can be argued on both sides. The point is that progress comes not only with positives. Same as if we chose to live in the Middle Ages.

Progress is in Nature. The universe is still expanding after billions of years following the Big Bang. Species on Earth keep evolving as Nature changes. That is progress. We age, we learn, we change. Progress is part of life; it happens whether we want it or not. So, while some of it may not yield all the positive initially intended, it seems more productive to embrace it and work with it than just wait and see.

If we agree with this, we must briefly revisit what drives progress. Even if we accept that a considerable number of developments are motivated by economic growth or tenet, what drives progress is science and research. Eyeglasses were invented around the year 1000 after an Arab scholar and astronomer suggested that smoother glass could help people with visual impairment. It was based on observation, reflection, and empirical data. The steam engine, the telephone, the light bulb, the airplane, the automobile, the computer, the transistor, and the internet were all created following scientific discoveries of fundamental and applied science. Science is progress.  Science is looking for answers and often finds them. Just like progress, it makes mistakes, and it searches for ways to explain and fix them. Everyone has the right to criticize science yet all of us benefit from science every minute of every day. Science actually makes it easier to question and vilify it since websites and social media are using science as a structure for their existence.  Science is everywhere around us. It is the reason we have smart phones with the computing capacity of thousands on NASA scientists of the 1960’s in our pocket. Science is an integral part of progress, even for Mother Nature.

Here is an example of Mother Nature’s use of science.  The peppered moth’s original color was a mix of grey tones.  It allowed the moth to mimic the color of tree bark and “hide” from birds, their predator. The moth thrived.  Then came the industrial Revolution (progress) and soot was produced in such quantities that tree bark was covered in black.  As a result, the darker individuals of the peppered moth were less detectable than their lighter cousins.  Consequently, the now prominent peppered moth was darker in color.  The lighter individuals, more easily detectable by their predators, faded away until coal was replaced by cleaner energy sources (more progress).  Tree barks went back to their “natural” color and the lighter moth “returned” at the demise of the darker ones.  This is one of many demonstrations of natural selection, science.

Progress is ineluctable, our environment ever changing.  To survive, we adapt.  And if we want to use this example as a way to explain that going backwards is a good thing, let us not forget that the return of the “original” peppered moth was caused by the progress in sources of energy.  Otherwise, the dark moth would have continued to prevail on the basis of the environmental reality.  The point is that everything changes and progresses.

So, progress. Is this a bad or a good thing? Why do we embrace progress and, at the same time, vilipend and disparage several of its implications?  Sometimes, it is important to spend the time to understand what a word, a concept, or an idea means, so we can put it in the correct perspective.

Investing in a growth initiative. Yes, no, maybe, why?

This entry was posted in HR development strategy Leadership Learning and development and tagged Business growth and strategy development learning productivity on by

Imagine that you just invested a significant amount of money in a development program that aims to move your team to a leadership position in the market, a place that will give you a real edge in a few years.  It may be an adapted sales approach, a new collaboration matrix, a novel communication method, or a customer interaction system.  The management team understands this and sees the potential.  In fact, it is the management team that insisted on the effort.  They decided that without this, the competition will have such advantages in 2-5 years that the quality of our relationship with customers will not be able to compensate sufficiently to keep the momentum until the new product hits the market in 5 to 7 years.  The loss incurred will not be recovered.  In fact, the new product may as well not launch in that case.

Now imagine that about 15% of field people either decide not to adopt the new operational principles or are unable to do so but, in every case, their current results are such that their managers opt to overlook their lack of effort because their numbers look good.    After all, that’s what is evaluated in the end, the numbers, not the attitude, efforts or dedication to grow.  Quite frankly, numbers are much easier to measure. Please note that this is not a hypothetical situation, we have seen it happen a little too often.  In addition to that, because of the way the recognition programs are structured, the chances for any of those individuals to earn more as well as become the employee of the year, or being celebrated publicly throughout the corporation are very, very high.   This, we have also witnessed many times.   Now consider the following questions:

  1. What does this say about corporate priorities?
  2. What are team members supposed to do with the new initiative?
  3. How are team members interpreting the message sent by those actions?
  4. What is the point of that investment?
  5. What is the actual cost of the initiative?

Chances are that most people reading this can relate.  You have seen it happen; you have lived it.  You have felt the results.

Let us explore a few potential answers.  All of them are based on factual information.

Question 1: What does this say about corporate priorities?

Clearly, it indicates a focus on immediate results being more important, in the short term, than long-term results.  It says that, while we understand that our future depends on the growth of the competencies identified in the development programs, we are not willing or able to truly invest in that future.  In a public company, shareholders must be happy.  If the leadership team is not able to explain decisions and actions over a period of 10 years in this case, the need to please investors is founded on short term results.  The plan is therefore to invest in the future but do whatever to keep current revenues stable.  It is not a bad approach in itself.  What is often overlooked are the consequences associated with the short-term view.  It may also speak of the compensation package of the CEO.  But that is another topic.

In a private company it may indicate a lack of courage or true understanding of consequences.  It may speak of a lack of vision or that too many members of the leadership team are close to retirement.  This is real folks.  Companies have actually avoided investing in their future because a contingent of partners close to retirement did not want to see their year-end compensation reduced by 5 to 10 thousand dollars on an average $500,000.00 package.  What is $10,000.00 for anyone making more than half a million dollars?  More importantly, what does it say about the leaders of the company?

We can explore dozens of possible reasons for either public or private corporations to “overlook” investing in the future to support short-term results.  The question remains, what does it say about priorities?  Whatever the reason, the main conclusion is that the short-term wins over the future.  If an employee, whatever their level, also comes to this conclusion, how do they see their future in this group and where will they focus their efforts?  That leads us to the second question.

Question 2, what are team members supposed to do with the new initiative?

If a person sees the value for them, they will adopt the initiative.  They may look at the longer-term possibilities and determine that their mastery of key competencies will be an asset.  It may even help them in the short term.  If the company fails in their readiness to face the competitive product, they will have developed skills that can more easily transfer to another corporation.  That way of looking at the initiative will serve them even if it means using the competencies elsewhere.  In short, the company invests in their future at the risk of losing them when those skills are more relevant. 

Another person, as it is depicted in the second paragraph, decides that the effort to change is more costly than the immediate return.  Their current trend indicates that they are likely to max out on their potential bonus without the pain of learning something new.  In addition, they may be recognized as “the best” which in turn, will likely make them more attractive to another employer if things take a downturn in just a few years.  And while their manager may be on their case in the short run, they know they will eventually be left alone. 

One may imagine numerous other possibilities but in almost all cases, the decisions will be founded on personal value rather than team impact.  In itself, that is not the real problem.  We should all look at options that improve our prospects.  The problem resides in the probable deterioration of the team dynamics and the resulting consequences.  A few of those consequences are illustrated in the answer to the third question.

Question 3, how are team members interpreting the message sent by those actions?

One interpretation is that the leadership team does not know what they are doing.  I don’t know about you but if I conclude that leaders having influence on my career do not understand their own actions, my trust in them is seriously jeopardized.  If that is the case, I am likely to dismiss most of their decisions.  The result is that I will do what is right for me and my clients based on what I know, not on what I should consider as a better option.

Another interpretation is that someone had a budget to spend and did just that, spend the money.  If using a budget is the basis for a decision, I am likely to dismiss or overlook the actual value of the decision and the object of that decision.  Anyone with a few years in an industry will soon recognize the “flavor of the month” effort and give just enough to be left alone.  Whatever value the initiative may have is likely to be lost.  What a waste.

I am convinced that you can identify several other interpretations that most likely go down the same direction.  And in most cases, the end result is similar.  So then, what is the point of making that investment (question 4)?

If management sees the need for the future but remain focused on the short term.  If team members individually benefit or dismiss the effort with little to not positive impact on team collaboration.  If people see this initiative as disorganized or as a “make-work” project.  Why do it?  Why spend money that is considered a waste?  Why give energy to something that is not valued?  Why ask people to invest when leadership does not?  How many decisions are made on the wrong premises and result in more damage?

Which leads us to the final question, one that we must ask with more regularity.

Question 5, what is the real cost of the initiative? 

A first aspect is obviously associating the dollar value with the results or opportunity cost.  If the initiative costs $2,000.00 per person involved, how do you know that this amount is recovered, when it is and, more importantly, what increases in revenue or profit result from the investment?  We must be convinced that it was worth it if we decided to go ahead with the initiative, right.  One way to evaluate the results is to measure changes in sales trends for each person involved, or revenue change.  A better way is to compare a group of people that went through a growth initiative versus one that has not.  If both groups were trending in the same direction and one has changed its direction following the initiative, the difference is the result of that very initiative.  See https://aseret-uido.com/results/ for more information.  If no difference exists after a reasonable time span, the initiative was not useful.

What about other costs?  If a group is told that an initiative has been put in place because it is believed to be important for everyone, people will expect that all involved must join the effort.  In our case, 15% of people just don’t change.  And of these people, none seems negatively impacted.  In fact, it starts going around that those individuals are left alone.  They can keep doing what they did before.  Moreso, these people are ultimately recognized by the leadership as the “best”, the “winners”.  And yet, the other 85% are told that they must adapt their way.  What are some of the consequences of that?  Dip in trust, disillusion, incomprehension, disdain, sarcasm, condescension, and disengagement.  What does those cost?   Imagine that any of these thoughts or feelings lead to the voluntary departure of 3 of the people you identified as key potentials for the future.  It is estimated that the replacement of such people, taking into account the impact of their departure on their clients or contacts, plus the fact that they may be joining forces with a competitor, and training another person, could be in the vicinity of $220,000.00 per person.  What is the net cost of this situation?  We often overlook the hidden costs of certain leadership behaviors because the other costs are easier to measure.  Putting pressure on an individual to change when their revenue numbers are good puts us immediately in a situation in which we see the implementation of an important initiative as a potential loss.  It is much easier to push other people that are not meeting their revenue potential because we also see a loss of potential revenue.  What would we do if, on the contrary, we looked at those situations from a more positive perspective, one of potential gain.  The person already attaining expected revenue may in fact be underperforming based on the existing potential, therefore, helping that person grow may have a seriously positive impact.  The person that must increase their revenue base may react very productively if we coach them in a positive manner, looking at the longer-term impact rather than immediate progress.  The point is that if a decision is made for a valid reason, it should apply more broadly and with an outlook on the future. 

Let’s look at the loss associated with a strong potential employee leaving.  If it costs us $220,000.00 in one year to replace that individual, how much is the 15% compensating for that in immediate revenue?  What is the longer-term cost?

The point is not to say that the15% are bad people and they should be forced to accept reality.  Neither are we saying that it is OK to let them “do their thing”.   The point is the following.  If the initiative is indeed important for the future, a company must have the courage to implement it completely.  Otherwise, don’t do it.  Save that money for something else that is going to be meaningful.

Some of you may say: what about splitting the apple in two?  You mean going halfway in with the initiative?  Are you thinking of encouraging people with a future to grow and letting short-term returns come in until they don’t?  Well, to avoid the costly consequences enumerated above, you would need to plan in advance and make both half of the apple part of your plan.  You must be able to explain your actions and the expected results.  But then, what do you say to the people that will soon be “disposable”?  How is going halfway in explained, and how will people react?

A key aspect here is decision making and its impacts. 

  1. Are you clear on the objective.
  2. Are you looking into various options?
  3. Are you considering the outcomes?
  4. Can you evaluate the costs associated with each outcome?
  5. What action will best help you meet your objective?

First, are you clear on your objectives?  Do you want to prepare for the future and yet limit short term losses?  In this instance, I would ask this: what is the most important part of that objective for the future of the company?  If it is the future, then what will be the most efficient way to get there? If ensuring optimal short-term returns to secure the future is your objective, great.  How will that be done?  What is the process behind meeting that objective?  Clarity of objective helps eliminate options early on to focus on viable alternatives instead.  What was the objective of launching the Challenger Space Shuttle in January 1986?  Stop the bad press, look decisive, avoid another delay, or ensure that we have every possible chance to bring the crew back alive?  Nobody would say that the last objective was not “the one”.  But was it the objective used to make the decision?  We now know that it was not. 

If the objective is to prepare for the future and yet limit short term losses. The second step is to evaluate the various options to meet that objective.  We touched on a few earlier.  Then step three is to consider the possible outcomes for each option.  In decision-making we tend to orient the decision toward the option that has the least negative with the most positive outcomes.  Step four is to quantify the cost of the options.  Losing 3 people that are part of our future will likely cost $660,000.00.  To what extent is that acceptable against the non-attainment of expected revenue for the year? Well, that depends on the associated number to that option.  And what is the cost associated with delaying our initiative by 1, 2 or 3 years?

Once options, their probable outcomes and costs are evaluated, a decision to act is necessary.  It does not mean that adjustments should not be considered.  Not at all.  It does however imply that changes must be seriously evaluated and in line with the original objective.

And maybe the most important question of all: If you have an objective and consider an action, it must be because something of value must be done.  That usually stems from an existing problem, right?  So, what is the problem that needs fixing?

In too many cases, the issue is not the decision to act, it is a misguided evaluation of the problem.  In this case, the problem seems to be that the current approach will not enable the group to be well positioned in the near future.  If that is the case, the loss incurred with be felt at multiple levels.  The other problem is that short-term results overshadow the long-term prospects.

Consider yourself lucky to have a job! 5

This entry was posted in Leadership and tagged leadership productivity progress on by

Really!  There is a shortage of qualified workers.  Even for jobs that do not require specific or elaborate training, positions remain unfilled.  We are in the middle of the Great Resignation.  It is employers that should consider themselves lucky to have people working for them.  The pendulum swings from one extreme to the other.  I am lucky today, you are lucky tomorrow, and back and forth we go along the years.  Leaders that use that kind of terminology, whatever their reasons or their aim, are missing the leadership boat and have embarked on the dictatorial raft.  The same goes for employees trying to exert a long overdue need for assertiveness, even power.   The use of such perspective is a barely disguised way to exercise power over other people, to try to control them and have our way with them, whatever side uses it. 

It shows contempt, lack of respect, and tries to establish superiority over others.  It generates anger, fear, retaliation, or negativism.  In almost every case, it feeds the relentless movement of disengagement.  True leaders strive to engage individuals on a journey of discovery and growth.  They don’t use fear, coercion, manipulation, or authoritarianism.  Veritable leaders lead the way in a manner that people want and desire to follow.  They inspire others to be the best they can be.

Have you ever worked for an organization or a team that gained both your respect and dedication simply because it felt right?  Have you at some point evolved with a group of people that respected each other sufficiently to be honest, even direct at times, but always in order for all to win, together?  When is the last time you woke up in the morning, excited to start your working day, eager to dive into a project, knowing that your efforts would be of value, contribute to something and be recognized fairly?  Do you feel that in spite of differences in opinions and styles, the people around you communicate openly, with the aim to understand?

Everybody has an agenda.  Each of us has personal ambitions.  There will likely always be leaders and followers.  There will be individuals that are more famous than others.  Many will be better than we are.  Reality is that life, especially at work, is not always fair.  Does this mean that we simply abandon the idea of working in a manner that lines up with respect of one another, valuing people and their contributions? 

Years ago, I attended one of many conferences on the topic of strategic development during which the executive of a large Pharma company literally addressed sales representatives as “warm bodies that need to deliver a message as often as the data suggests it should be repeated”.  Warm bodies.  Think about it.  Some may say “that was years ago, things have changed”.  Have they?  In the last 20 years, I have worked with over a hundred organizations and thousands of individuals to confirm what is captured in the second paragraph above.  I have had the great privilege to meet incredible leaders that never dreamed of telling someone, anyone, that they should consider themselves lucky to have a job. What this statement is really telling people is that they may just be considered a warm body, a necessary disturbance. 

Nobody is perfect.  As businesses evolve, it is true that employees that have not evolved with the times may not be as valuable as they once were.  It happens all the time.  In many cases, it is incumbent on the organizations to have been lax in their development programs, or to have accepted to “not shake the tree too much” in fear of endangering the profit margins, accepting contributors/employees to remain in their comfort zone.  At times, the easy answer was chosen at the cost of challenging individuals to move forward and grow.  In other situations, employees have decided not to evolve and indeed “make hay while the sun shines”. 

True leaders understand that very little gets done without dedicated and engaged people.  Fear may work in the short term but, today even more so, this is very short lived and often condemns management to spend most of their valuable to rebuild or continually fix things rather than move forward in earnest.  I will not tell anyone not to say to others that they are lucky to have a job, on the contrary.  I will however encourage people that are told this to reconsider their investment and realize that it may be time for them to work with organizations that actually understand their value.  I will also venture to say to leaders that if they even think of saying to others that they are lucky to have a job, to stop and think for a moment.  Think about what they mean and what it means to think that way.