Another podcast tale from Coyote himself

Coyote deals with an unfortunate outbreak of BS that threatens the smooth running of his part of the world. When Badger gets confused and Owl suffers from toxic contamination, it takes someone like Coyote to sort it all out — and have some fun at the same time.

Here’s how the story starts:

Coyote was used to Badger’s moodiness, but he’d never seen his old friend quite as downhearted as this. It seemed all the life had drained out of him, leaving him without even the energy to eat. That really alarmed Coyote. One thing you could be sure of with Badger was his appetite.

”That I needed a big, hairy, audacious goal. Well . . . I think he said goal. Maybe it was gull. Some of those seagulls are very big, aren’t they? And audacious. But not hairy. Do you think he meant some kind of spider? There are some very big, hairy spiders around here. They taste good, too. Honestly, I’m so confused.”

Instructions

You can listen to the story here, using this built-in, Flash MP3 player.

Alternatively, you can listen to the audio files through your computer or by downloading them to another device. To listen to the audio files through your computer, use your mouse to left-click on the link below. To download the files, right-click, select ‘Save as’ or ‘Save link as’ and specify the destination to which you would like to save the file. Using Safari, you can right- or Control-click and choose ‘Download linked file’.

I hope you enjoy it.

Technorati Tags: BS, buzzwords, jargon, management jargon, thinking outside the box, seeing clearly,

You don’t have to stay with fixed stereotypes or rigid rules

 
“I often think it’s comical
How Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fa! La! La!

— Gilbert and Sullivan’s opera “Iolanthe” (1882)

There are times when it’s extremely tempting to believe that Gilbert had it right and that the world is composed of two kinds of people: stiff-necked, puritanical and rigid conservatives; and free-flowing, wishy-washy, politically-correct liberals.

Here’s what Thomas Jefferson wrote, long before “Ionlanthe” came on stage in London:

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still, and pursue the same object.

This view of the world as based on a simple dichotomy between right and left is tempting, but, I suspect, probably wrong. We all have both of these tendencies within us. Sometimes we’re concerned with stability and respect for the past, sometimes ready to take risks and pursue our freedom. The problem comes when one or other tendency gains a sufficient upper-hand to suppress the other one entirely.

This is certainly the case in a leader. A rigid, rule-bound, change-resisting leader can cause havoc. But so can a leader who applies such alight touch — and is so averse to setting any kind of boundaries or rules — that no one is quite sure of what they are supposed to do, and there is little or no co-ordination between people working towards the same goal. Read the full story

The fundamental flaws of the conventional approach to getting things done

Image: © artSILENSEcom - Fotolia.com

The conventional way to achieve success, in your life or in a work project, is to start with careful planning. First you build your plan, then you track progress against it. If you’re in a business setting, you’ll add a detailed budget. Corporations especially measure someone’s success by how closely their results match the original budget and plan. The plan becomes a straitjacket on later action.

Don’t do this!

Using such an approach commits you to a path you almost certainly can’t follow. Events rarely, if ever, work out as you planned. Then you must either stick to the plan — and stray further and further from reality — or abandon the previous plan and put action on hold while you start planning again.

Detailed planning too easily forces you into dangerous actions, like remaining rigid in the face of life’s natural fluidity, or ignoring warning signs and trying to force reality into the path you planned for it. It blocks you from responding creatively to whatever comes along. You become an actor following a script, instead of responding freely to the ebb and flow of events; you judge progress against the plan itself, not against how well you’re moving towards to your final objective.

Even the best plans are only thoughts about what to do if things go as you imagine. Forecasting the future is a risky game with a miserable chance of success. Trying to make the future conform to your plans is downright foolish, since you have no control whatever over what will happen. Reality will run you over like a railroad train hitting a gnat. Read the full story

It’s time to recognize that conventional management ideas are broken — and start thinking of something better.

Admiral David Farragut

In the American Civil War, Admiral Farragut achieved immortality with an order usually simplified as, “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!” During the Battle of Mobile Bay in August 1864, Farragut ordered his ships to charge into the bay, despite a minefield (mines were called ‘torpedoes’ then), to attack and defeat the Confederate force waiting there. His action pretty much sums up the attitude to management in recent years. Over more than a decade of short-term thinking, leaders have rushed, full-tilt, into action, ignoring the risks in a headlong charge for glory — and the huge personal rewards it could bring.

From hedge-funds to motor manufacturers, there has been only a single goal: to make as much profit as quickly as possible, more or less regardless of any other considerations. Such justification as any bothered to seek came from people like Milton Friedman, who preached notions of laissez-faire economics and the duty of ‘maximizing stockholder return’ without regard for anything else. In time, this was transformed into undiluted self-interest on the part of executives. It could hardly be otherwise, since the stockholders were increasingly impassive and disinterested in anything but profit themselves. When most of the shares in a corporation are owned by huge money funds who buy and sell on the basis of numerical analysis — or index funds who will own whatever is needed to match the chosen index, regardless of any other considerations — stockholders plainly have little or no direct interest in the business itself. Read the full story

Facing today’s need for much more constructive conflict

Photo: Sue RB      

Many leaders, managers, supervisors, and employees have become conflict-averse. They shy away from conflict, feel uncomfortable about “going against the grain”, rocking the boat, or being perceived as a “trouble-maker” and not a “team player.”

Constructive conflict barely even exists in many organizations. Instead, the corporate culture demands an environment where “We’re one big, happy family” — where all are in agreement, always smiling and saying “yes”.

But if you’re not experiencing constructive conflict in your workplace, you’re most likely not making high-quality decisions; nor are you encouraging your colleagues to be committed to implementing the decisions you are making.

Much of today’s resistance to conflict has to do with folks who, when growing up, were subjected to consistent arguments and fights between people important to them. As a result, they grew to become fearful and scared when folks raised their voices in argument, dissent, and disagreement. Now, as adults, many still resist conflict. Often unconsciously, their childhood fears leak out in workplace situations wherever conflict arises.

They therefore do whatever they can to avoid conflict of any kind. They defer, stay quiet, accommodate others, and consistently nod in agreement. They “go along to get along.” They see conflict as bad and threatening. Avoiding conflict has become a knee-jerk reaction in much of our society. Read the full story

Facing reality is the essential step to doing better

Despite all the books, articles and other media folk trying to prove otherwise, leadership is not a science. There are no ‘laws’ that apply in every circumstance — or even most of them. There are no approaches to leadership that will always be successful, and none that will always fail. Those writers who use anecdotes, rathe than evidence, to support their own preconceptions will always find situations in which every flavor of leadership has triumphed — just as every one has been a disaster at some point. As in anything that concerns human beings, the complexity of causes and effects that produce achievement or failure are so numerous and interlocking that they pretty much defy any kind of analysis.

It’s important for anyone interested in leadership to distinguish the nature of all the so-called ’social sciences’ and the difference from the ‘hard sciences’ like physics or chemistry. Sadly, in an attempt to gain greater status and respectability, social scientists have too often made the error of trying to ape the hard sciences. What they ought to have done is recognize their discipline is unlike physics or chemistry and has more in common with the arts than any kind of science. Read the full story

Questions to ask yourself about how you communicate upwards

 
‘Boss-ology,’ is the process of giving your boss what he or she wants and needs in a way that suits you best and makes you look as good as well. Much of the skill involved comes from using communication effectively: choosing your time, choosing the context, choosing the approach and choosing the words. It’s also very much about listening. You don’t need to be eloquent or cunning or a good salesperson. You need to listen to the boss, so you can adjust your approach to make it register as important and useful.

It’s a truism of communication generally, not just communication upwards, that you must start by listening. Many people with good ideas fail to get their boss to listen to them because they don’t listen themselves. They jump in with the details of what they want to say — only it’s the wrong time, the wrong context, the wrong approach and the wrong words. The boss either ignores them, sends them away, or even gets angry at being interrupted with what seems to him or her to be some irrelevant chatter from an over-eager subordinate.

There isn’t some magic approach that is going to work every time — bosses are too varied for that — but there are some principles that can make a big difference to getting all the elements of communication right more often than not. Like all useful principles, they come as questions. It’s up to you to think about them and find the answers in your own situation, Read the full story

Matching words and actions is essential to build trust

Photo: Tracy Hunter

I’m experiencing a deep sense of sadness as I reflect on an event at the recent G8 summit meeting in Japan. The event was a six-course lunch followed by an eight-course dinner where the agenda was — hang on to your hat, and take a deep breath — famine and the global food crisis. You can take at look at their meal time here.

First, some details:

• Participants were served 24 different dishes during their first day at the summit — just hours after urging the world to reduce the “unnecessary demand” for food, and calling on families to cut back on their wasteful food use.
• The dinner consisted of 18 dishes in eight courses — including caviar, smoked salmon, Kyoto beef and a “G8 fantasy dessert”.
• The banquet was accompanied by five different wines from around the world, including champagne.
• African leaders — including the leaders of Ethiopia, Tanzania and Senegal, who had taken part in talks during the day — were not invited to the function.
• The dinner came just hours after a ‘working lunch’ consisting of six courses.

This lunch and dinner misstep is an egregious example of the unconscious, hypocritical and insensitive behavior many leaders and managers manifest when they espouse values that purportedly support the well-being of their organizations (in this case, the world is the participants’ ‘organization’) — then engage in excesses and antithetical behavior that undermines their integrity, respectability and credibility. Read the full story

Challenging Questions for Independent Leaders

 
On this Independence Day holiday, and during this holiday weekend, in the midst of fireworks and fun, leisure and lightness, fun and frolic, how about taking a few minutes of quiet and solitude to reflect on how you’re doing as a leader, manager or supervisor?

Does your leading, managing and supervising performance and behavior provide cause for celebration? Here’s a not-quite-lighthearted way to find out.

Our readers outside the US can either join in, or save the questions for a suitable holiday weekend of their own. Read the full story

How even the most famous executives hand success to the competition

Roger Federer at Wimbledon (Photo: Wikimedia)

In our household, the end of June means the Wimbledon Tennis Championships. My wife watches progress on the television. My interest is, at best, lukewarm. But I am always struck by an area of correspondence between tennis and organizational life: the extent to which the outcome of the competition is decided by the number of unforced errors.

It is not always the best player who wins the match or the tournament. Sometimes a relative unknown seems inspired, while the established champion appears lack-luster and awkward. When someone is playing well, he or she makes few unforced errors. When they have a bad day, the number increases rapidly. Even during a match, some small lapse of concentration often leads to a series of unforced errors that can lose that player valuable points.

In tennis, an unforced error is a mistake or bad shot made by a player without any reason other than his or her lack of skill or composure. Serving a double fault is an example. The point is lost, though the opponent never touched the ball. The player who does this too often will lose the match, even if their opponent plays no better than competently. When a champion loses to a weaker opponent, it is often because the champion has made enough unforced errors to lose, not because their opponent has played well enough to win.

Forced errors occur only for one reason: your opponent is playing better than you are. Their superior skill, speed or tactical sense puts pressure on you that causes mistakes. To translate this to the business world, forced errors occur when the competition has a better business model, better product, better service or better strategy. They outplay you. As you struggle to keep up, you make even more mistakes because of the extra pressure.

Unforced errors are the ones you make regardless of the actions or skill of your competition. They’re the ones that result from taking too many risks, trying to do things too quickly, cutting costs to the point where you harm your own prospects, focusing on short-term wins and ignoring the consequences, and sticking to old habits when external circumstances have already changed enough to make them useless. Read the full story