Empathy

How many times did you get so mad at someone, wanting to burst, shout and tell the other person exactly what you think of him, but managed to hold back? It happens to me and I guess it happens to everyone else as well.
The thing is that the anger remains after we hold back. Many times it is still there and even if we settle down a bit, the problem was not really solved.

As adults and as managers we know that sometimes you just can't say everything to the other party. Sometimes you have to wait for the right time and, in some business circumstances, the right time might never come.

The challenge is tunneling anger, and other emotions coming of disagreement, to a productive place. The challenge is calming down.
Empathy is the ability to identify others' emotions and share those emotions. Empathy is not sympathy. Sympathy deals with the emotional side of identifying others' hurt or joy. Empathy is the cognitive ability to understand and be aware of emotions the other is going through and as a result to sympathize. Empathy can help us in several ways:

First, by understanding our employees, customers and other surrounding us, we become more relaxed and less angry. It helps us see the whole picture, and sometimes recognize ours is not the only just perspective. Even if we are certain of our position, understanding the other side weakens negative sentiments.
Second, by understanding we can improve our performance: If you understand why a potential customer is hesitant about getting a service, it will be easier to get into conversation and offer a better solution, and thus increase the chances of you becoming a preferred service provider. If you understand your subordinates, it will be easier for you to care for him, to avoid some crisis and to better handle other crisis.
Understanding, when used properly and not as a manipulative tool, improves our morality. The organization gains, but first of all we gain.

How can we be more empathic?
I will start by saying empathy is a personal characteristics from birth. Studies show some babies are empathic to other baby's (non-hunger related) cry. (See Hoffman's studies on the subject). Empathy, at some level, can be seen to exist in other mammals as well. However, it is also important to note that empathy can be acquired.

The first step is intent. We must really want to understand the other in order to succeed.
Other people, like us, are motivated by needs and values. If we are to understand their meaning, we must come up with several alternatives to needs and values that drive their actions / decisions / behavior. Analysis of these alternatives will bring us closer to understanding.
The last step has to do with our actions. After we understand what others are going through, we must decide what is the right management and ethical course of action. It is not always about canceling our previous decisions, but maybe the way we implement them, the tools that accompany them and yes, sometimes even changing the bottom line.

We must remember: empathy is a cognitive process, but it involves emotion.
And, unlike many other situations, in empathy there are no losers. Empathy is an all-winning game.
So let's be more empathic and gain.

Yours
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Silence

I have been invited last week to give a lecture at the Israeli accountant annual convention. This event was unique in its length – I had to make a continuous two-hour presentation. Some tine during the lecture I felt that I am not using my voice properly so I started pausing between sentences. Suddenly I understood the obvious: There are advantages to these pauses, other that relief to soar throat. I tried again and noticed that people are paying more attention. Silence echoes the spoken words and gives audience time to understand. I was reminded of my childhood swimming lessons. The instructor showed us four motions. The last one was a "no-motion", relaxing the body before the next set of motions; same as the silence effect.

Silence is a human and management tool. It amplifies the others' attention to our words, and improves their understanding. However, silence can serve other objectives as well.
When we are on the defensive, we prefer to keep silent. If we are not sure of our deeds, silence will prevent further complications. This is not always an adequate tool, and should be used with care, only when appropriate in a broad perspective, and not only from short-term considerations.

Silence enables listening to other people. Not only hearing, actually listening. If we are really silent, not just keeping our lips still, we can concentrate and listen to what is being said and more than that – how it is being said, what is the body language saying, what is not being said and why it is not spoken.

It is interesting to note that silence is an alternative to shouting. Roaring silence is heard in the distance.
What I find most fascinating is not the power in silence, nor the scream it replaces. It is silence as a means to get others to act that make it such a special tool.

It is claimed that sales people use this tool. When they feel the deal is close, and the customer hesitates, they will take out the contract, mark a small 'x' where a signature is required, turn the paper to the customer, and silently wait. Hard to believe, but most people will sign at this stage.
This technique can be used in other circumstances as well. By being silent, we invite the other side to act. Human nature makes it difficult (at least for most of us) to react to silence so everyone will try to act when the other is silent. The beauty of this tool is its fairness simplicity.

As managers, we must consider employees' silence. When an employee is expected to speak and keeps silent, what can we deduce?

First, all that was previously said is true about employees as well. It might be silence as alternative to shouting, it might be a way to better listen or be heard, and it might be an attempt to move us into action.

Nevertheless, we must consider other options as well. When an employee does not answer, he may have misunderstood what was said and too embarrassed to ask. We must analyze the silence and if this is reason, try a different explanation.
It might be that the employee disagrees with us and is reluctant to argue. I am not saying we should encourage employee resistance, but we must be aware of this option and assess the situation to decide if to accept this silence or try and break it.
And maybe they just had nothing to say and we are speculating to much…

Communication is 20% verbal and 80% non–verbal (body language, intonation etc.). In silence, we don't have even those first 20%.
We must try harder. But if we listen, there is a chance we will understand. When people are silent, they are saying a lot.
Silence is a powerful management tool, and we must learn to use it more. I am finishing now.
It is silence time.

Yours
Moria

To the Hebrew version

The physical work environment

In his book "Thinking for a Living" that deals with how to achieve better performance by the knowledge workers, Prof. Tom Davenport dedicates a whole chapter to the issue of the physical work environment of the knowledge worker.
When I think about an invested work environment, the first example that pops to me is Google's offices. The slides, the fire pipes (enabling one going down fast) and the various games and entertainments, all leave me with the impression is a place with fun. The massage booths (with professional massagers), as well as the settling areas (arm chairs and aquariums), enable any employee rest also on formal working hours. And the list is long.

Fifteen years ago, I worked for a short period in a Start-up. If there is one thing that I won't forget from there, it for sure is the kitchen. The kitchen in this place was always full. The refrigerator always seemed to be overloaded, having every type of delicacy one could dream of. The closets were always filled up and twice a day, someone in charge, came in to refill. People arrived to work very early as breakfast seemed much more appealing there than at home. People left later, staying for dinner at work, and of course, discussing work at the time. I always thought that this is a cheep and easy way for the organization to see that its workers work more and produce more: Give them the right conditions and they shall stay more and produce more.

The interesting question is what influences the performance of the knowledge worker in terms of physical work environment? How is it right to organize the workplace?
In the mid nineties, as Knowledge Management emerged as an independent discipline, some organizations invested in building special complexes nurturing knowledge sharing and development. It became popular to invest in many cozy coffee places, encouraging the employees to speak more one with another. The assumption which led to this, was that when an employee encounters a problem, and does not solve it by himself immediately, he will take a coffee break, meantime meeting a colleague and discussing the issue. There is a good chance that the conversation can help, whether because the colleague has a good idea, or whether because the employee has spoken about it, and found a way to progress. Coffee areas turned to be part of the trend of organizational Knowledge Management efforts, enabling informal knowledge sharing.

Another phenomenon that developed at these years, also witnessed nowadays is designing special areas for knowledge development. Skandia, for example established its future center in this perception, back in 1996.

Do plants and lightening encourage thinking? Are colors as red, blue and yellow better for creativity? And, maybe, whiteboards across the office walls (with markers near them, of course), enabling one to write down every new idea as it pops, the key to successful knowledge development.

Davenport, in his book we mentioned, has researched this issue of the physical work environment. His conclusion is that even though many companies have acted in several ways in order to provide a more efficient workplace, very little can be said for certain, as to the effects of the workplace on the knowledge workers' performance. Davenport claims that the attitude towards this issue should be fit, twofold: Customized and personalized:
Customized- fitting the physical work environment to the group and its knowledge needs, based on the fact that knowledge workers should be segmented to sub-groups, each having its typical workplace needs.
Personalized- as knowledge workers like the autonomy of deciding for themselves, and if possible, choice has to be granted to them as to their workplace.
Indeed, I learned.

A new trend that I have heard about in several big high-tech organizations has to do with setting up virtual workplaces. The supporting rational is that the employees are mobile employees nowadays: They come in to the office only part of the work days, they have mobile telephones, and laptops, and a fixed workplace is not really needed. Instead, virtual work-stations are populated, every day with the employees who need it on that specific day. This solution can also be used if people do not have laptops or mobile telephones. Technology enables one to connect to every computer and log-in to his or her environment using their User-id and password, and connecting to their fixed number just dialing some instructions on the phone.
No doubt that this solution can save any organization a great deal in the short term. Rent is expensive and should not be ignored. This solution is one among a series of possible solutions, from which any organization has to pick its decision:
A private room for each employee.
Team rooms.
Open space (having a cubicle for each employee).
A virtual workplace.
In order to understand how the environment influences the performance of the knowledge workers, I believe three factors should be considered, each effecting the performance, whether directly, or indirectly:
The ability of the workers to concentrate and promote their tasks.
The workers ability to share one with another.
The workers satisfaction from work, as affected from the physical environment.

If we analyze all alternatives, we see that there is no one correct answer:
Private rooms may enable the optimal concentration, and may be most satisfactory, as a private room as concerned as part of the employee's status; they enable less sharing.
Teem-rooms enable sharing but may decrease concentration;
Open spaces give a bit from each;
And virtual workplaces are cheap.

I favor teem-rooms (3-4 people in a room). Assuming knowledge develops in teams and groups (as to Nonaka) and that fellowship/ friendship / team spirit develops with togetherness, I think it is the best solution, performance speaking. I know that concentration can be affected but there are several ways to handle this challenge:
First, remember that almost never, all employees are together on the same day in the office. The knowledge workers, as already stated, are mobile and spend a lot of hours out of the office.
Furthermore, people with laptops can always wander to other rooms, in order to hold a noisy telephone call (and not interrupt the others) or in order to work on some task where they need the silence (and not to be interrupted by others). The organization has to verify that such rooms exist, and that such a move is legitimate.
Also a request to work at home in order to promote such a task, should be treated favorably.
And, last but not least, when people work in a joint room, they develop a culture of considering one another.
What else do we need?

No matter what you decide to do, I have one wish: Do not promote a virtual work environment in your organizations, also it has financial benefits. Understand the importance of a private corner, a place for personal pictures, a plant and some nonsense on the table. They are all part of the worker, and even though it may not be proved by any research to help better performance, it surely is important for the employee's feeling and sense of convenience and comfort. At the end of the say, we invest a lot in order to give our employees a belongingness feeling, so why spoil?

Yours,
Moria

to the Hebrew version

Auhority

Places of work are formal organizations; places in which there are importance and significance to authority. In the mid 50th, when classic management theories developed, the source of authority was clear and loud: Authority derived from organizational position. Every position had its status, and granted authority. IT was clear to each employee what is permitted and where boundaries stand.
Today, in the 21st century, terms of work have changed. The relation between the worker and in particular the knowledge worker and his/her manager turned more complicated and less definite. Also today, we are not speaking about a symmetrical relation, yet it is clear that the authority of managers is not as it was, and for sure does not derive from status and position alone.

Discussing authority includes discussion on two complementary aspects: Discussing source of authority, and discussing delegation of authority.

Delegation of authority, or delegation of power, is not the same as transferring responsibility. When I delegate the authority to decide or act to any subordinate manager or worker, they get the operational responsibility, but the managerial responsibility remains mine. One can delegate authority for permanent, for a temporary period, or as a one-time act, all affecting the responsibility of the employee. In all cases, however, the manager remains responsible.

Many managers find it difficult to delegate authority. In some cases, they literally do not pass any authority to take decisions, or even to act, that could be delegated, to their subordinates. In other cases, they do, yet continue to ask and interfere, not giving up control.
The difficulty in delegating authority can derive from several reasons:
Sometimes, we start working on a mission that indeed is part of our job, and continue on, even though it was correct to stop and pass the next stages on to one of our subordinates. This is the easier case, as awareness to this situation solves the problem.
Another reason has to do with the fact that we as managers, are usually more senior, more experienced, and hence, we feel that if we complete the task by ourselves, not passing it to others, it will be completed, faster, or maybe even better. I admit that from time to time, I also find myself in this situation.
A similar reason has to do with the energy we have to invest in explaining someone else what we want to achieve, how and why, and in being sure that we get that. We feel, that we prefer to complete the job by ourselves. In some cases, this may be the right solution, but the decision, has to be made, considering all aspects.
Sometimes, it is a task that we find more pleasant, and we wish to do it by ourselves.
In addition, sometimes, we are afraid. This has to do with the synonym of delegation of authority- delegation of power. This also has to do with the second part of this post, source of authority. We are afraid, that if we delegate authority, we loose power and loose source of authority. At the end of the day, we too, the managers, are human beings, and we wish to protect ourselves, whether consciously or non-consciously.

I can continue and add more reasons why delegation of authority is not as easy as one could expect. Yet, this is not the main issue. The main issue is that delegation of authority is important.
It is important to reduce our burden and navigate workload better;
It is important in order to develop the professionalism of our subordinates;
Moreover, it is important, in order to build trust between us and our subordinates, and let them know that we are willing to trust them and rely on them.

A few tips to do with delegation of authorities:
When you delegate authority, you must leave the employee who is in charge, some free hand, both freedom of choice and freedom of action. Do not guide him/her down to the last point and leave them to follow only.
When you delegate authority, do not totally let go. Remember that some guidance is required, and some control is requested. Remember that responsibility stays in our hands.
When you delegate authority, communicate it in the organization. Also, to ease on the operational level, but much more important, as a way to respect the person who is in charge. Soft rewards are critic in motivating employees.

The discussion on authority is not completed without examining the sources of authority. As I already wrote in the beginning of this post, the source of authority is changing as the concept of work and workers is changing. In general, the source of authority depends significantly on the manager's knowledge. Employees respect managers who know. This, of course, is not the only parameter to take in mind; employees will value a manager and accept his or her authority, if they understand what is required, and if the request and demands correlate with the organization's values as well as with their own ones.

How do these influence managers and their behavior? I am not sure.
However, in order to improve we all have to be aware of the changes in source of authority. Moreover, we have to understand that authority delegation and knowledge sharing strengthen us as well as our subordinates.

Plato, who lived many years before we started working in formal organizations, spoke about authority. He said: "The wisest have the most authority". Those who are smart, know, and have good judgment and keen discernment (definition of wise), are those who turn to be a source of authority.

It took us many years and various organizations' formats in order to go back to roots, and deeply understand his saying. There are probably good reasons, why this Greek philosopher, the student of Socrates, was one of the greater influencers on our Western philosophy.
Seeing how wise he was, he certainly was a source of authority.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Recession

The whole world is now going through a difficult period. We all are experiencing a recession, in Israel where I live and write, as well as in the US and everywhere else.
Once, we used to think that globalization is a good thing; the recession has taught us that the absence of place and time limits has also its deficiencies, and globalization enables the spreading of less attractive factors, from the US to China, Europe, Israel and actually, every other place. Moreover, the US is not to blame. It could start also elsewhere (i.e. the SARS disease).

How should one manage the organization in a recession period? How should he or she manage their knowledge workers? Are there any guiding rules?
When one writes a book, s/he can choose to focus on specific areas, ignoring others, ignoring the happenings. When one writes a blog, people expect you to be connected to reality and to the existence. Not speaking on such issues may imply non-transparency and non-willing to open up.

Do not misunderstand me. The company, which I manage, while writing these lines, continues to makes its living, continues not to loose. Thus, even though we all are already four months inside an economic crisis. What will happen tomorrow? Will we continue to earn enough? No one can really know. For the time being, things are stable. Yet, this post is a necessity as we are all part of something big, bigger than us. It is important to speak about this management issue, even though it is not easy to hear, nor easy to say.

As this blog deals with managing the employees, the post will focus on the relevant issues, leaving out economic or other business aspects, all critical to the situation.

It is important to express and show transparency at this time. This does not imply that every business detail should be announced widely, and that every time we feel bad after a customer shares us with his distress, we should pass our feelings on, yet employees should be shared regarding the overall situation and updated periodically reflecting the changing trends.
I do believe that such a saying could be difficult to implement in times of growth and economic bubbles. While experiencing a recession, this might seem easier to implement. Now, employees are not so easily willing to move to another place of work, as it is probably more risky to be in a place that you do not know, that somewhere you already know and understand.
This therefore is not only a correct thing to say, but also an applicable one.

It is not less important to be sensitive to our subordinates. We must understand that each one and one of them experiences the instability differently, even though we are all in one company. The feelings may be a result of seniority in the organization, the job itself, the necessity as they sense it, and, of course, ones character.

It is important to be sensitive as each one of our employees has back at home parents, husbands, wives and other close people who may be in distress or even has maybe lost his or her job. Such an event can affect the emotional and economic state of the employee.

It is important to economize and save. Be cautious! Too much can seem as miserliness, or drive a feeling of instability. It is important to show that now is no party time; no spending time. Nevertheless, some small spending is important for our souls and we must find the right balance in between.

It is important to share the employees not only about facts regarding the recession and its impacts, rather in ways to change. Share your employees and ask them to share responsibility in bringing in new customers. Sit and speak with your employees asking them to come up with ideas how to offer more, or offer differently, considering the timing. This may result in better figures; moreover, we sense here the togetherness. People say that crisis is an opportunity. I would be happy to give up such opportunities if that's what it takes not to have any crisis. Yet, as the crisis is already here, let us drive higher cohesion between the company's employees.

It is important to be humble. To remember, that even if we think we are the best, we probably are not, and surely not perfect. Not everything is in our hands. In periods of growth and success, we as employers are captive somewhat, as we manage knowledge workers and these are free to leave and find some other place to work. Recession is employers' era. We must not take advantage! We must remain humble. We must remember that tomorrow will be a different era, but furthermore, we must remember to respect the other even though we are in charge and have the authority.

I read the lines above, and I suddenly realize; the crisis and the recess that followed teach us how to act, also in crisis time, but also in every other period. Maybe in recession it is a necessity, but it all times it is probably the proper and more dignified way to act.

Transparency, sensitivity, cohesion, sharing and humbleness. Not to much- yet everything.

Yours,
Moria

To the hebrew version

Tradition

As a Jewish Israeli child that has been brought up in US, I remember back at home, the same songs, played repeatedly on my parents' gramophone. One of the songs I remember brightly is "Tradition" from "Fiddler on the roof". The musical is a personal story in a world of traditions, back at the beginning if the 20th century in Russia: The Jewish tradition, the classes' status tradition ("If I were a rich man"), the tradition that grants different rights and different authorities to genders, and the tradition of matchmakers, a tradition that Tzitel, the fiddler's daughter, tries to break.
The song on "tradition" returns to me, again and again, and leaves me with nostalgia and a good feeling. Yet, if I stop and listen to the words, there is not even one sentence that I can see that I identify with. The issue folds in it a conflict: On the one hand, tradition produces feelings of a warm and friendly environment; on the other hand, as the Etnix band have sung: "tradition is the enemy of advancement and progress".

What is the place of tradition in organizations? Is it right to nurture it and how should it be done?
I am celebrating, these days, ten years of running my company. A decade. I have gone through a long journey and yet it went so fast, and seems rather short. Again, the conflict rises:
On one hand, there is so much yet to do. we came here to work, innovate, earn and lead a change. Why look at the past? Why spend time and effort on traditions and memories that take us back? What could it help?
On the other hand, I feel, both as a manager, and as a person, that tradition and memories do have their place in the organization and should be honored rather than swept out.

Tradition has clear advantages: It enables people to strength their belonging feelings, to feel part of the organization in another dimension: Not only part of some offices; not only tools and methodologies; and even- not only values. Tradition is something shared that passes in the air very simply. It makes us feel better. It makes us feel belonging to something bigger.
Tradition also crystallizes.
Tradition, so I hope, is another factor that makes people prefer and stay in the organization and not look for other opportunities outside the organization. Tradition makes the people, when they are part of the organization, deal better with daily difficulties (and we have no choice, difficulties always exist). Tradition makes them feel better. Tradition.

How does this stand in one line with "the enemy of advancement and progress?" We, as human beings, need probably both: both Tradition and revival; both anchors and stability together with the ability to change; both the feelings that tradition produces together with legitimization to create and fly high and far.
The challenge of tradition, therefore, is more complicated. It should enable, but not block; It should be part of the background but should not gain control. We have to remember that few are the organizations that survive due to tradition only.

How do we produce tradition in the organization? I will start from the bottom line: Money here is not the main issue. One cannot order tradition, pay for it, and mark it with a V sign. One must invest. Invest and be consistent. And after all these- wait. Time is an important part when speaking about tradition.

What and how? Hereby are several factors that produce and nurture tradition:
Holidays. Naama, one of the managers under me, taught me and insisted repeatedly, until I understood and assimilated that every holiday must be celebrated. I always came with a pragmatic attitude that every company meeting, and every minute in it, should be utilized: More methodologies, more teaching people, more professionalism. Tradition is important, so she always reminded me: It is important to eat an apple with honey together before the Jewish new-year, and we must finish eating together all the ""Hametz" before Passover. From year to year, the place of tradition in the company, based on celebrating Jewish events, grows greater. From two celebrations a year, we started celebrating more holidays, and in between, we find new opportunities for additional celebrations, from all kinds of types.

Tradition can also be nurtured through simple ceremonies and customs that are repeated from time to time. The ritual produces the tradition. Smoking breaks, of part of the people together produces tradition (in this case, tradition has also disadvantages). Tradition evolves through our monthly ritual of giving, every month, a symbolic prize as to something special he or she did the passing month. Tradition evolves only because it is done consistently every month, already for years.

Tradition evolves through building new memories together and speaking about existing memories. We see to it that in every company trip or company event, we take pictures (so easy nowadays), and in the last years it even turned more sophisticated as we make a clip after each event. It is much more pleasant to remember, and much easier too. In relevant events, we turn back to the past and share the memories. Share those who took part in past events, and share and explain to those who were not there yet. Share through stories, through pictures, through feelings. Build and strengthen the tradition.

I am celebrating, these days, ten years of running my company. I surely can say that we produced a company tradition. A tradition inside the company and a tradition in larger groups, both with our customers, both with the Israeli Knowledge Management community. We went a long way, but do hope that the main way is still in front of us. We hope we smartly combine tradition and advancement. We hope to continue marching in the pace, and making others follow. We hope to produce many more (good) traditions that make all feel belonging, feel sharing and feel good.

Sorry for being so sentimental today. I promise to come back to myself in the next posts.

Yours,
Moria

to the Hebrew version

Conflicts

Conflicts are natural; it is natural that different people will have different opinions; it is natural that different people will have different agendas which they wish to promote. Therefore it is natural that conflicts will take place.

We all tend, and so do I, to refer to conflicts as a negative issue. Nevertheless, as our world is complicated, we must notice, that there are also good results caused by conflicts (and I wish to thank the leading and control guide and the free library of management):
Conflicts help to sharpen and to bring some issues to our awareness;
Conflicts drive people to act upon their truth;
Conflicts trigger organizational and personal energy; if it is channeled correctly, it leverages us.

Yet, if conflicts are not handled and managed, we loose control, and the conflicts can damage both the activities as well as the organization's morality.
Hereby are several factors that can cause higher level conflicts in organizations:
Competitive atmosphere in the office.
Encourages conflicts.
Uncertainty period (low level of security).
Enables conflicts' eruption, caused by the high level of tense.
Unclear definition of job definitions and overlapping between jobs.
Causes people to interfere one in each others job, because of the unclear definition and sooner or later, drives many conflicts.
Low level of communication between people.
Does not cause conflicts directly, but surely enables it, as when there is any suspicion, it turns into an unwanted direction if it is not clarified fast enough,
As best as you can, examine this list and see how you can deal with it. Prevention is always far better than dealing with an existing problem.

Many people speak about finding a win-win situation as a way of resolving conflicts. The idea is based on that, that many times contradicted opinions come from personal interests of the people holding them, but analysis of the interests can build some new shared decision that does not oppose (or only opposes a little) each sides' interests. The idea of mediation is based significantly on this concept. What do I think? A great idea, but surely no "magic maker" as people may tend to believe. Sometime it resolves the conflict, sometimes partly and sometimes it does not do the job. In some cases the conflict is deep-seated and win-win solutions do not exist.

Of course that speaking one with another helps to handle every conflict, and could be a very effective tool. A tool for communication; a tool for being attentive; a tool for understanding differences; and even… a tool for ventilation. Simple- but works.
And, of course that preventing a conflict from being spoke loudly can help, as well as preventing blaming, preventing turning the conversation form issues to people, all these are trivial, yet always correct and surely do their job.

Two tips, I found, that help me:
First, willingness to concede and to give up upon part of the issues that I think are right, not because I am convinced that I made a mistake, but as part as showing the person with whom I am in a conflict that I am trying to find a way to go towards him or her. People act reciprocity. If we go towards them, in many cases, they will come towards us. Simple, but works. This way the conflict can turn smaller and may be handled.

And secondly, another tip, that helps me: Respecting the other person and opinion, even if I disagree with them and do not resolve the conflict itself. There is some issue, which I disagree with one of my workers, how and in what way it should be handled. I tried, two years ago, to give up and let that person handle some big project according to her way. I won't say that there were not good aspects and good results. Yet, as I believed in the first place, there were aspects that I liked less. Now, when a similar project, with the same issue, is again to be handled, I decided to lead it my way. But I do it, both then and now, while respecting the opponent opinion and the person holding it. I am not trying to state that there is no conflict; there certainly is, and we live with it. Not even bad, I believe.

As I said in the beginning of my post, life is complicated. Us understanding the complication and that we have to live and strive not always resolving every issue, and not always having win-win solutions, turn down part of the frustration, and assists us with living with conflicts. Maybe it even weakens some of them.

I wish us all pleasant life, and if possible- Good energy driving conflicts, not annoying ones.

Yours,
Moria

to the hebrew version

A good manager

I am writing this blog, now, over a year. Every time, looking at another aspect, another issue concerning management, trying to highlight it for myself, as well as for the readers. Doing so, I find myself wondering: If we collect all the written literature, here, in other blogs and over the web, in hundreds and thousands of management books, it seems as if, the list of skills required for being, what is called, a "good manager" are...endless.
I feel as if anyone who wishes to fulfill this list and turn into a good manager, should be a superman; some virtuoso that is a and b and c, and so on.

It is important, I believe, to discuss the issue, for two complementary reasons:
The first, as a tool for examining myself, seeking where I should focus my efforts on improving; the second, in order to better choose the subordinate managers and help them develop better, so they best manage their employees.

If I would have to choose five and only five skills of a good manager, I believe I would choose the following list:

A manager is a person who knows to take decisions. To listen, to understand, to ask; to agree, to disagree. But at the end of the day- to take a decision. And to know, that I am responsible and later on, I will not blame my partners nor my employees; not my customers and in no way shall I blame the weather. To take decisions and to be responsible for these decisions.

A manager is a person who knows how to motivate people. Motivate people to act; motivate people to act effectively; motivate people to work with sparkles in their eyes and enthusiasm in their hearts. Motivating people is important in a stable environment of work, however it is much more critical in a changing market as we are experiencing, now, in the 21st century. The changing market causes us to check and recheck our decisions, to refine or even change them due to the circumstances, and to motivate people to act upon these changes.
A manager is a person with a presence; a person, that people actually want to listen to what he or she says, and to follow.

A manager is a person who acts. This has several aspects: Acts- does not find it undignified to work, and to even to perform some dirty jobs. Acts- is connected to the field and continues to deal, even though less, but deals, with the professional discipline, in which the company specializes. Acts- analyzing the past and bringing the future.

A good manager is somewhat different. Creative, knowing how to think out-of-the-box, sometimes thinking otherwise than other people think. Your employees do not expect you to think exactly as they do; the organization needs you to think somewhat different in order to burst out and lead. Moreover, you have to find the right way to proceed, however not always the trivial one. Willing to take risks, and knowing that sometimes we will pay for taking them. Innovative.

A good manager is a person. Empathic, attentive, laughing sometimes, other times angry. Also, having weaknesses. Externalize the person whom you are.
Some of the readers may ask: Does humanity (us being people) compensates for professionalism, for the skills of taking decisions, etc.? The answer is, definitely, no; with no doubts. Being human, and even externalizing it, resembles the attitude to the aero digit. A zero, if it comes before a number (01, 079, 013456), adds nothing. However, a zero digit, added after a number (10,790, 134560) adds a magnitude. It multiplies by factor 10. I believe that humanity acts in a similar way: Without the other skills, it is useless. When it comes above them, its what makes the difference.
Be human. Teach your employees whom you manage, to do the same.

If I succeed to stick even only to this list of skills, I hope and believe that I can be in a situation where I navigate the ship, in the right speed, having smiling sailors on my deck.

I surely try.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Motivation

Shaye Feingboum, a known Israeli Football couch, once explained the reporters: "People say I am a 'motivator'; that means someone who injects motivation to his players".
No doubt, that in every profession, starting from football and reaching teachers, through manufacturing, medical cares and art, the worker's motivation is an essential factor of his or her productivity. No doubt, that motivation cannot be purchased, by a check any manager is willing to sign.

There are many theories that speak about motivation that triggers activity, and hopefully, assists in achieving desired goals. Two of the more famous related theories are Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory and John Adam's equity theory. Maslow defined a pyramid of needs, starting with physiological needs, through safety needs, love/belonging needs, esteems' needs and up to self-actualization needs. The individual's behavior is influenced from all. In order to achieve motivation, we should fulfill all five levels of the individual's needs. The lowest level of unfulfilled needs will be the one to block the individual's motivation. For example, if an individual will not feel safe in the place he or she work, then they can be respected thoroughly (esteems' level), yet will not feel motivated. And vice versa; The more we invest in supplying the necessities of the individual, in more levels, our chances to gain motivation of our worker, will rise.

Adams speaks about another aspect: equity. In order to achieve job motivation, the individual wants fair treatment. Fair is defined by comparing what the person invests in the organization, to what he or she receives; and fairness is defined by comparing what the specific person receives comparing it to what other colleagues receive, the near colleagues (in the same team / place of work) and the more far defined colleagues (working in the same profession / friends, etc.). The Adams theory enables us to better implement Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory: Also, when we give the workers a partial answer for their needs, if they feel that what they receive is relatively fair, these partial answers may be enough for triggering motivation. Even if the business is experiencing difficulties (economical or others), what is important is the relative answer we give to the individual rather than the absolute one.

Above all these wise and important theories, I use various tools in order to motivate people:
First, I understand that there cannot be a uniform level of motivation for all employees and for each employee every day in the year. Motivation is triggered also from character, and people are different one another. Motivation is also influenced by external factors, factors that we cannot control: Coming angry to work, someone in the family sick, separation, etc. We have to be empathic to our employees and compare each one of them only to himself and to no one else. If we feel a motivation decrease, we should give it place, and watch in order to learn if it is an external passing problem, or a trend teaching us there is a motivation problem of the employee in the organization.


On the individual level:
I try to delegate authority. When a person knows that he or she are trusted, motivation increases. Of course, we have to prevent them from feeling "suckers" or helpless. Delegating authority must be accompanied with guiding, and should be conducted in an atmosphere of "big thinking"; not abuse.
I try to challenge my people. Challenges draw motivation;
I try to fit part of the assignments to things I know the person to fill it relates to, or likes to do. I try to highlight these aspects in existing activities;
Moreover, I try to respect and thank. Cherishing people for successful activities and good results is the fuel for motivation in the next activity to come.

On the personal level I try to show people how motivated I am, as much as possible. I try to show a good example, to serve as a role modeler. If we, as managers, are motivated, and if we are out there with sparkles in our eyes, we enhance the chances of our people to be motivated; and vice versa.

On the organizational level:
Two related tips;
First, a good organizational climate; the second, Share the employees in what is happening.
There are only few things better than causing our employees to want to come every morning to work, smiling and with motivation to work. In the company I manage, we held, a few months ago, our yearly satisfaction review. Naturally, the people included criticism too, and naturally, even though the "big picture" was good, these comments turned me sad. The day after we published results, one of the employees knocked on my door. He said: "I want you to know, that even though people included also less favorable comments, I come to work every day, smiling; I like to come to work; and I certainly am not the only one that feels that way". We cannot always have people only say good things and thank us. People tend to want better, and that is a good thing, because it turns the organization into a better one. Yet, we have to remember, to see that the climate is good, that the atmosphere is positive. We have to see to that, that our employees are happy to work in our organization, and happy to start their day with us.

What has it to do with sharing the employees? Employees that are shared in what is happening, feel more safe and less threatened (rumors are a recipe for trouble) and feel more belonging to the organization. Safety and belonging drive motivation. Did we mention, by any chance, Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory?

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Words

"Life and death are in the power of the tongue", said King Solomon, in the Bible (Proverbs 18:21). Sages of blessed memory added: "silence is a fence for wisdom". Not always, speaking is the right thing to do. Not in all cases, using words, adds.

No doubt, that words are significant. They always had. However, it seems, that regarding to work, the power of words turns to more powerful. Why is it so? For two reasons:
First, in the reality that existed one hundred years ago, the employee had less interaction with his manager. Therefore, also if words were powerful, there were fewer opportunities for using them, when speaking about employee-manager communication. Secondly, the relationship between the manager and the employee have turned in the last years, in some aspects to be symmetric, and in others not. This lack of balance drives the word said or written to have much more influence. I will explain:
Today, employment is symmetric. This issue has been dealt in previous posts, but I wish to return to it and explain its consequences on use of words. In the past, a place to work was a choice for life. Today, people are regular to move on every few years, changing their employment. The initiative for such a change could be the manager, but could come also from the worker. This is the symmetry. If, as a manager, you have said something non-positive to an employee, or even you have been understood that way, it is easy for the employee to remember and turn angry and bitter. These can be translated, within time, to people not wishing to stay in work. It is not easy to know about such things. As in other aspects of life, it is easier to rune than to fix. In the former situation, also if such feelings would exist, their influence on the employees stay was minimal. As employees know that they are staying for many years, they knew how to ignore, not to take every issue and empower it. It resembles the relationships between a married couple. We know that the relationship is important; we know we want it to last. So we learn, as adults, not to get insulted from every said by the other. It is obvious that two grown people cannot see everything in the same way, yet it is not worthwhile heart breaking. The fact, that we see a specific place of work as a stage only, eases its breaking.
Yet, there is the a-symmetric part of the manager-employee relationship that was and is to stay: The word of a manager has more power. It has more influence. It flies far.

The combination of these two factors, the symmetric and the a-symmetric, makes life non-balanced. Make the power of the word more significant.

A few things I have learnt, part of them, the hard way:

Beware what you write to your employees. Especially when using email. Formal documents are in most cases professional, and rarely serve as part of the communication between a manager and his or her employee. When we speak with our employee face to face, we see them, hear them and sense them. It is easier to fix mistakes, if we failed in choosing our words. If we write a mail, backing off and rephrasing is much more complicated. Emails tend to be one dimensional, and the employee's impression is not supported by our facial expression, by the tone we use when we speak and by all our body language, which are, as researchers claim, the main part of what we understand in any message.
The use of email in the 21st century flattens the organization in some aspects, and should be considered as a blessing, yet it has potential faults as well. The flattening enables a channel of communication between various levels in the organization, communication that does not exist in other channels. The impact of every written word empowers, as it is not supported by the frame of all other accompanying channels, leaving the communication manly one channel, with one dimension only. Therefore, be careful! Even though it is tempting to write short and straightforward, when writing emails, consider every word and write what you decide- in more than in one way. That way, the chances of misunderstanding, decrease. Of course, we should memorize, time after time, that many issues should not be dealt by mail at all.

When you talk, and even more important, when you write, consider avoiding criticizing together with giving compliments. It is possible, but we should take in mind, as managers, that in many cases the compliment turns transparent. Nobody notices it, even if it was the major part. It does not matter if the complement precedes the critics or comes after. One time after another, I have learnt that people are selective in what they decide to catch. What do I recommend? To decide what is more important in each case, and stick to it, without adding the other part; or, take the risk, those things will be disregarded.

This is the place, before continuing, for an important tip. It is somehow natural for us to criticize, less natural to appreciate and value good things done. Appreciate your employees! When someone does a good job, do not treat it as obvious. Tell him or her, what you think, even better in writing. Even a short mail will do the work. It does not cost, but it is worth, and a lot. You would not believe as how much our employees are yearning to hear something good from us; how important it is to them. They deserve it, so give it! Say something good.

However, do not exaggerate. Write and say only the truth. The words we use, their value is subjective. If we reuse to much the term "excellent", for example, its value, as to the listener, will decrease drastically. If we do not give a complement every day, on every thing, we drive a situation, that when we do complement, its value amazingly is high. That way, it is also easy for us to give it, to say a good word, as we feel inside our hearts, that the people deserve it; that it is significant.

One last thing: When we want to pass an important message, it is best to pass it three times. Use more than one mail, or use more than one communication channel. We were born that way as people. In order to achieve more than hearing, also listening; more than reading, also heart and mind understanding, we must return and say it repeatedly.

Maybe, not in all situations, "Life and death are in the power of the tongue", but in all cases, the words are truly significant. For the better and for the worse.
On that, Sages of blessed memory said: "Wise people, beware what you say".

Yours,
Moria

to the Hebrew version

Planning

A few weeks ago, I was invited to some big event. Many ceremonies take place around the country, as Israel is celebrating these days 60 years of independence. This event was a military event that was aimed to saluting a large group of technical people. Usually those people are in the shadow, servicing the others, and therefore, the uniqueness of this event was in putting them in the lights and thanking them for their significant activity that donates to the complete success and security.
Thousands of people were invited to the event and most of them did show up. Unfortunately, an hour before the ceremony started, somewhere else in Israel, two soldiers were killed in a training accident. After waiting a while, the event was canceled. Five thousand people were sent back home, with no party. We are a family, the commander said, explaining the cancellation, after every one had already arrived. A family, in good times and in sad times. Today is one of the sad times. We cannot joy and celebrate.

Can we plan anything? Is there any meaning to planning? I am sure that the brigadier general that set the event in motion, and worked diligently on turning it into reality for six month, did not imagine that the event would end the way it did. I am convinced, that the families of the killed soldiers, that send their beloved ones to another day of operation, did not think that they will never see them again.

Even when we deal with less important events, we plan and not always success to stick to the original plan. In the beginning of my way, as a consultant, I remember that I received a purchase order from a client, after several months working on the lead. Two weeks later, the company was merged into some other company. I was left with an order in my hand, yet with an organization in change that was not in the suitable situation to execute the activity. The button line: zero revenue.

I have many more examples. We plan, and agree on some things, together with an employee, customer or a partner but reality is stronger than any plan. Time is an issue, something else is urgent and our activity is being postponed; replacement of managers and our plan is being canceled. In some case, activity starts and an external constraint prevents its completion. The list of reasons why plans are not fulfilled is very long.

Should we conclude not to plan? This shall we deal with changes affecting our plans?

I will start from the ending point. At "Alice in wonderland", Alice asked the cat, as she reached the intersection: "Which way I should choose?" "Where do you want to get to?" She was asked. "I don’t know". "If so", she was replied, "Any road will lead you there".

We need to plan. Planning serves us in defining the direction we want to get to; designing, the long-term direction, as well as the intermediate stations (the tasks) that will help us get there.
Planning assists us to get much further;
Planning assists us to estimate the required sources (time, expense and other sources);
Moreover, planning assists us to notice the risks, so we can prepare ourselves in the best way possible.

Yet, planning is only an introduction to life, and therefore it may be considered as a baseline for changes. I do believe that we should not stick to the original plan at every case, and never give up. It is necessary to work according to a plan, but yet to know when this plan turns to be only a plan and not anything beyond.

We should be more careful not to turn the planning and the work plans to be a target rather than an aid. Many times, I have seen over occupation on plans and their details. Updating that recurs repeatedly, drawing all management attention to it. We are limited in our ability to dedicate management sources at the same time to too many tasks. We need to remember that the goal of a work plan is to help us and it is not the project or the activity itself. It is possible that the best solution, in case of a need in change, is only the indication of a new layout without dismantling it to a repaired work plan. In other cases, it is possible that the solution include changes of a work plan without getting into details. It is possible that we will ensure a full work plan but we will guide an employee below us to deal with the details, and we, as managers, will not be involved ourselves in this assignment. We have a wide range of solutions. All we have to do is decide that we are willing to compromise. The rest is simple.

However, primarily we need to know not to trust the planning as a promise under no circumstance. You are not a start up or a futuristic project of R&D? So do not act as if you are. If there is a certain forecast of revenue, do not spend it all in advance, as if the Excels are reality. Not before we see the revenues actually in our bank account. Not as a regular expense and not as an investment. My recommendation is to remember the difference between plans and reality.

I have learned, reading Goldratt's management theories, an interesting perception: at any work plan, we save reserves, for time of crises. Reserves of time, reserve of money. In actual life, we burn them all, even if there is no major problem standing in the way. There is more time left? Let us add more features and capabilities to the built appliance, or invest more at the finishes. There is money? We use more equipment and parts, and as before, there are no reserves left out.
The situation resembles our attitude to our personal salary: If it turns higher, most of us get used to higher consuming. We fit our self to existing resources.
Planning triggers resource consuming, even if they were planned for a rainy day.
How can we improve our planning? Goldratt suggests saving all the reserves in a special bank, leaving it at the end; as a separate section, the "reserves" section. We will allow using it only when there is a real problem and additional resource is truly required. That way, we will ensure that the work plan will converge, usually sticking closer to the average need without using the reserves, part of them or all. Those, stay to the end, in the separate section. It is too easy to spend them and this technique helps managing the reserves and controls the use of them.
I make efforts to build my work plan this way. Minimal, but with flexibility. It saves money to me and its saves money for the customers.

The management of the twenty century has made us a bit technocratic, with all management control tools. In the 21 century, I believe, we are required to remember that we have to be much more flexible and creative, in many aspects. Even in planning and in work plans.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Empowerment

I admit that the first time that I ran into the concept of empowerment was five years ago. Before. I was did not recognize the term. I remember, we worked on a project for some customer in the education sector. If I try to analyze the customer's organization, without too much generalization, I can say that they were afraid of computers. Some of them were terrified. Building a website and knowledge sharing was a very different process of what we recognized and experienced in other places. As part of trying to make things easier for them, we used many techniques; for example, we left many blank areas on each page, so that it would look less threatening. In addition, all graphic art was planned accordingly.
On the contrary, the home page of this website included many terms describing main values of the organization. It included terms as democracy, autonomy, activism, enrichment and more. Of course, empowerment was one of the values.

The truth must be said; I did not relate to those ideas at all; it seemed to me as if the ideas were taken from the ivory tower and was not joint in our day-to-day conception. I wondered on the polarity of my reflection to those ideas versus my reflections to computers and using it as a sharing tool. I admit that I misunderstood the importance of those ideas, being a person that defines herself as rational and practical.
I grew up; I have changed. Also today, I try to reline on the conception of practice; yet I learned the influence of the empowerment and its capability.

Dr. Elishava Sadan defines empowerment as a process that is impact is passing from a situation of manliness, to a situation of relatively control in life, fate and surroundings. This shift can be expressed by improving the sense of capability to control or by improving the real capability to set in motion this control.
The original meaning of the idea is a way of power of attorney -approval to work in the name of the company, kind of delegacy of authority in the social plane that been given to a certain one. There are four categories of empowerment: individual, community based, cooperative and professional. What is not surprising, and of course most positive, is that empowerment in one category usually affects the other categories, and they improve too.
In my terminology, empowerment is a process of development; individual/ community/ collective/ professional strengthening and handing over abilities and skills so that the empowered person could utilize his or her potential in different aspects.


How is empowerment relevant to us as managers?
One of our main roles of managers, as I see it, is empowering the managers in the scale below us and empowering the employees. I personally dedicate to this activity a main percentage of my time, management efforts and resources. Naturally, I concentrate in professional empowerment mostly, and on that I intent to write and share in this post. As one may already understand, I did not always deal with professional empowerment in the same intensity. I assume that in my first years as a manager I felt the need to be on the front stage; I concentrated on guiding workers and advancing their skills. However as a manager I thought that I need to be in front of them. I thought that it the right way to lead them forward, is by giving a good example and shouting "after me".


It is hard to invest hours, time and energy in empowerment. The goal of most of the organizations is to create or to give service. We always have missions to complete; we always have activities regarding some product, service or customer. Usually, their due date is yesterday (or in good cases, tomorrow). To stop and to invest in empowerment it is not a simple challenge. It is so too easy to postpone the important issues as we see the urgent ones.

How do I reduce the chances that it will happen?
In two ways:

First, I remind myself repeatedly of the importance of staff empowerment.
Second, I nominate workers to be responsible for empowerment, and define resources for doing so (mainly time). It is not enough to cover all the aspects of empowerment, yet it is enough to constantly and significantly advance.

I know that it is fashionable today to talk about talent management. Locating a small percent of workers with an exceptional potential and investing more in their empowerment. I am in favor of the opposite method: empowerment of all workers. From my point of view they are all talented. It is clear to me that since the resources are always limited, it means less investment in each one.
As I see it, there is a moral say here about my faith in each one of my workers; there is a say here about my faith in us as an organization. We hired talented people. They are all talented. They all have potential to be even more talented. That is what empowerment is about.


It is very important to communicate the workers how important is to us to empower them, and how important it is to us that they actually will be empowered.

There are two aspects here:
The first one is to encourage the workers to grow; to give them the legitimization to take over new territory at their work.
The second is a message to workers that we believe that they have a great potential. A person's belief in him self is the key of his or her empowerment success.

Above the formally empowerment frame, it is worthwhile to take advantage of opportunities that enable us to strength empowerment.
Recently I was ill. I was absent from work for a long time. It is unfortunate, but it was an excellent opportunity to empower workers and managers. My absence from the office gave the managers under me more place to express them selves, in different terms, that in other circumstances I would have been involved in. A simple example to that is lecturing in conferences. In many places, organizers of conferences prefer the senior person, and naturally I am the one that been invited to lecture and present. My absence required others' participation instead of my self, and suddenly they turned more known in their seniority. They moved to the front stage.


In my first years as a manager, I thought that to be a manager is to be in the front stage, to set good examples and see that people follow me. Today I know that it is right to begin this way, but the wisdom is in the next stage. To be wise enough to move aside or even to the back, and concentrate on removing all stones and obstacles, allowing the managers and the workers below me to run and lead.
This is essence of empowerment. Today I know that it is more difficult to lead when you are behind, but that way you get much further.

Yours
Moria


To the Hebrew version

Risk Management

Albert Einstein has said that only those who take risks and go far find out how far they can go. As human beings and managers, we differ also by the level we tend to be cautious or tend to take risks. The truth must be said, we are even more complicated: I can say for myself, and for some close people who I know, that on some issues we are careful and others, take risks; so it is also a matter of issue, not only person.

In work, whether we wish or not, we are exposed to risks: We start selling something that seems "sure", but the market changes; we start developing a project and we have no guarantee that we end it in tine, cost or quality we planned, or be even sure that we reach its ending point. We work with a staff of employees, and someone decides to leave; we receive a large order for monthly service from a customer (working by hours), to find out a few months later that the customer does not have the time and we cannot work even close to the capacity (and income) we counted on. The list is endless. Everybody in work is exposed to risks, managers and workers, but there is a different: We as managers have to take carry the burden. We have to be responsible to the organization, to work, to workers, and to ourselves.

I can say for myself, that at work I tend not to take risks, as far as I can control it. No matter what I do, I know many surprises come with life without me asking, and as I carry the burden also for others, I tend to be cautious. Situations in which I may take risks are those where the main one to loose is me, and not the employees or customers. I know that with risks come opportunities and chances for success, but I hate it as I it means I am to risk other people. That is why I am not built to any start-up; there you must think risk-wise.

Yet, there always are and will be risks, some tips I can share from my own experience:
First, scatter the risks; do not put all eggs in one basket. Prefer several small customers among one big one. I remember, since I was a young girl, a working place, which I was exposed to, and was dependent on one large customer. I remember the day when the connection with this customer came to an ending. When I set up a business, and got my first large customer, it implied a significant growth of my company (from two to five employees). That was the day when I stopped sleeping at night. I started seeking for other customers; I was almost in panic. It took time, almost too much, until I stabilized another large activity, in the same dimensions. The same month, the first big customer collapsed and our work there almost vanished. It is very tempting to work with a significant customer, but we should be sure, that this customer is not 50% of the income, of course not more than that. If the company grows larger, the percentage has to decrease. The same goes for other risks: It is better to have a few small projects than one large one, several products, etc. See what is happening for example with the Crocks company (who sold shoes, until people got tired of them, with on real reason at all).

The risks should be managed, but do not over manage them. We must make priorities what risks we manage, and what we leave out. We must remember that we want to manage and work, not only manage risks about work. We have to decide what the right frequency to manage these risks is. As a rule of thumb, I would say that once a month is a good ratio, but if we are managing a crisis, we manage the risks on a daily basis, or even several times a day, if necessary.

It is important to decide how to manage the risk. As much as it sounds difficult, data and information should be collected, wherever possible, and used in order to manage the risk. Relying on facts and data will help us be more objective and decrease the risk. Sometimes, we think it is not worth seeking, as we probably will not find information or data that will help us anyhow. Yet, it is worthwhile trying. The Business Intelligence is based on involvement of three types: Monitoring (What is happening), analyzing (Why did things happen) and Planning (What can happen in the future). One of the main targets of planning is risk management of the future. It turns, that most of the best performance organizations manage their risks, and do so using Business Intelligence (BI).

However, as we all know, life is more than quantified numbers. It consists of many qualified, intangible facts and assumptions. We have to use other management mechanisms, above the BI ones, in order to decide upon the level of the risk (how likely is it to occur); upon its severity (if it indeed occurs); and on ways of preventing the risk or minimizing its impact.

What do I do?
Try hearing other people who naturally see reality, every one from his or her point of view;
Wherever possible, consult someone external, not emotionally involved who can see the big picture;
Finally yet importantly, do not hesitate. At the end of the day, we as managers have to decide; to cut things down. It is our decision as it is our responsibility.

We will fail. I fail in some risk I take, or are forced to manage (because of external influences). Nevertheless, with some I succeed.

At these times, I try to remember that after all, only those who take risks and go far find out how far they can go.

I wish us all to succeed wherever we are, and specifically, to succeed in managing our risks and failing less.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Competing

My brother in-law is a pilot that serves in the army. More than once, I have heard stories from him, how he and his fellow pilots, serving in the same squadron, succeeded in fooling the pilots from the other squadron in the same base. One may think, that this behavior may suit the youth only, but there is something deeper into it. This is a competition; the same competition that can be observed between departments in an organization, between units in the army, between scientists in universities.

Competition develops; it urges us; it inflames our imagination and drives our motivation. No manager suspects his or her employees that these do not want to work, and will not work if we do not urge them to do so. They are responsible. Managers understand that competition is a partial answer to the endless routine, and competition can, from time to time, increase production.

Nevertheless, competition and compensation have, besides their benefits, some disadvantages.

The first disadvantage, which I experienced, has to do with how it is observed by the employees. "Don't you trust us", they may ask, "that we give the best we can, also without being rewarded by success?"
The second disadvantage, relates with our difficulty to set the right parameters for rewarding the competition; with our limitations in affecting success. We drive people to compete, sometimes against others, sometimes against themselves, and reward them as to pre-defined desired results. Yet, these results depend on various parameters, some external, not being influenced by us, no matter how we act. This may not be a problem if someone was rewarded, relying also on luck; nevertheless, when the opposite occurs, frustration can take place. The more people expect the more disappointment.
The third disadvantage has to do with negative influence experienced while the competition takes place. As it has been reported, in many management books, people want to win, and tend to make figures look better, or at least give their subjective interpretation to results. We do not have to go far to extreme examples as Enron; each one of us has seen many examples of his own.
Another disadvantage has to do with the effect of the competition on other activities of our knowledge workers. These can be someone neglected, while competing. Management focus on a specific issue enables allocating fewer resources, both of the employees and their managers, as to all other issues.
And the last disadvantage, which I experienced, is a result of most competitions being a zero-sum competition. What does that mean? If one department wins, necessarily, another has to lose. And, as in many cases, there are several departments expecting to win, we have more losers than winners. The consequence is that we not also benefit from this process.

What do I suggest? To prevent competitions? Not at all. Some recommendations, based on my experience:
Competition that is not zero-summed is preferred. Two ways of implementation-
A competition in which, every time, a different amount of people win, as regarding to their own achievements. I draw-up, every month, a competition, in which an employee is rewarded as to his or her achievements. In most cases, one employee wins the glory, but not every time. In some cases, a team is rewards, as to their mutual work; in others, more than one employee may win. It all depends on special achievements, not always to do with results that were observed in the ending month. The amount and the definition are not strict. This way, the "good word" reward is never on expense someone else. If you deserve it, and the manager knows it, you will get it, no matter what did the others.
Another "good" competition is competition outside the organization. Every organization has another organization which it competes. Incentive of people to be better of the competitors, thinking how activities can be performed in a higher level than anyone other, surely brings into the organization all the energies that we experience with inside competition. Let us invest our energies in winning others, not ourselves. Of course, we have to be careful, not to cross the lines; not to exaggerate. We have to remain dignified, and more than that, to be honest and fair. Not to find ourselves nearing the edge, enabling the target justify unwanted activities. Our inside differentiation, consolidates us; it makes us a team. This is the rational of the competition between army units. Fighting the others, makes you more connected with your teammates. It has really nothing to do with youth, just another way to compete; another way to crystallize us, just without the disadvantages of inside organization competition.

We just have to be sure we do it right; without crossing any line; without rolling down professional quality; without disrupting human behavior.

I hope we succeed.

Yours,
Moria

Changes

Changes; the world around us is changing. It always did, but it seems, that in the 21st century, the frequency of these changes is getting higher and higher. This fact is true looking at the world in general, and true in organizations, specifically.

Organizations change for several reasons: First of all, the business environment outside the organization is changing. The life cycle of products is shrinking. It is true that products can be designed and manufactured, so they last much longer, but people want to renew. They want to renew because they get tired from the existing; they want to renew because they want new functionality or different solutions, as they get exposed to such in advertisement, in the communication, or by their friends, other consumers. But, that is not all. Technologies change; computing changes; and- our employees change. Not their characteristic, rather their names and faces. If twenty years ago, a person who was hired to work in some organization at the age of twenty, most probably would stay there until he or she have retired, today, we find many people who have more than one carrier, and most people choose to work in more than one organization during their carrier.
The bottom line: Organizations need to be prepared to many changes, external and internal; organizations need to know to adjust; organizations need to know how to manage the changes.

One may think I am speaking about a business, practical change of equipment purchasing, change of processes, change of pricing, etc.; No. This is something much deeper: It involves management; it is a change concerning people.

As explained earlier, organization always had to change, and to know how to change. Nevertheless, nowadays the frequency of changes is higher. Much higher. And there is another issue: Nowadays, it is much more complicated to lead a change in organizations. Hiatt and Creasy, in their book "Change Management", and Surowiecki, in his book "The Wisdom of the Crowds", speak about this problematic situation, each of them from a different aspect: In hierarchical organizations, as we were used to in the past, employees followed instructions. Today, many employees are knowledge workers. They are responsible for decision making in the area in which they expertise. The classic hierarchical structure is not the organizational structure in some organizations (i.e. start-ups) and not the power structure, in others. No matter how we examine it, people do not just do things because they were instructed to do so. I will add and say, that this attitude is even stronger, as many times, we have the feeling that the employee decides whether to continue and work in an organization, and not vie versa. It is much easier for the knowledge worker to explain why the change is not relevant for him or her, why it is inapplicable or why the timing is not appropriate.

So, what can one recommend?
Here are a few ideas. I wish to say, that, beyond my personal experience, and mistakes I have done on the way, I learned a lot from Hiaitt and Creasy's book, which deals with change management.
First, we must understand, as managers, that the personal aspect of changes cannot be managed as one unified process for all employees. Yet, It is obvious, that it is not practical to run an individual management plan for each worker and worker. I recommend analyzing the change management needs, and building a unified plan, or a plan for large segments in the organization (i.e. managers, front line workers). In parallel, to give an individual treatment to thought leaders, for good or bad. The effort seems to be beneficial: Their influence helps moving the organization towards the change. And- to give an individual treatment to feedbacks and to people who give them.

Another recommendation, to do with preparing the change: Do not impose changes on people. Give them a clue, a hint that a change is near. In some cases, it is a hint regarding the coming change, with no details; in others, it will be accompanied with knowledge about the content of the change. This tip is not so easy to implement as it may seem. The organization starts speaking about the change. As we did not announce it yet (we are preparing), more is hidden and unknown. People will tend to guess, and damage can occur. Therefore, the time of the preparation hints should be adjacent to the time of beginning of the change. The professional term is "unfreeze". This tip is also relevant for personal changes. Preparation eases the move.

As we are speaking about knowledge workers, it is very important to communicate the rational of the decision. Not to come up only with the bottom lines- what is changed and how. We, as managers, are aware to the reasons that brought us to decide upon the change. Even though we are sure that the symptoms are hung out there, and everybody can see them, and therefore it is obvious why the change is performed, most times, this is not the case. It is not that we are smarter; we just had the time to think about the reasons, to process, to think about solutions, maybe even several alternatives, and choose one of them- the change to be implemented. The employees, who did not take part of the process, it is important that they will understand the "Why"; the rational, why the change is needed. Why is it important for them to understand? To ease implementation. Naturally, people are not enthusiastic about changes, one may say, they resist changes. People are comfortable with the status-quo. Explaining the "Why" eases acceptance.

The rational issue brings me to another recommendation, to do with channels. We, as human-beings, think and act, both upon our rational, our logic, and both upon the emotional, the way we feel. It is important to deal with both channels, when managing the change. On the rational aspect, besides updating the people as to the reasons of the change, we should also give the tools for implementation. On the emotional aspect, things are more complicated: We should deal with peoples' fears, both the spoken ones and both those who people feel but fear to share. We shall enable the employees to participate, mainly on the "How". It gives the employees a good feeling, but the benefit is mainly for the organization: It leaves us with a better plan for change management and with a better implementation and chances for success.

It is difficult to manage changes, but we shall not avoid them: Changes are one of the main factors, leaving us, as an organization, relevant, business wise. At the same time, it renews the organization and makes the employees more satisfied, on the long run. As much as we fear changes, we like to change and renew. Just as our consumers.

I wish us all, easy but successful changes.

Yours,
Moria

Social Involvement

I have a friend whom I like very much. He likes tigers. Not instead of people, but in addition. A few months ago, I paid him a visit. I brought him a small gift- a tiger mug filled with candies. This person has a collection of tigers (not real ones), and every time I had an opportunity to add a new tiger to the collection, I would explain him why the new one is unique and different from all others. This tiger, I explained, was prepared by limited children. The mug is a donation and we have bought a few dozens of mugs from some organization that sees to that the money will be targeted to the children's' wealth. My friend was enthusiastic. He started taking pictures of me with the mug. He filmed me as if he was preparing a book; from every possible angle. These things, he said, should become public. Everyone has to know, so others will learn too.

Donations; contribution to others. Are these obligations of the individual only or also an obligation of modern organizations? Should it be carried out secretly or publicized? On these, and other questions, in this post.

I live in Israel. We have here a lot of organizations, public and private held, that deal with contribution, as part of the formal framework. I admit, I spent many hours thinking whether this is a right strategy. Contribution has to come from the hearts of people, and not considered as another project that the team has to complete. I think that, even though, probably contribution is a good thing:
Because it is a solution for needs that are so wide, that they cannot be carried out by individuals only;
Because it can work in ways that individuals cannot always do;
And, because, most important than all, contribution initialized by organizations, gives workers, those who did not experience contribution as individuals, the opportunity to do so. And when they have the opportunity, if they indeed fulfill it with their hearts and emotions, it really does not matter who initiated the move.

How can an organization cause people to contribute from their hearts?

First, many do it, without the organization even requesting. They volunteer anyhow, or wanted to do so, and the organization gave them a good opportunity.
Some come with no preceding opinion about giving and contribution to others. Two management tools can help here to open people hearts: One, giving the employees means to influence the process and take an active part in it; let them choose to whom to donate, let them choose how to contribute, etc.. The second is direct contact with those who are in need. The satisfaction, we as people, get from the another person smiling and thanking us, is huge. Not much can be compared to such satisfaction.
And there is another group of employees: Those who are not in favor with such activities. Some speak loud, most do not. Sorely, I can say, that probably these people exist in most organizations. These people should have no place and should not be employees in any proper organization! Even if they are professional, even if they well know their job, it is better for managers not to choose such people when they hire additional staff. You may ask, why? Every organization is meant to fulfill its mission. In private organizations, this means to make profit; in public ones, the mission changes, but in all organization, excluding charity organizations, we have a well defined target that is not contribution to society. As an owner of a private organization it is very clear to me that in order to win, I need the most professional employees I can afford. Even though, I insist that from egoistic reasons organizations shall not employ workers who resist contribution to those who need. And more than ever, this is right, now in the 21st century. We employ knowledge workers, workers whom we have to trust, workers who are in some way, self managers. I for myself, had a very bad experience, trusting, a few years ago, an employee that betrayed me, left with company assets and used them in order to directly compete the company. We were facing a situation where we were going to loose money, and possibly big money. The end of that story was a good one, as I won in court and damages were halted. You may ask about the relevance of this story to the post, but the connection is simple. The main issue that bothered me was how much can I trust employees in the future, yet promising that such situation will not recur. Once, one can err, but twice?

After long thought I came up with a clear conclusion: I must continue and trust my employees. I shall not change the way I control their work and suspect future betrayal. I have to find a different way. The way I chose is to employ from today on, only workers who have personal experience in contribution to society. Such contribution softens our hearts, and whoever felt the need to help other people and did so, without requesting anything in return, can be trusted as a human been. Of course this is not instead of seeking professional people, it is an additional condition. I admit that people, when interviewed, are very confused and do not understand why these kind of questions are asked. One can see it on their faces. I do not explain. But I know that according to their answers we know if the person is a potential worker in our company. Up till now, this method proved to work. I believe it will continue, too.
As I said, egoistic reasons.

Some may notice I used the term "social involvement" and did not speak about "social responsibility" a term that is well coined nowadays. I, personally, do not feel comfortable with being responsible. It seems to me as patronizing. We, responsible for them. I think, that being involved is speaking and doing being on the same level. And so it is. We never know what will happen tomorrow and where we will be. Being humble serves good.

Speaking about humble, there is one more issue regarding the organizational contribution. Contribution, in organizations, is hard to implement as a secret, leaving it as possible unknown. Not-speaking too much has a great advantage, not because there is any shame here. Speaking in organizations may help the doing. Yet, organizations have to be very careful. Over speaking and over publication can result in a situation where we enjoy the publicity, and do not do for the sake of doing.

The end of the story I opened with, is that my friend, after all, did not publish the pictures. I was glad. I was left with the "book". The mug and me. For me, that was enough.

Blessing us all, just good.

Yours,
Moria

Company Values

Twenty years ago, I had the first opportunity to manage a group of (knowledge) workers. I served in the army in a computing unit of the Israeli Air Force. One day, a new commander arrived. He had new ideas that seemed very odd to us, back then. A few weeks after he arrived all the building was filled with big signs: "Quality counts". Today, twenty years later, I understand the rational behind this move. At the time, I did not. I was not the only one. No one explained. The signs turned to be a joke, and so did the commander.

Years passed by, and methods became more sophisticated. We started to see, in organizations we worked in, visions and missions, and we took part in teams that have helped defining parts of them. I cannot say that a vision existed, in every organization I worked in. Some organizations dealt with these issues, others did not. I cannot even state that there was any correlation between immediate business success and existence of company vision and values.

A few years ago, I decided that the company, which I established, could be considered as an organization (we reached 10 employees). We were mature enough to have our own vision and company values. We worked thoroughly on definitions. I handed in the first draft, rather excited to one of the company founders, that was not involved in the daily activities. His response was rather chilly: Why deal with values? Better deal with numbers. And do not misunderstand: the company was profitable.

This is a real dilemma. Is there place for vision and company values in 21st century organizations? Is their importance or place different from what it was before?
I spent many hours dealing with this issue. This founder, with whom I spoke, was a special man, a leader that managed several organizations and has strategic thinking. Yet, something important has been said. It could not be ignored. I examine the society in which we live; a society that seems to be materialistic and hedonist; a society in which cynicism is appraised. Is there place in such society for company values?

The truth must be said. As much as I thought about the issue, I had and have no doubt that company values are a necessity. Values are the road signs, guiding us how to appropriate work and behave; both as managers and as workers. Moreover, today in the 21st century, I feel that we need them more and not less. People move from one work to another. No one career, of course no one working place. People, wiser than me, have discovered that what holds an employee in the organization is not salary. Of course, salary has to be fair. Otherwise, the dissatisfaction will be so great, and nothing else will be considered. People, despite the materialistic shell, want to come and work in some place that they feel good in it. Feeling good is a consequence of the nearby environment- the team, and the larger environment- the organization. Feeling good- is a place with which they identify with, and are proud to be part of. This is where the company values come in. The forbidden and "must" are defined by regulations and procedure. The right and justified, the appropriate, is defined by the company values. If we do not have values, we are just a bunch of workers sitting in the same place; little will connect us one to another. Such organizations will experience difficulties in retaining employees in the long run.

The process of designing the company values starts in peoples' hearts in the first years of the organization's life, refines and becomes instituted within the next years, as the organization grows and builds its unique culture. In fact, writing down the company values, is not supposed to invent anything new, rather document the existing, focusing us; assisting us to distinguish between what is important, and what is more important; stating to all employees, that this is our way of life.

A few tips I believe in, all to do with designing and documenting the company values. Some I have learnt the hard way:

• Do not define too many values. Three years ago, we worked on a set of values for our organization. We defined nine values, all reflecting the company's spirit, and way of work. One day, recently, I tried to memorize the list. I found out, that I, as the manager of the company, could not remember the whole list. If anyone will test me, I for sure distinguish between principles that are part of our values, and those that are not. Yet, I could not remember the whole list! I understood that something is wrong. If I would have nine children, I would remember all their names, for sure. I have twenty employees and I remember all their names. Etc. There was no excuse. If the entire list was that important- I should remember it. Today we are in a process of rewriting the values. The process is more difficult than the initial one, as this time we are focused on choosing the most appropriate values from this list. We limited ourselves to four values.
• Share; make people part of the process. Otherwise, they may think that it is all declarations and not something we mean to act upon. Just the way I thought twenty years ago when I saw the sign (and I must state that back then, I was even part of the management team). If we want people to feel comfortable with the values and we want the values to connect them to the organization, it is obvious that they have to be part of the process. Even though it takes time; even though it is instead of other working activities.
• Make sure that the values are planted in peoples' hearts. There is importance to visibility; there is more importance for assuring that the values do not stay on the wall (or in the website), rather affect practical behaviors. As part of defining the values, define desired behaviors.
• Last, but not least. I spent many hours lately, going through other companies lists of values. We all want to be the same. It is natural that all companies want to be professional, but having the same lists brings us back to square one. If so, how do we convince our employees that we have a special organization, through the value list? Why to stay and not move on? Yet, the shared values are so correct. Shall we give them up, as other organizations have chosen them before we did? Examining happy families, one call tell that the common is greater than the differentiators are. I recommend, adding some values that other have, if they really define us as a company, but leave place also for some unique values, that no one else has. All this (and this is the hard part), without adding more values altogether, than defined in our limits (see above).

At the end of the day, the values are our company's spirit. Do not stay without them.

Yours,
Moria