How to Improve Brainstorming

Brainstorming Works Best in Cross-Functional, Less Specialized Efforts, Says Management Insights Study.

Applying brainstorming techniques to new product development works best when the collaboration employs participants from varied specialties gathering to develop a less complex product, according to the Management Insights feature in the current issue of Management Science, the flagship journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS).

When new products will be highly technical, a better way to develop them is for specialists to do their work in private and collaborate through ‘nominal’ groups, the study says. “The Effects of Problem Structure and Team Diversity on Brainstorming Effectiveness” is by Stylianos Kavadias of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Svenja C. Sommer of HEC Paris.

Management Insights, a regular feature of the journal, is a digest of important research in business, management, operations research, and management science. It appears in every issue of the monthly journal. Since the 1950s, the effectiveness of brainstorming has been widely debated. While some researchers and practitioners consider it the standard idea generation and problem solving method in organizations, part of the social science literature has argued in favor of nominal groups, in which the same number of individuals generate solutions in isolation. 

The authors revisit this debate and explore the implications that the underlying problem structure and the team diversity have on the quality of the best solution as obtained by the different group configurations.

They conclude that nominal groups perform better in specialized problems, even when the factors that affect the solution quality exhibit complex interactions (problem complexity). In cross-functional problems, the brainstorming group exploits the competence diversity of its participants to attain better solutions.

The current issue of Management Insights is available here.

What About Adaptive Leadership?

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man!” - George Bernard Shaw

This week I had various inspiring mentoring sessions with several founders and leaders of technology startups in Australia and South-East Asia. As the economy is picking up, they all are leading their businesses through fast changing, hectic, but very positive times. So positive, that most of them need additional support, extra resources and extra funding to further boost their rapid growth. The local and regional market for the best resources and ideal investors is highly competitive and in my view only the best and most adaptive entrepreneurial leaders and leading entrepreneurs will win! More then ever adaptive leadership has become a key element in succeeding. So I asked them: "Are you an adaptive leader and/or entrepreneur?" To allow you to answer this question for yourself, please find below more insights and explanation about adaptive leadership.

What's adaption? Adaptation is a dynamic process of mutual influence. All creatures act on their environments, and their environments, in turn, act on them. We are all engaged in co-creation in our offices and in our families by virtue of the influences we exert on each other.

What's adaptive leadership? It is a practical leadership framework that helps individuals and organizations adapt and thrive in challenging environments. It is being able, both individually and collectively, to take on the gradual but meaningful process of adaptation. It is about diagnosing the essential from the expendable and bringing about a real challenge to the status quo. Explained in a few words; adaptive leadership is purposeful evolution in real time!

Dr. Charles Albano - who runs the US based Adaptive Leadership consulting firm - explains adaptive leadership as follows: Adaptive leadership is given to impacting the environment and it addresses a very active form of leadership, not a passive effort taken merely to adjust to circumstances as found. Biology teaches that relationships between living entities are circular and interactive. Our organizations are also living systems, being composed not just of capital goods and technology, but of people.

Organizations are capable of intelligent, purposeful collective action, actions taken to influence their environments in desired directions. We know that, like all living organisms, our organizations can learn, adapt and grow. We know that they too have life cycles of birth, growth, maturity and eventual decline.

How do adaptive systems compare to mechanical systems? It is quite a different matter to see organizations as being adaptive systems as opposed to the traditional (and ancient) way we have been conditioned to see them, namely, as Machines.

It matters a great deal whether leaders conceive of their organizations as being like machines or like living adaptive systems. It matters because it shapes the roles they and their people play. It matters because it bears directly on their ability to tap human potential. It matters because the times have changed and mechanically-based leadership and organizational practices are not adequate to the adaptive challenges being faced.

The old paradigm speaks to only the most mechanical aspects of how organizations operate, those activities that must be repeated in a standardized way. In the mechanical sphere of operations change and creativity threaten efficiency.

When an organization is led as though it were a machine, people come to be treated as parts of machines: mindless extensions of impersonal processes! When that happens, what is desperately undeveloped is commitment, creativity, innovation, flexibility and a great deal of latent potential.

What are the different dimensions? The adaptive view of organizations and leadership presents sharp contrasts along a number of dimensions, which can be best explained by comparing Mechanical (M) & Adaptive (A) views:

• (M) Attention is focused on activities.
• (A) Attention is focused on value-added outcomes.
• (M) Job descriptions are long, detailed and constraining.
• (A) Job descriptions are intentionally broad-based to allow for flexibility.
• (M) Role expectations are narrow and rigid.
• (A) Roles are fluid. Within limits, people are expected to substitute for one another.
• (M) Contacts are confined and communication is channeled by higher management.
• (A) Contacts are open and networks are encouraged to form.
• (M) Policies are mostly oriented toward control, what people can't do.
• (A) Policies encourage people to take a "can do" mindset to find solutions.
• (M) The organizational structure is bureaucratic and fragmented into many departments.
• (A) The structures are more fluid and of shorter duration. Changes in design are aimed at enhancing flexibility and responsiveness.
• (M) Authority is based on rank, and it is expected that influence will equate with formal authority.
• (A) Authority is accorded a place, but reliance on it is played down. Greater influence is accorded people who demonstrate ability to add value.
• (M) Efficiency and predictability are sought and reinforced.
• (A) Achievement, innovation and change are sought and rewarded.
• (M) Cooperation among departments is subject to a lot of formalization and clearances. Turf guarding prevails!
• (A) Cooperation is a highly regarded value in the organization and is far more easily gained.
• (M) Information is kept close hold.
• (A) Information is widely available to facilitate work accomplishment and permit more opportunities for more people to add value to operations.
• (M) Traditional values are fostered such as unit loyalty and obedience to the effect that they stifle initiative and hamper teamwork across departments.
• (A) Newer values such as cooperation, and responsiveness along with treating other units as internal "customers."

You can imagine how the working atmospheres differ. In the Mechanically managed and structured organization, people in one department know little of the missions and contributions of the others (and often don't realize how important it is for them to know). They look through "stovepipes" and see only their patch of blue, the view of the familiar world of their own work specialties. Since work is highly specialized and interdepartmental communication leaves much to be desired, things that need to be coordinated slip through the cracks. Problems as well as opportunities go unnoticed. Blame is placed on others. We-they conflicts develop. Teamwork is likely to be poor. Higher management sets up short-term cross-departmental committees and task forces to ameliorate matters. But since the leadership paradigm, the reward systems, and the organization's structure all proceed from the Mechanical mentality, little changes.

Things are stiff; the Mechanical organization is muscle-bound. Large organizations are highly susceptible to this. They get overrun by restrictive regulations, over-elaborated procedures and incredibly convoluted work processes. In short, they become bureaucratic. Mechanical organizations work (or worked) best in times when the operating environment was stable. Now chaos rules in many formerly predictable business environments-- mergers, acquisitions, new technology to absorb, changing demographics, de-regulation, global competition, competition from small, fluid, adaptive organizations. The days of the Mechanical organization and non-adaptive leadership are numbered.

What are the characteristics of Adaptive Leaders? Adaptive leadership reflects the actions of leaders who:

• Think and act to exert strategic influence on their environments. They act to assure that their organizations are well positioned competitively;
• Are proactive, foresee opportunities and put the resources in place to go after them;
• Employ a broad-based style of leadership that enables them to be personally more flexible and adaptive;
• Entertain diverse and divergent views when possible before making major decisions;
• Can admit when they are wrong and alter or abandon a non-productive course of action;
• Are astute students of their environments;
• Can generate creative options for action;
• Build their organization's capacities to learn, transform structure, change culture, and adapt technology;
• Stay knowledgeable of what their stakeholders want;
• Are willing to experiment, take risks;
• Strive to improve their personal openness to new ideas and stay abreast by being lifelong learners;
• Love and encourage innovation from the ranks of their organizations.

The above qualities are not new in leadership. What is new is the extraordinary pressures leaders face to assist their organizations to adapt successfully at a time when the traditional (all too comfortable) models of leadership no longer work!

So......"Are YOU an Adaptive Leader?"

To read and learn more about adaptive leadership I can recommened the book written by Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky: The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. It is a hands-on, practical guide containing stories, tools, diagrams, cases, and worksheets to help you develop your skills as adaptive leader, able to take people outside their comfort zones and assess and address the toughest challenges.

Make this a Positive & Adaptive Day…..unless you have other plans!

Warm regards & success,



Patrick Driessen

How Mentoring Can Be An Effective Business Strategy

"Mentoring is a brain to pick, an ear to listen, and a push in the right direction!" - John Crosby

By Ray B. Williams
Many small to medium sized companies have become so successful that they have been "corporatized," a term coined that describes the feeling of professionals working in those companies that makes them feel like "cogs in a wheel."

In an article the Harvard Business Review, authors Thomas J. Delong, John J. Gabarro and Robert J. Lees argue that the remedy for the corporatized phenomena is for those companies to institute a program of mentoring. While the need for mentoring was once more commonplace during good economic times, it has slowly disappeared from many organizations during the growth of the global economy and fierce competition and specifically during the recession.The mentoring relationship can serve a critical role in an employee's career, skill development; and is a key to retaining talent and a fundamental way by which the organization can shape leadership.

Workplace mentoring usually takes place between two individuals; one, the older more experience person and the other, the younger, less experienced individual. Mentors typically provide career related support which includes visibility, networking, coaching and sponsorship as well as psychosocial support by developing the protégés sense of identity, competence and effectiveness, sometimes including friendship and role modeling.

A research study conducted by professor Christina Underhill at he University of Memphis, where she examined all the research conducted on mentoring in the past 25 years showed the organization benefits from mentoring by enhanced organization attractiveness and recruitment, reduced employee turnover, increased organizational learning, and employee productivity and socialization.

The selection of a mentor is critical to the program's success. The research by DeLong, Gabarro and Lees showed that a good mentor: Is someone who is absolutely credible and whose integrity transcends any messages; tells the protégés truthful things they may not want to hear; interacts with the protégés in ways that the protégés wants to become a better person; helps the protégés feel secure enough to take risks; helps develop the protégé’s' confidence to raise above their inner doubts and fears; supports the protégé’s' attempts to set and achieve audacious but attainable goals; and present challenges and opportunities the protégés might not have seen on their own.

The Vancouver Board of Trade initiated the 'Leaders of Tomorrow' program, in which young university graduates, who want to be involved with the Board of Trade, are matched up with experienced business and professional mentors. Feedback from the both the protégés and the mentors involved in the program have indicated it has been a huge success!

Given the challenge and potential conflicts between the generations--Baby Boomers and Generation Y in particular--the promise of a beneficial and low cost initiative such as mentoring can be a smart organizational strategy!

For US based entrepreneurs, SCORE ("Counselors to America's Small Business") has thousands of volunteer mentors/counselors around the nation, ready to help entrepreneurs for FREE! Not only do they offer one-on-one mentoring, but workshops, online articles, and online help are also available. Just visit www.score.org for more info.

"One of the things I keep learning is that the secret of being happy is doing things for other people!" - Dick Gregory

For more mentoring insights, please read the blog post 'Can You Afford NOT To Invest In A Coach And Mentor?'

Warm regards & success,


Patrick

Management vs. Leadership

By Patrick Driessen

“Try a thing you haven’t done three times. Once, to get over the fear of doing it. Twice, to learn how to do it. And a third time, to figure out whether you like it or not.” - Virgil Garnett Thomson

Please ask yourself: Are you a manager who leads, a leader who manages, a true manager or a true leader?

In the last couple of years many people could afford to spend a lot of their time at work with doing nothing….they were surviving without creating any real value for the company they would be working for! A lot of these people would hide their “doing nothing” by playing internal politics; talking themselves up and acting if they’d be very busy…. I always classify them as “empty suits”. Sound familiar? You’ll find empty suits in most large organisations. True leaders will find them and get rid of them! So an organisation with a limited number of empty suits, usually is focused on talent & performance management and most likely will be lead by a team of true leaders! These are the best companies to work for!

End of 2008 - when the economic down turn kicked in and workforce redundancy processes started in one of the large organisations I’m a leader at - I saw another type of colleagues thriving; leaders who became managers… Instead of showing their guts by facing the truth (telling some of their team members they’d be made redundant), these leaders started hiding and became managers. They came up with all kind of excuses to prevent they had to take ownership of the challenge. Fortunately I saw some other true leaders standing up and taking over the responsibility of telling the bad news.

Nothing wrong with being a leading manager. Nothing wrong with being a managing leader. However, if you’re a leader who does not how to be a true leader, you can suddenly turn into a bad manager!

In these challenging times with forecasts of massive layoffs, it becomes a survival of the fittest: only the best managers and leaders will survive: they will remain employed! The bad and weak managers & leaders, and the 'empty suits' in particular will fail and the organisation will often fail with them!

Taking into consideration the current changes and reorganisations within most organisations and the wave of redundancy announcements, it's important that we as Managers/Leaders are seen as being both an approachable and empathetic resource to our staff.…

Especially in these times in which some of us have to make tough decisions and have challenging discussions around redundancies, the real managers and leaders among us have a chance to proof themselves! To help you with this, please find below some of the lessons I learned and insights I gained about managers and leaders.

• A manager stays within the box; a leader jumps out of the box.
• A manager maintains; a leader develops.
• A manager sets the boundaries; a leader pushes them.
• A manager is a copy; a leader an original.
• A manager focuses the attention on systems and structure; a leader focuses on people.
• A manager controls; a leader trusts & inspires.
• A manager focuses on the short term; a leader focuses on the longer term.
• A manager focuses on the bottom-line; a leader focuses on the horizon.
• A manager asks how and when; a leader what and why.
• A manager takes the status-quo as a given; a leader challenges the status-quo.
• A manager does what others tell him to do; a leader follows his inner voice.
• A manager does the things right; a leader does the right things.
• A manager can do without leadership qualities; a leader must always posses management qualities.
• A leader does not tell people how to do things, but tells them what to do and let them surprise him/her with their results.
• A leader knows you can do anything, if you just believe in it.
• A true leader is focused on one single thing: his team(s).
• A leader will create and clearly communicate his vision, hope, passion, inspiration and the journey he’ll take his team members on.
• A leader always has a vision, inspires, drives, creates fun, shares fun, shares his passion, cares about & understands other people, shares his knowledge & insights, explores and makes sure the right people are in the right place!

To become a better manager or leader you will need to:

• Share --> Learn --> Improve --> Succeed!
• Dream --> Set Goals --> Define Strategies & Roadmap --> Execute Actions --> Succeed --> Celebrate Achievements!

“The ability to keep a cool head in an emergency, maintain poise in the midst of excitement, and to refuse to be stampeded are true marks of leadership.” - R. Shannon

"The best entrepreneurs can act as an entrepreneurial leader, a leading entrepreneur, an entrepreneurial manager or managing entrepreneur." - Patrick Driessen

Success with managing & leading the way up!

Warm regards,

Patrick Driessen

© Patrick W. Driessen. All rights reserved.