Project Management Pitfalls… not all PM-specific it seems

Michelle Labrose, one of 25 women recognized most influential women PMs in the world by the PMI or the Project Management Institue, had this to say about reasons why Projects fail.

Of possible pitfalls, she mentions five reasons, namely:
1) Falling victim to feature creep
2) Multi-tasking too much
3) Over-scheduling people resource time usage
4) Not eating right (healthy diet)
5) Not moving and breathing (a.k.a. no exercise)

Now as I was reading Ms. Labrose’s article , I was prepared to catch possible technical issues, concerns and maybe even a little wisdom that are purely PM-related. What I saw, instead, was more a reminder of what we, as PMs, should be doing… heck, there’s no secret to what she said – and yet… as I pondered the five reasons, I thought ‘yeah…. How often do we; in the span of getting too busy, forget these five very simple, yet obvious tips?” I certainly did a few of these things at one time or another.

The article is short (about a page and a half when printed), and it assumes readers and PMs know what she is talking about – heck, you really need not be a PM to know what she is talking about as Ms. Labrose’s areticle is not too technical – in fact, I would suspect that she writes this way to make her ideas easy to digest. It’s also short, as I suspect, she writes to a presumably busy crowd. Goring back to said article; the original text can be viewed at http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/news/column/0,294698,sid92_gci1344193,00.html?asrc=SS_CLA_306147&psrc=CLT_92 and I do hope that by sharing it here, I get more people – primarily, those not in her usual reader’s circle, to read it. I , on the other hand, will just try and expound a bit on what these five are – and maybe in the process, share some personal ideas.

Item one – feature creep, is obvious… or is it? As I mentioned earlier about the items in this list, needs to be revisited every time one talks with a client. It will be so easy for any client to ask for small favors – seemingly innocent and harmful ones, even ones that seem simple enough to do. To them, it seems simple, and yet… any PM worth their salt should first look at the project deliverable’s scope. A few questions need to be asked here before blindly committing to a ‘yes’ or ‘sure’ reply. Mind you, I’m not advocating a total stop to the practice of giving some ‘goodwill’… after all, it’s one way of building a positive relationship with our client. I just want to suggest a cautionary move on anyone’s part when confronted by this situation.

So how are these questions connected to feature creep? A) Is this task really as simple as it sounds? And in connection to that; B) what is the scope of change or adjustment to this request?; C) can the project afford to insert this change with respect to the budget and schedule – important factors both, if one is to be professional about the entire thing. And lastly (for now), D) if I can’t give it, will this really damage my working relationship with the client? These, I shall address in the succeeding paragraphs – and if I get too carried away, maybe even succeeding articles – at least I’ve got something to write.

Lets start with some obvious reminders… all projects have a schedule to keep – and these well educated estimates rely on a lot of experience to create… both from the PM, the PM’s colleagues and the project team members themselves. When does feature creep come in? Its when things have already been agreed upon, when the budget and schedule have been ironed-out… then suddenly, in the middle of the project’s execution, the client thinks – maybe it would be good if we had this . Now remember, this sometimes comes, conveniently enough, during discussions between the or a team member – and the client representative… maybe the process user/owner… and innocent the question can be, the repercussions may be anything, but innocent to the project’s agreed-to scope or timetable.

So how do we handle schedule creep? Well, as we may know – its easy to say ‘yes’ in an effort to please the client – then suffer the consequences alter on – and by doing so, we ensure that pitfall number 3 will happen. Not exactly a wise move on the PM’s part.

A) Is the task as simple as it sounds?

Here’s an idea in helping resolve this. Forewarned is forearmed – and to help warn us of just how much a task is being asked of us via this innocent request – we need to look at how much this idea’s inclusion will change our work scope. Here’s an example… a simple change of the screen’s display can be easily done by anyone – but we need to make sure that this change, when addressed, will not indirectly affect other user’s screens from the same system –and form adjacent systems that the client is using – that does not grab you, how about a different way of storing data we already have? Sounds easy to say, right? Is it easy to execute? Maybe not.

It is for this reason that PMs are expected to be ‘experienced’ – meaning they’ve hopefully had the prior experience of having done a s similar project in the past – not necessarily as a PM, but as a project member who is privy to how things went – and can repeat successes, or avoid pitfalls. But experience can likewise be a collective work – as mentioned earlier, as more progressive organizations have adopted best practices within their procedural aspects – specifically to ensure adapting best practices and avoiding pitfalls… in other words, learning from the experiences of others. In line with this, we go to…

B) What is the scope of change beings asked?

To answer this, we need to trace back how far (or deep) this change will be – what components (detailed work groupings) will be affected, and how long it will take us to do the job. If the project has some kind of requirements-traceability documentation or table (matrix)… wherein a work being done can be traced back to the necessary requirement it is fulfilling, then this can be very helpful in tracing back what tasks will be affected / added, if we accommodate one simple change or addition. If we know exactly what requirements are being asked of us and how it will affect our scheduled tasks – we will be able to see how much additional work this may entail us.

C) Can the project afford to insert this change with respect to budget and schedule?

Larger projects may have set up a steering committee – and it is the role of this committee to sift between all the wants – and separate the needs. They are a filtering mechanism, and will normally be composed of people from the client-side… specifically able to understand the project’s scope, and the priorities within the tasks being done. If a request is asked – it should be forwarded to the steering committee, who will then consider the validity and importance of said request. Smaller projects, on the other hand, may simply have to rely on an individual – but this individual must still be someone of the client-side, whom the PM can talk to about these possible additions being requested.

This is my sneaky way of saying – don’t decide. Its not your project… you’re just managing it – but they (the client) will be stuck with it later. So any changes… no mater how seemingly beneficial, needs to pass through a protocol for deciding if the suggested item is indeed important and upon realizing that… know when it is best to schedule the creation and implementation of said change. We can suggest… but it will have to be decided on their end. Keep it that way – and if approved, quite naturally, a scope and schedule change will be necessary… and this is our safe bet that changes made are essential, recognized as officially part of the new scope.

Now, most of us will probably think – well isn’t that what we do anyway? Yes… but the danger of a feature creep is that it looks so inconsequential to have to pass through such a protocol that we’d might as well just add it without the hassle of having to attend all those steering committee meetings. Again, if it’s not official and documented, it may not be recognized – and if it’s a reason for delay later, it is the PM’s fault. Lastly, if you need some encouragement to avoiding feature creeps by making sure all these things are recognized and documented, simply remember... you might not be able to ask for compensation for services rendered in connection to work not properly approved and documented.

D) If I can’t give it (what is being asked) – will this damage my working relationship with the client?

Personally – yes. At that particular instant, the client will feel disappointed – but if the non-application of such suggestion can be presented with valid reasons, I see no reason why the client will not see it as a professionally acceptable reason. Especially if it is explained to them that the item being requested is deceptively simple, and giving it will possibly affect the timely completion of the task.

Remember, it would be so easy to say yes – and in a situation where you have no valid reason to say no… you might just as easily say yes (hence the need for answering question #1). If there is a steering committee, then the committee will have a resolution - and whether it is a ‘go’ or ‘no go’, you simply quote their decision and abide by it. So you can’t be seen as responsible for such a decision.

What’s worse, in some parts of the world – like Asia, saying no might culturally speaking, be connected to being insensitive or rude. This is not true… what is to be avoided is the possible loss of ‘face’ (wherein the client is embarrassed for their idea being seen as not worthy, and in connection to that – the possible treatment of others making them feel not worthy). So one easy way to do this is to have your discussions in private – if the feature addition can’t be done, only you two know of the failed initiative. No face lost there.

If you really feel bad about it, and would want to show your client that you want to help, borrow a page from customer-relations practitioners about giving a soft ‘no’, meaning you give them the ‘no’ and the reason why it can’t be done – but… you are ready with an alternative suggestion of thins you both can do. This way, it does not feel like there was finality to the discussion, but rather than end there, you are now exploring other options. One’s where both your hands aren’t too tied down. How is this done? You might start with saying “We can’t do this… but here is what we can do…” and explain your counter idea.

Feature creep is not easy – and PMs who would love to have a competitive advantage and impress their clients are often times too cavalier in giving in to these requested items - but remember that any added feature, and additional request given may indeed score you some brownie points with the client. Just make sure that said brownie points are not used up in meetings explaining why the project is delayed or getting too expensive. Other times, giving in to the request at tone time may be seen as a go signal to give in to the same thing in the future. So remember to make sure… in case you are giving in to the addition; despite the possibility of it being a project pitfall, you make sure the client knows this is a favour to them – and not something that is necessarily repeatable in the future.

Some PMs will even say (more so in cases where there is no steering committee) that it is a business decision and they, as PMs are within bounds to approve or give such a feature creep… well, forgetting for the moment that such a thing is tantamount to a scope change (albeit, being asked by the client) I hope that the PM in this instance has appraised the team that more effort has just been added to possibly an unchanged budget, because I forsee longer working hours to catch up with the added work… or the need for more people to join the team – which includes the time heavy selection and hiring process, project and task expectations setting meetings, adjusting to the project environment, and… exactly how much time do we have? Just saying…

By the way… if this is a feature creep, be well aware that it is going to normally be ‘gratis’ work – unless a scope change is approved. So, be careful about just disrupting the project’s timely outcome on something free. Like I said, a soft no might best reconsider doing what is being asked as part of the project’s next phase (if there is a next phase).

Feature Creep more so a daunting a situation for ‘First time’ projects by your team to any particular client who really want ot make a good impression with the hopes of getting additional business. Remember this advice… you shall be well remembered for brining what you promised to do, at the promised time… you won’t be given concessions for adding what was asked for, then renege on delivering the promised product when expected, instead of that, here’s another thing I learned with some of our Eastern-bloc counterparts – they say no… (as they are known to be more straightforward there) but try to do the feature anyway. That way, the client does not expect the feature, and is pleasantly surprised to see it as part of the end project.

With feature creeps just, well… creeping in, you (and your team) will end up harassed with more work, sometimes wondering why you agreed to such a concession in the first place. What’s worse, your project team members might be wondering if it isn’t too late to abandon ship - as your record as a credible PM is tarnished. Your reputation as a good leader may likewise vanish. Your team sees you as a ‘yes’ person – not able to draw the line when necessary, and saying no when they have to.

Understandably, many people are queasy to say no to a client… but in reality, if approached in a ‘soft no’ manner, the client may be reasoned with, and may even be appreciative of the PM’s candour. Plus, said client, will feel comfortable in realizing that their PM knows what they are doing… having properly explained why it might not be that easy to grant a seemingly easy request – nor why it is not possibly to their project’s best interest to add such feature now.

So, in a nutshell, Know what is being asked, know your schedule’s realities and limitations. Be professional… chummy is good, but in business, professionalism will be an important factor for any organization trying to make a lasting impression. You want to be seen as being dependable and competent, not someone who says one thing… then does something else. So hold off with your ‘yes’ until you have a better understanding of what it is the feature creep being asked for really entails, project-wise. If your client does ask you for something not in the agreed scope, you may, in a polite way, ask to study said request first and get back to them in a few days about your answer.

Since this entry is already looking to be real long, I’ll just continue this discussion in part two… where I will focus on why multi-tasking may not be so good after all.

Practicing what one preaches

Its easy to say something... I mean, there's hardly any effort to say a few words. We do more than that everyday - unless of course, one is experiencing some difficulty to do just that, it should not be a problem to utter words.

However, some words - when put together, have special meaning... one's larger than the words themselves, for example... a sentence representing a promise from someone - just words... but the intent goes beyond the content. A promise comes with an inherent belief that the person who uttered such promise will do good on said promise's intended action. After all, why promise at all - if one won't keep said promise?

Now lets go even higher tha a personal promise... a company's credo or set of core values. These words set the company apart from the rest of the pack... it gives the company an identity... and yes, it sets the tone for what kind of company it is - and will continue to be.

The credo is its guiding light... its core values - just that... what it is, at its very core. What it - as an entity, believes, practices and adheres to. Naturally, it will - and should, take great pains to uphold these values that it holds dear. Because, once again, if it does not follow such values in principle, then it can't expect its clients and partners to trust it - after all, wouldn't that be counter to it's very own integrity?

The big problem here - specially for large companies, these credos or values are paid lip service... nice to recite; maybe even have a stylish plaque hung on the wall for all to see... maybe even make sure that H.R. has some kind of program to inculcate newbies with these values - possibly even memorize them... BUT... and here's the great but part... when push comes to shove, the leadership of this same company - or its people at some level of the organization, forget everything they preach and practice an entirely different set of values.

Therein lies the real viewpoint to such values and creeds... if a company is consistent with it's preachings... with its ideal, then it shows that it is serious with what it does - with its practices. But if people, whether employees or partners in executing some form of work or another; for said firm, feel that things are being practiced differently... then, these same people - and their circle of friends... will realize that this organization's leadership, its people, its practice and yes... its credo or values... are all just one big hypocritical mass of pretenders.

Unfortunate... since there are, I am sure, at least a handful of people who take these values to heart... yet are equally affected by those that do not. Now... I understand that when a crisis happens, change is needed - and people get affected. That, and the actions to help survive the crisis, is inevitable. But as i mentioned before, and read in the book 'Leading at the Edge', how the leader (or leadership) thinks and acts, will best determine whether they talk one way and act another - and the people do get to glimpse at their leadership's integrity - or lack of.

As I used to work with a large company... one well known for its stability, profitability, growth.. and yes... integrity - that latter word being one of several core value this particular company upholds, I appreciated the fact that said company had such values ingrained into its workforce - heck, I had my share of doing the inculcation of how important such values to the company were, and therefore, how its newbies had to adapt to such a culture.

I even had my share of dealing with jaded participants - those that came from a not too ideal corporate climate, and thus had to question or cast suspicion on things that may be too good to be true, and my message to these people would be -insert company's name here- is different, and they really do respect their workforce - after all, they value their best assets... which of course, are the people working with it.

If you read carefully between those lines in the paragraph right above this one, I have subtly inserted what are two more of said company's core values.. aside from the previously mentioned 'Integrity'.

Going back to my point... Leadership's actions - specially in a crisis, will reveal a lot about whether the organization does indeed practice what it preaches... or simply preach... and practice - but only when things are comfortably happening the way they expect things to happen. Otherwise... to hell with the preach part - this is survival, and only the strong (or well-positioned decision maker) survive.

So much for core values, credos, mission statements or visions - these are just words to preach to the masses - but come real problem-solving crunch-time issue-handling late-night emergency meetings - those are just words... and only the foolishly ideal individuals cling to such words... and only the naive cling to these concepts - believing that all will be handled as expected - by making hard decision based on these core values, credos, mission statements and visions.

But aren't the idealistic and naive those who are truly and genuinely practicing and championing the organization's values? Aren't they those who are truly respected? I'd like to think that at times like these... it should be these individuals who should be the organization's compass to any and every decision to be made affecting each individual.

Pity... really. A chance to prove one's integrity - to prove that his (or her) integrity is aligned with that the company preaches... and they - this company, failed to do just that.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have removed people in the workforce - though that, in itself is likewise debatable. But the way they handled the problem - the way the let go of their people - and their 3rd-party partners... the way these people were treated... well, one has the feeling of being an unwanted wet and dirty rag... easily discarded after its usefulness is done.

I've heard stories, and have experienced some 'anomalous' actions - and by anomalous, I mean, actions not aligned with the organizational 'core values'... and from where I was standing, not all decisions were made with Integrity to all, and with Respect to each Individual... and yes, suddenly, this organization was presenting a different face, than what was expected by its 'best' people.

Again, I'm not saying all the leadership acted in that way - at least, I can't be certain. But an apple just needs one worm to become unwanted by any person to eat - it loses it value as a fruit... and just like said apple, this company that I used to help, has lost its value, its prestige, and yes... its integrity.

At a time of crisis... at this time of crisis, its leadership failed to Lead at the Edge. Don't get me wrong... survival is an organization's right - and if laying off people is a necessary resort, then so be it... but there is a good - and not so good way of doing this... and this is one time where industry best practices were not adhered to.

We must be better than that. We must practice what we preach.

This is done, the actions of the past... history - and as this organization is fond of doing, it must think of all the 'deltas' in its handling this particular situation, and learn from it's mistakes... or this - the concept of continuous improving by finding areas to change - will turn out to be just another 'practice' being preached.

Obama's Victory... lessons we can learn from it.

I know that there's been a lot of articles about now President-Elect Barack Obama, but there is one in particular that gives a good scrutiny of the successes of Barack's campaign - and the mistakes of the McCain campaign.

What makes this even more believable are two facts:

1) the writers still beleived that McCain would have been a better President... though they accept and hope that Barack will be up to the challenge... and

2) the writers are known in the publishing world for their many books about business... I'm of course referring to Jack and Suzy Welch.

They break the lessons down to three simple considerations...

A) Clear, consistent Vision
B) Execution done right
C) Well-placed allies

I could give some explanation, but I thing it would be better to lead you to the original article, so you can read it in its full glory. So click away.


Obama Victory Lessons for Leaders

Learning while surfing in class - Possible?

I've been surfing the Net (no surprise there) looking for new ideas - either for my personal perusal, or for possible sharing purposes in my next training conducts. and in my aimless wandering -I stumbled upon another blog that I would like to try to monitor from now on - why so?

http://weblogg-ed.com/2008/reading-to-find-rip-mix-classrooms/

The above site by Will Richardson touches on a few training or education topics - and though the subject is more geared towards high school, it still can be applied to any learning environment... including corporate training... after all, don't we sometimes act like children? ;-)

How did I find Will's blog? I found it at another article... one about Facebook being used for learning... and since I've been an advocate for using Facebook - color me curious, but I had to check the article out. You can too... by copy-[asting this site address:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9122241&taxonomyId=16&source=NLT_NET&nlid=27

Apparently, there is a name for what I was doing when I stumbled upon this site - and its not just 'surfing' the Net either... well, it is, but there's another - you might say, more specific name. "Rip-Mix" Huh? Never heard ot it? Okay, here's a description of Rip-Mix - its when you transfer from site to site by clicking on certain inetresting topics or sub-topics... all because I was interested in certain context. Call it a speed- comprehending (just like speed-reading) style, wehrein by hoping form topic to topic, I eventually read and absorb enough ideas to understand the big picture discussion without having to read each and every... well, in this case, entry.

I hop from idea to idea - from argument to argument - from site to site - from writer to writer - from viewpoint to viewpoint, and in that manner, form an opinion of what I'm reading. It may not be the most systematic, nor may it be the more efficient manner - but it lets me read by way of following my interests.

I won't reccomend this in reading books - though I may readily sugest it as a form of surfing the Net... in fact, its how I've always been 'attacking' the internet and it myriad sites... even when doing research for just about anything. Sure I start out with a Google search, then I work my way from article to article - until I start getting carried away 'wherever the web takes me'. But that's not all... the author then takes the idea to the possible next level - Rip-Mix workshops, which mean we could have virtual workshops as we all search and share what we read or learn about... forming a sort of community of learning for a particular subject matter.

Rip-Mix... a not-so-new idea. But now its got a name... and possibilities. If only schools would catch up to this idea.

When training becomes boring:

Make no mistake, there will be times when training seems boring... this would be because the topics covered may not be new to the participant, the facilitator is boring, or maybe both. There are other possible reaons, but it is really not the intent fo this article to enumerate them all - hell, its hardly the intent to even talk about the training being boring from the participant's viewpoint.

So what am I alluding to? What if the conduct of trainings are atarting to get boring to the facilitator? What would be the usual reaons for such sitiations? Well for starters, the training (or trainings) could be routine - in ohter words, conducting them becomes routinary in both content and execution that there might come a time when the facilitator will start to feel mechanical - hence, bored.

This does not atutomatically mean the training in particular - one being conducted by a bored facilitator, will be equally boring (though the possibilities of such happening are higher than when handled by, say, an inspired facilitator). After all, it was Leah Salonga who once quipped that in her near routinary rendition of Kim in the stage musical Miss Saigon, she had bouts of boredom and inspiration - who in the audience could tell one state from another? Far as they were concerned, Leah seemed not to have a bad night.

How'd she get away with it? Sheer discipline - and yes, really good muscle memory. After all, routine can be remembered until it becomes an internal process - one done subconsciously... like Tiger Wood's great swings (at least, to Tiger). Poetry in motion - and he makes it look so easy... just as Leah makes msucals look so easy and effortless. What has this got to do with a facilitator? Similarly, if the things one does becomse routinary... including training, then it can be done in auto pilot mode - even in non-inspiring days (or nights).

Four paragraphs down... what am I trying to say? I sometimes get into such a mood - or phase, and in recent weeks, this has seemingly increased in frequency. Yet its not just the routine that I notice as reason for this... it could also be the fatigue. Having a heavy load... averaging around 100 hours of work in a month - guess that can be tiring, and non-restful weekends do not help the cause either.

Yes, it can get tiring... yes it can get boring... so why do I still do it?

Trainings help individuals directly, and despite how I may feel, I still find this an altruistic exercise. I like helping people, and in trainings I help them improve - be it be learning a new skill, adding to their knowledge... or even just looking at (and accepting) a different way of thinking. I meet a lot of people, and even logn after the training is done, these people still remmeber me. That does nto happen if you did not have some kind of impact in their lives - whether professional or personal.

To me, upon seeing how I've helped - and these can be seen at the end fo the training itself (instant feedback can be had), which can really just erase the 'feeling bored, nothing new' feeling... and I just think, 'yeah, this is still worth it'.

Question is... how long before 'what is worth it' finally gets overcome with 'this is boring'? Guess I'll know when that time comes, since it would be the day I stop trainings and pursue other things. In which case, I might just give myself a few months before I start getting the itch to train again. Its happened before, it cna happen again.

Meanwhile, I just need to look at trainings in a different perspective, or find new ways of approaching the same training, to keep things fresh... and maybe, just maybe... I need to have more rest days... this way, I don't burn out.

Leading at the Edge

I've just finished reading the book titled "Leading at the Edge" by Dennis N.T. Perkins, wherein he introduces 10 Strategies for Leading at the Edge. By Edge, the author means highly demanding situations - wherein life's normal challenges, as we see them (or feel them) are felt in much greater impact when survival may be at stake... where one's actions may very well be the basis for continuing... or disappearing on the face of this Earth.

In giving us these 10 strategies, Perkins uses, as an analogy, the adventures of a famed explorer Earnest Shackleton and his Imperial Trans-Antarctic expedition. Let me list out these strategies, just for posterity...

1. Vision and Quick Victories - Never loose sight of the ultimate goal and focus energy on short-term objectives.

2. Symbolism and Personal Example - Set a personal example with visible, memorable symbols and behaviors.

3. Optimism and Reality - Instill optimism and confidence, but stay grounded on reality.

4. Stamina - Take care of yourself; Maintain your stamina and let go of guilt.

5. The Team Message - Reinforce the team message constantly: "We are one - we live or die together".

6. Core Team Values - Minimize status differences, and insist on courtesy and mutual respect.

7. Conflict - Master conflict - deal with anger in small doses, and avoid needless power struggles.

8. Lighten Up - Find something to celebrate and something to laugh about.

9. Risk - Be willing to take the Big Risk.

10. Tenacious Creativity - Never give up - there's always another move.

If you wish to know more about these 10 strategies, I strongly suggest purchasing (or borrowing) a copy of this book... in fact, I would advice the earlier option, since the book has self assessments that one can use, and return to at latter dates to see how he, or she, is doing regarding leading at the Edge.

Want to know more? Here's a PDF from www.syncreticsgroup.com showing a 4 page interview with Perkins. It shed more light on the topics - and should be a good enough teaser for anyone wondering if the book is really worth getting. I've provided the link to where I found the file:

http://www.syncreticsgroup.com/pdfs/Interview%20with%20
Dennis%20Perkins%20about%20Leading%20at%20the%20Edge.pdf

I shall be posting my results on said assessments in a separate entry.

Trust Activity

I recently facilitated a 'trust activity' for a Building High Performance Team session, and since we were limited with the available equipment we had within the training area premise, we just had to make do with strategically positioning the tables into a maze of sorts - careful not to harm anyone. In line with this, I or my partner, Mon, had to make sure that our participants had to be monitored by their partners, and by us - as we had to see potential pitfalls, lest they literally fall down.

Naturally, since this may entail some confidentiality, I shall not mention the company, nor the names of our participants... but as you can no doubt see in their faces, our participants were really enjoying themselves. They gamely followed instructions, took up the challenge and went through the trust activity with gusto (and worked up an appetite in the process, it seemed). You will also notice in these pictures that even when blindfolded, some of the partners seemed to strike the right pose for the camera (so much for candid shots).

To start with, we would come from our lecture room, travel a short distance through the training center's corridors, then enter the breakout room where the tables would be arranged into a maze (guess using the word labyrinth would be too grand).

I've included some pictures of this trust activity, as you can no doubt see... nothing too spectacular, and since I was not using a flashbulb (so as not to alert the blindfolded particpants that I was taking their pictures), some of my pictures would poorly capture movement - hence the blurred effects at times.

The activity entailed forming pairs (or trust partners) and blindfolding one partner in said pair; who would then have to follow instructions of their partner guide. These blindfolded people had to literally trust that their partners would guide them properly.

Interspered within the maze were whiteboard marker pens lying on the carpet; which the blindfolded participants had to pick up - again, just relying on their guides for instructions. In at least two places, there were chairs located, and the blindfolded person would have to once again trust their partner to guide them properly, and let them sit down.

Lastly, before the maze ends, they would have to pick up the last marker pen, position themselves facing the wall - which happens to be made of whiteboard materials, and write their name, while blindfolded, of course.

Overall, it was a fun activity, and I have to confess that this was much more active than previous trust sessions I've had the priviledge to conduct before where the mazes were simply just that - with no added frills of needing to sit or write their names. THough in the past, I'd instruct the partner guide that their blindfolded partner would need to touch a strategically located electric fan or phone.

Next time? I'll try to experiment with texture - see how the blindfolded participants feel through a rubber snake or feather duster and the likes. See how vivid certain imaginations could turn out to be. Who knows, I mught just get a squeal or shriek form a participant, once they realize (or think) they are holding some animal. I will have to make sure, though, that no one would be adversely affected due to sudden high blood pressure from an anxiety attack.

This trust factor is just a short activity - yet many facilitative teachbacks can be borne out of this one activity. For one thing, its main "Aha!" point for this particular run, was to show the need to trust each other, and by extension, their team mates - specially if they are the leads. The consideration being that with delegation of work, one must be ready to impart some authority as well, so their staff can do such work successfully.

Note: I originally intended for this post to appear in another blog where I post most diary-related activities. But after some thought, i realized that the post was more facilitative-focussed. Hence its finding its way inot this particular blog. After all, this is my facilitating focussed blog.

Team Lead School

I just recently finished conducting a 'Team Leads' training, and basically, I was relatively surprised to go through it as easily as I did - considering that it was my very first time to conduct this particular course.

Why was this so? First of all, most of the ideas of said training were covered elsewhere - and in greater detail; specifically with several trainings I've covered in the past. Second, it touches upon leadership, and I can say that I've got a lot of stories (based on experiences - both mine and others) to share, articles I've covered and can expound on and concepts I can present.

End result? I was able to cover the topics given me at record time, as we finished an hour ahead of schedule, and that is without any shortcuts, and without really any need to stretch things (or make up stories). With the ability to explain everything properly, clearly and completely, I felt that I was able to impart what concepts and ideas need to be touched upon.

Now... for some strange reason, this month of July seems to be the month where I needed to show the fact that I could conduct - not one, but three different trainings that I've never conducted before. Granted, I had to go through some manner of 'sitting-in' as preparation time, and it helped... just a bit. See, the aspect of 'sitting-in' is to understand the concept, to see the conduct proper and study the flow of the topics. But can anyone absorb all these things in the first try? Doubtful... not impossible, mind you... just doubtful. Too many things to capture and absorb - all at the same time.

Now, this wasn't all just natural talent, mind you (though soem of that did help me too), as I admit to having had to spend some time preparing for this conduct by reading and absorbing the slide topics... for adopting the idea, and seeing how I could present it. Connect it to my experience - and barring that, to use someone else's experience. But it wasn't that much work - as the concepts were easy to understand and relate to. I strive to be able to explain the 'What's in it for me' a.k.a. W.I.I.F.M. factor for each topic, with respect to my explanation.

I may not be so lucky next time though, hence the need to still prepare some more. But at least, in this particular case, I was successful... and success does breed (or sustain) confidence.

How do I know if I did right? Simple... I knew my goals, I met expectations - both mine and my participants, and I felt that I was able to help and contribute to their (my client's) knowledge (or skill). In the end, it may be them (my clients), who will determine my evaluation, and this can come off as a formal evaluation - but my inner-self will be the one I need to listen to... hence I don't take too much stock in the evaluation's importance.

Not to sound too proud or boastful, but I've not taken stock of my evaluations for quite some time... If my participants may think if its good, well then good. If its bad, I assess the reasons. Sometimes, if these items have merit - and this is looking at such in an unbiased manner, then I'll consider - and make adjustments. If not (meaning no real merit - as the participant may be missing the mark) then I just chalk it up to experience, or (bad) luck and look forward to the next conduct.

In the end, if my inner-self says I did good... who's to say otherwise? I'm confident enough to know that I did good, and that is what is important. Having said that, I know I did good today.

The A-E of having an Optimistic attitude:

'No one can really be an optimist all the time'
'Anyone can be an optimist sometime'

What's the difference with these two statements? Aside from the obvious differences in the sentence usage, is the message any different? Technically, it describes the same thing... that of optimism not always being the case for anyone. Yet (and this is not from the viewpoint of anyone supremely gifted with grammatical rules, mind you) I would think that it bears scrutiny with respect to who might utter such phrase, or use such words.

The latter of the two sentences may be used more often by optimists, while the previous statement would, of course, be used by the more pessimistic-inclined. Its basically the same philosophical debate as having the glass being half full or empty... the pessimist will insist it is half empty, while the optimist will point out it is half full? Difference? Viewpoint.

Why is this important to know? Because people with the right (i.e. optimistically inclined) attitude tend to be more motivated, more inclined to success. The problem is... what if I'm not 'normally' inclined to being an optimist? How does one get out of the rut? Here's one option.

In the book 'Leading at the Edge', Dennis Perkins and company suggest a five step process, as introduced by Martin Seligman, a psychologist. This is as follows...

1) Adversity - identify it, when was this last encountered;

2) Beliefs - be aware of them, question them - specifically, your thoughts or beliefs of the event;

3)Consequences - recognize the actions or effects of your beliefs;

4) Dispute - question, challenge your negative beliefs about the item or action being considered;

5) Energy - generate what is necessary to overcome negative consequences.

This 5-step process is likewise called the Learned Optimist's approach, signifying the fact that anyone can learn this skill, and it will help them focus on what it means to be thinking and talking optimistically.

Graveyard Shift Trainings Anyone? Not me...

Just last night, I did something I had not done in the past two decades - namely, stay up until the morning for work. Oh yeah... I had my share of this experience early in my work life as a data encoding supervisor for the graveyard shift - specifically to help encode Voters Registration Forms for several regions of the Philippines. Back then I found it boring, and it was really a strugle to stay awake; after all, how interesting was data-encoding? Another hassle with working late was the fact that I had to get home by jeepney at the wee hours of the morning, and try to sleep of the morning - considering the temperature of the hot sun as the morning turned to noon.

Back then, I definitely empathized with vampires who - seeing the sun, seemed to have a psychological effect. Of course, to them it was more a life and death thing; to me when I saw the sun rise before I hit my bed, I felt weaker... and this was true whether the reason I stayed up was due to work or a late night out with friends.

I would always notice how it seemed to take me at least a day - or two to recover from the excess (as I would think of it back then) hours of wakefulness. Ah well... my respect for all the BPO people and contact-center agents is renewed with how I felt. I'm sure they're used to the life they lead... but I bet there was a time they were likewise experiencing the same adjustment period... and I'm not fully satisfied with the fact that their awkward lifestyle has no underlying effect on their health.

In short, its an experience I won't want to find myself in. So how'd I end up repeating the experience (one that I have to do again this coming evening, by the way) that I had forsworn not to do? Simple economics, plus the proper timing, it seems. Confusing? Not really.

The company I work in has a pool of facilitators on tap to conduct certain trainings... in economic parlance, I'd call this the supply capacity. On the other hand, we have the client - a company known to be large and still growing in its BPO and ACCS business. It has people in need of training, and again... for economics sake, I'll call them the demand side - but since they are evening-shift employees, trainings that we usually conduct in the mornings are a sacrifice for them to attend.

So the demand side has been clamoring for the needed trainings - but cannot get said trainings in the mornings when most of the supply and scheduling otions are presented. Obviosuly, there is a mismatch of needs vs. supply capacity. Our organization decides to cater to this demand, but not all facilitators in the pool - myself included, were inclined to deliver training at night. I'm not sure what others' excuse are - but mine is simple... I'm not that young, and if I had some issues two decades ago with such practice - even given the fact that I was much healthier way back when, I sure as hell will have a lot more issues now. Plus, it runs counter to my having to drive Barbie to her office every morning. But, there were facilitators willing to do the deed anyway - so no problem. I jsut had to take a bye with said experience.

However, due to some glitch in schedule mix, one particular need was unfillable by the evening team. Apparently, our scheduler asked for help and the only people capable of meeting said need were Naira (Orbeta) and I - and as circumstances had it, we were conducting said Leadeship training at that partucular moment.

Now, as I said, I don't usually accept such assignments - but the pleadings of our scheduler... and the fact that Barbie had a trip to Cebu, hence my not really having the need to bring anyone to work in the morning, all conspired to get me to say yes. After all, what's two days - or in this case, nights?

Well, let me just give a glimpse of how night one went. For starters, we survived of course... but I noticed that Naira was struggling to stay awake, and we were not in our peak; for example, I had some difficulty thinking of what to say, my thought process was slower than usual - lucky for me, this is a training I am used to conducting like the back of my hand (and it helped that Naira and I came fresh from it), it also helped that the training was activity intensive - so there was really no dull moment.

I would even say that there was a certain peacefulness in the place - one that normally teemed with activity due to the organization's seemingly constant hiring process, and training schedules.

The corridors were almost empty, with exception to our (the participants and I) traveling to and from the pantry, rest rooms and our training room. Aside from us, I just noticed our facility's guards, some maintenance people and late night (early day) workers doing repair work. But these encounters were few and far between. By the way, I would use these walks to keep myself awake.

Now, the psychological hour seems to be 4AM - and as I looked at the watch, I noticed that the night was happening with no hitch (thank God for that) beyong 4AM - but I could really feel wanting the hours to happen faster, so we could really call it a day.

Though feeling a bit disoriented, Naira and I were able to keep track of the timeliness of our conduct, by looking at it from the scheduled break's perpective... these served as our milestones inletting us know we were right on time, as far as the conduct's timeframes were concerned... again, I can attest this to Naira and my experience with said training. Guess it validated tha fact that we were comfortable with each other's capabilities - and this helped soothen any possible aprehension on our parts, in accepting the graveyard shift training to begin with.

The participants were pleasant and active, cooperative and willing to learn - and that has to be a plus. It certainly made our evening less traumatic. I also had a friend in the list - Arthur Uy, an old role playing game collegue.

I came prepared by bringing Coke zero, as I knew I'd be needing the caffeine. But as I feared, the effects still happen, and the payback time was actually after the training.

Now... I was contemplating whether to bring a car or not - I decided to bring the car, as I was not too sure of the availabilty of taxis when it cane time to leave... a false apprehension it seemed, since on my way to the car, I saw a lot of them bringing employyes to work. As I was driving home after work, I had to be extra careful I did not bump anyone or fall asleep. My usually instinctive driving skills were dulled - so I had to really be careful. I've decided not to bring the car later - don't want to tempt fate after all. I'll just have to make suer I've enough change for the cab fare.

When I got home, I had some difficulty sleeping in the morning since the room was too bright, outside noises did not help, plus my body clock was out of synch. Bubbles, our dog was also guilty of waking me up from time to time, and the aircon helped in making suer I was comfortable - but this did not lull me to dreamland.

All I could get were many short naps - so yeah, I'm still recovering from day one - and I have to prepare for day two. My stomach also seems to be rebelling a bit - but that was expected. I also did not want to take caffeine at the later time of the trainings (4 to 5 AM) because I might not be able to sleep at all... so I had to wait out the hours and do my modules - thankful for rests in between (when it was Naira's turn to control the training). I have to say that those alternating facilitator assignments are a real blessing during graveyard shifts.

I'm glad to say that I was up and about the entire time. Naira, though, was more in energy-saving mode... preferring to rest (sit or when possible slouch in her chair) whenever possible, so I can just imagine that she was having a harder time to cope... not becasue she can't, but more likely, she was a lot more tired that day than me.

Bottom line, I am reminded as to why I don't want this particular schedule. I can't function in optimum more, and I feel the effects after. I'm glad tonight is the last night, as ( another facilitator who's shown preference for conducting at night too (Jingo Zara) will finally finish his sit-in mode with Leader's Window - and be scheduled for a teachback, so he (and Alain Nicolas) can conduct Leader's Window in the evenings form now on... besides, they're at least a decade younger than me so they can hack it better. Naira is likewise glad they'll be doing it form now on.

We were doing this as a favor to the organization - but we wouldn't want to make this a regular shcedule. I'll be glad to get home tommorow morning and go through recovery again... happy with the knowledge that we're done for (and with) this particular training.

Despite the friendliness of the particpants, I will definitely not accept future graveyard shift trainings. They simply take too much energy from me - and I don't see this as a long term option.

An Uplifting Comment!

Nothing too profound this time around... just wanted to share a comment from a participant of a training I recently conducted. This was in Accenture and the training was about John Beck's Leader's Window, which I conducted with Naira Orbeta. The comment came from one of our participant - Jon Aves, one of the company's (up and coming) project manager.

I quote what Jon said: "I attended two trainings this week , both by Johns - the first one, was by John Maxwell, and the second by John Beck, and I must say that between these two, I learned a whole lot more with Beck's Leaders; Window - as conducted by both Butch and Naira, than from Maxwell". WOW!!!

Jon then confirms to the rest of his fellow participants that his comment should not be taken lightly, since the company spent millions to have that one day training with Maxwell. Though I'd have to consider the backgrounder of said Maxwell training, I can't deny that I did feel energized by said comment.

But let me put things into perspective - at least, from my end. Credibly conducting Beck's training was never an issue to me - I know that I'm very competent, and as Rory mentioned while said training was happening, 'I seem to know it like the back of my hand' - well, I do... this is not hubris, but just plain and simple fact.

I would not normally be moved by comments saying that I'm good, or the training I conducted was great - 'been there, done that', so what else is new...

Make no mistake though, I still appreciate these type fo comments, and appreciate the genuine gratitude accompanying it, but nothing really move me to remember such comment beyond the training. Perhaps because I realized early on that I can't afford to rest on my laurels, so I set these aside and focus on my next assignment.

Jon's comment was different, though, he:
a) indirectly stated that the Maxwell training was less effective than Beck's;
b) likewise stated, in the same breath, that Naira and I gave him more value for his time (never mind the comparative cost) with the training we conducted, than Maxwell personally conducting his course in Manila.

Make no mistake, I respect Maxwell very much - and would hope to be as successful as the man in the talk circuits, someday. I've several of his books, and would consider his as one influence when it comes to my taking in ideas that I often pass around and use in my talks. He's up there amongst the authors I admire, together with Covey and Blanchard... so imagine how such a comment would impact me. Heck, lets just say that I envied Jon that he was able to attend such a course through company sponsorship. I'd love to sit and listen to John Maxwell talk.

That said, it would also be hard to dismiss said comment as fanciful, as I gauge Jon Aves to be a person who says what he thinks - not one who fancies exaggerations, nor does he seem to be one to conduct white washes. Jon can epitomize what an Accenture leader is, so I don't think he was just playing on the audience for spotlight time, nor was he being political in talking favorably about those in front of him.

Jon's comments would have to be seen in a credible manner - at least, as credible as its source... and Jon seems credible.

So yeah... great comment. It may not add to my financial surplus - it definitely does nothing else but add to the many accolades I've received; most of them forgotten. But this particular comment falls uniquely into the category of my having been compared - well, sort of... to John Maxwell and his works.

Jon's comments strongly validated the Leader's Window - and it likewise validated both Naira and me with it.

More informative (and in that sense, getting better value for money) than John Maxwell's talk... wow.

Thanks, Jon. Great validation.

Although facilitating trainings can be a great experience, there are inherent downsides to doing this on a regular basis. For one, its strenuous to the throat, as one had to always be in 'voice projection' mode. granted this isn't shouting, but its one level below, since you have to really make sure everyone in the room can her you. Microphones may come in handy, but for some reason, one loses some of the rapport, or connection with the team.

Sometimes its not that bad - specially when one has a co-facilitator to help share the lecturing load... but sometimes, like what happened to me yesterday, you have to take the load all by yourself. This becomes doubly hard, if said training being handled, happens to be talk-heavy (also my situation yesterday).

I find that during said type of day, I would be struggling to keep my voice from failing - making sure I don't stretch it too much for fear of losing said voice, specially when not near the end of one's training conduct yet. I took it upon myself to have a warm glass of water always nearby. But faltering it was, and after that day's work ended, I felt that my throat was parched. I would have wanted some lozenges or a soothing drink - anything to help comfort my throat... and yes, limited talking time after said training.

Barbie comments, at times, that I'm awfully quiet around others - specially her family, but the truth of the mater is, if I don't have much to say, I'd rather keep quiet - maybe because I'd rather preserve my talking voice for lectures? Partly, I guess... other than that, I may have more reasons why I'm not the talkative type... thought they are not to be confused with fear of speaking - as I've outgrown said fear of speaking - thanks to Toastmasters.

I am still experiencing said throat irritation, but I discovered that using a combination of apple cider (2 tbsp), honey (2 tbsp) and water (1 glass), and drinking this concoction helps my throat. Unfortunately, I did not think of bringing such a mixture today, hence my 'pesteng ahem' bouts.

Oh well... at least I'm not lecturing today... and the week-end promises to be rather long and uneventful... with exception to my drive to Cuenca to bring an exercise machine to my mom. This should give me lots of opportunities to rest my throat... until next time.

As of this time, the democratic race is not yet over - yet many analyst agree that Senator Clinton's chances are fading - a stark contrast to the thought about her being the shoe-in winner for the Democratic party nominations. In fact, her competitor - Barack Obama, is leading and sees the nominations within his grasp.

The thing is,,, how did Obama's team do the seemingly impossible - that is, beat the Clinton camp in a race they (the Clintons) had a whole lot of experience in? After all, prior to this particular 2008 presidential nominations, their candidate (Obama) was hardly a household name.

Well... a great leader can inspire... can make people believe... and can let others do the seemingly impossible. But I'm not just talking about the candidate; sure... Barack seems to fit that mold too - but this article (see link below) is all about the people surrounding him - those that he'd asked to help him, This Yahoo link says it all - and is a welcome reminder to what teamwork, a shared vision, integrity and leadership by example can do to get things done.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_el_pr/obama_s_team

Of course, lets also not forget one important factor here... this team knew the pulse of the people, and was able to market Barack in that manner... they help him set the tone and message of his campaign, were honest and very dependable - and if I read between the lines properly, the campaign was able to hurdle the financial hurdles of Super Tuesday (unlike the Clinton team) by tapping a seemingly volunteerism mentality. Many of Barack's team players could have been payed more by the Clinton camp - but they opted to stay in the Obama camp.

Its an article worth reading in greater detail, should a book about it come out - and if my instincts are right, chances are, one will.

Democratic candidates for 2008

It may very well be the free world's most scrutinized exercise in selecting a leader - I refer to the elections for the President of the Unites States of America, for whatever else others may say about that nation, realpolitiks dictate that this is one of the most influential - if not THE most influential nation of the early 21st century.

Naturally, people from many walks of life are inundated with news regarding how this coming 2008 nominations - and later, the elections proper, will be played out... and ; thanks to the Internet, people are better exposed to many dimensions of the leading candidates. Never has a set of nominees been so... transparent to the public.

At the end of the day, this is purely an exercise to the right of suffrage by the Americans - but the whole world is watching... okay - that may be an exaggeration, but most - if not all peoples are watching... and I am certainly one of these non-American, closely observing the proceedings.

The question is "why?". Its not that I'm going to vote... and these decisions are happening half a world away - so why am I monitoring this? Simple... really, whoever wins becomes the leader most influential in the free world - and then some. So its really a curiosity to see how the American elections will pan out. Not just the exercise itself - but the candidates as well.

Of this current race, the more interesting... and possibly exciting race is actually between two democrats - both historic in themselves. On one side of the Democratic nominations, we have Hillary Clinton - former first lady to Bill Clinton (the last Democratic U.S. president) and current New York senator. On the other, Barack Husein Obama, first-timer senator, and definitely the first Black candidate seen most likely to become a President.

Prior to Barack, the only time a Black American was possibly considered as a viable candidate was General Collin Powell - but being a Republican, he decided not to run in favor of G.W. Bush. With Barack, many people (mostly Blacks) see this as a strong time for change.

To Barack's credit, he has not towed the race line - as he has constantly preached, lectured and made known his stance for a politics of change - specifically, positive change. No divisiveness, no old politics of special interests... its more a politics of adapting a "Can Do" attitude to change. The message is strong and it hits the hearts of those frustrated and jaded with the way politics has been played out by these past administrations... and although the focused target is quite naturally the Bush administration - lets not forget that prior to Bush, the Clintons had the White House and may very well be part of this 'past administrations' that many such jaded Americans feel strongly against.

Hillary, on the other hand, is the first Woman candidate ever with as good a chance at the Democratic nomination for presidency. At another time and place, I feel that these two Democrats would easily sweep the contest for presidency from leading Republican candidate - John McCain. Nothing against McCain, but his Republican predecessor - G.W. isn't exactly helping give the party a positive light.

In a direct comparison between Obama and Clinton, both present viable change... however, Obama seems to present the more radical shift... the fresh perspective working for him, as others do not see him as a jaded politician - one that has learned to thrive with the bad habits of politics. Hillary, on the other hand, has that background... but what she also has - and in great quantity, is experience with the ins and outs of U.S. and global realpolitiks. But is experience - specially if its to lead to the same old (and not so ideal) habits, enough to ensure a Clinton win? Will Barack's lack of real world experience hinder his candidacy?

As these two show a very tight battle for the Democratic nominations, I can't help but think that they are focusing too much energy countering each other, that by the time either one becomes the official candidate, they would be tired... while McCain is coming in fresh. John must be enjoying the show - and many Democrats are starting to worry about the sustainability of each campaign against a fresh Republican start.

It would be irony of ironies, should the two strongest Democratic candidates make the voters feel too tired of rooting for them, that they will just forget about the entire thing. I hope not. Like I said, this is one contest that is very exciting... and to just give up at the latter stage would be tragic. Barack has as one of his slogan "American Do" - an obvious play with "can do" meaning a "can do" attitude, and between Barack and Hillary, I may be partial to the former, rather than the latter - specially if one is serious about change.

How they campaigned, the strategies they used... this will be a great book to read from both camp's insider viewpoint. I like Barack - and though I am not an American, I like the message he has been delivering. Here's but one example...

Barack's biggest challenge was when his pastor ironically gave rather scathing (but historically true) remarks about Black frustrations against a White-controlled economy - one which many saw as a divisive message... and one that Barack had to react to... and despite this man being Barack's religious adviser, Barack had to say that the man's statements were wrong - that the thinking had to change - and this was just one of his needed change. One that had to start with a better attitude towards the situation. It was a problem borne out by both sides - and both sides had to fix it collectively.

I will not be surprised if he wins the nominations - but I will be sorry to see Hillary just fade to the side after this. As shown by this current campaign, she's getting almost as much as Barack, and it would be a fatal mistake not to ask her support at the end - and hope that Democrats have not yet been too frustrated with what is happening with their nominations proceedings. After all, 'hope' and 'change' are great platforms to ride in - specially when the candidate seems credible enough to deliver.

If ideals were basis - Barack would win. But realpolitiks will need him to be well informed and well-prepared - and we know that with exception to former President Bill, Hillary fits that bill to a T.

In fact, if these two Democrats can become a ticket unto themselves, I'd imagine McCain really staying up at night. If they - both Barack and Hillary, are true leaders, this will be the way to go.

Disney's Leadership (or Mickey's 10 Commandments)

Here's something I just had to share from a forum I frequent (the leadership hub) . Its supposedly how Disney practices its business models - though it can easily be gleaned as potential leadership tenets themselves. Whether we have Marty Sklar - then head of Disney Imagineering to thank, or Walt himself, I don't know... but I think it is best to honor both by sharing this to as much people as possible.

Without further ado... the 10 commandments.

1. Know your audience
   Don't bore people, talk down to them or lose them by assuming that they know what you know.
   
2. Wear your guest's shoes
   Insist that designers, staff and your board members experience your facility as visitors as often as possible.
   
3. Organize the flow of people and ideas
   Use good story telling techniques. Tell good stories not lectures.
   
4. Create a ‘come to me’ (the castle, the Epcot dome)
   Lead visitors from one area to another by creating visual magnets and giving visitors rewards for making the journey.
   
5. Communicate with visual literacy
   Make good use of all the non-verbal ways of communication - colour, shape, form, texture.
   
6. Avoid overload
   Resist the temptation to tell too much, to have too many objects. Don't force people to swallow more than they can digest, try to stimulate and provide guidance to those who want more.
   
7. Tell one story at a time
   If you have a lot of information divide it into distinct, logical, organized stories. People can absorb and retain information more clearly if the path to the next concept is clear and logical.
   
8. Avoid contradiction
   Clear institutional identity helps give you the competitive edge. The public needs to know who you are and what differentiates you from other institutions they may have seen.
   
9. For every ounce of treatment, provide a ton of fun
   How do you woo people from all other temptations? Give people plenty of opportunity to enjoy themselves by emphasizing ways that let people participate in the experience and by making your environment rich and appealing to all senses.
   
10. Keep it up
    Never underestimate the importance of cleanliness and routine maintenance. People expect to get a good show every time. They will comment more on broken and dirty stuff.

Source: A talk given by Marty Sklar, then head of Walt Disney Imagineering

www.theleadershiphub.com/blogs/mickeys-ten-commandments-and-how-they-apply-leadership

Golf and the Game of Leadership

I've been reading a Leadership book quite recently entitles "Golf and the Game of Leadership". Its by Donald Mc Hugh, and he obviously infuses parallelisms with the game and the practice. As I read through his chapters, I found them easy to digest and internalize. His ideas are not necessarily new - but they are central to the concept of leadership.

One particular> chapter had a little test for its readers where we are asked to force rank five (5) important Leadership-connected personality traits, and as Mr. Mc Hugh warns, it was harder than it looks. You rank the one most important to you with a 5 and proceed to rank the rest, with the least important one garnering a 1.

The traits?

• Trustworthiness
• Giving Credit where Credit is due
• Doing what is Right vs. what is Easy
• Honesty
• People matter

Before going any further, you might want to take a few moments of your time to answer this one yourself, then you can compare your response with mine and see if we think alike - or you are a leader of a different leaning. Of course, anyone could rank things in any way - and there is no real right answer. Though something - personality perhaps?, gets revealed in one's choices.

You done? Okay, here's what I chose and how I went about it.

I rated the 5 characteristics (as presented from top to bottom) in this order - 1,2,4,5,3 (meaning Trustworthiness gets 1, i.e. 'least important'; while Honesty gets the 5 - being the most important of them all). I could say that I was honestly surprised with my answers too - considering that I thought it was really important for me to be seen as trustworthy.

But here's how I approached things. I thought to myself, okay... which is more important - trustworthiness or giving credit where due? I thought that if I do the second, I would earn the first - hence in a 'cause and effect' consideration, I would have to rank option 2 higher than option 1.

Between option 3 and 4? No contest. This is on the given assumption that easy is not the right way - because if there was an easy and right way, then it would be a no-brainer choice. People will choose easy if they wanted shortcuts - hence it could entail cheating a bit, shaving a bit of quality here to reach a deadline, and I would normally follow that lead - after all, I am normally practical - but... it would not be honest. Between doing what is practical vs. what is right, I would have to say that given my exposure to the Quality Initiatives of CMMI, I would have to say 'go for what is right - even if its harder. If I did that, it would show that I am honest. So again, one becomes the prerequisite - or foundation of the other. Hence Honesty over Right vs. Easy.

I now needed to consider 'People matter' as an option. Maybe its my cultural upbringing about 'Family matters' or work harmony - but I felt that working with others was relatively important. How can anyone lead, if he or she was not able to reach others? How can I reach others if I don't show any semblance of interest or respect for others? Now, was this higher than Credit where its due? I'd say that to give credit where its due would entail the trait of being able to respect and mold people - hence the prerequisite of being interested in them - knowing they do matter. That said, I decided that People Matter had greater weight than Credit where due.

Between Credit where due and Right even if not Easy? Right vs. Easy was a more challenging task - and so it had the edge. Thus putting Right vs. Easy second to Honesty, followed by People-oriented (prerequisite of teamwork) at third; and of course Credit where due comes next followed by Trustworthiness.

Again, let me reiterate, Trustworthiness is very important to me - I rarely give my promise because I don't want to end up breaking them. So if this is the bottom of the five, you can imagine how much weight I put in the other four. This was my logical (and ideal) reasoning.

Having said that, I did another ranking - this time representative of what I normally seem to practice... and here is how it came out. 5,3,1,2,4.

Like I said, Trustworthiness is important - so I make sure I come across as such a person. Next is People-matter where I emphasize that the team is important. There is a Vulcan saying: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few" and I may prescribe to this. It also shows when I always remember the "Golden Rule" (the original one anyway). Number 3 is Credit where it is due, and coming at 2 points is Honesty and lastly, we have Right vs. Easy.

So I have two sets of numbers - the ideal and the real (or practical). My goal is to transpose myself from the actual to the ideal.

The question is... can I afford to do this?

I hope so.

Self-Coaching:

Before we even get down to the nitty-gritty of such possibilities, let me present the 10 guiding questions for Self-Coaching...

1. Is this good for Me?
2. What does my body have to say about it?
3. What are my Values?
4. Whay would Jesus (or insert another role-model's name) do?
5. What am I seeing?
6. What really matters here?
7. Where should I act / where shoudl I step back?
8. What would make me genuinely happy?
9. Who has some guidance for me right now?
10. What is the desired intention in my life today?

Now I can't recall where I read this, but it certainly impressed me enough to jot it down on a notepad and stick it into my planner. Unfortunately, I mised out on who and where I got it, and it has been a while, so I can't recall where I stumbled across this. I will endeavor to find the source - but should someone see this and know said source, please give me a post, so I can properly cite its source.

Now as to it being possible... it sure seems so, but... and this is a BIG but, it will entail honesty on the person who is trying to implement a self-coaching technique... after all, just as coaching will entail ferreting out the truth form the coachee - the coach must likewise ensure that he (or she) is being honest in answering the questions.

Aside from that one stumbling block, I find no other reason why it shouldn't work. Have I tried it yet? Honestly?... not yet. I see this as a checklist to go through when a decision has to be made - one pertaining to something possibly life-changing like a new career. So I guess I'm just waiting for the rgiht opportunity to use these ten guiding questions.

When that happens, I hope it does work.

A co-facilitator of mine asked me a question relating to a topic about a particular leadership style called the Leader's Window by John Beck.


To give an idea as to what the Leader's Window is all about, think of a window equally divided into 4 quadrants - two above and two below separated of course by two lines - one vertical and the other, horizontal. Now... think of this as a chart - with the base (the x-axis of said chart) representing a measurement called 'Task' and the y-axis representative of teh chart's left side, reffered to as the 'Relationship' side. For those of you familiar with Ken Blanchard's Situational Leadership, the illustration is very similar - I won't be surprised if Blanchard's illustration (and idea) was a precursor to the idea (and illustration) by Beck.


The idea is that these four quadrants represent the following combination of Task/Relationship:


Lower right quadrant is repersentative of Low relationship but high tasks, ( a.k.a. S1)

Upper right quadrant represents a High task, as well as a High relationship combination (S2)

Upper left quadrant represents High relationship but Lower tasks (S3)

Lower left quadrant represents (S4) where tasks and relationships are lessened and a similar situation happened with tasks.



Anyway... getting to my point, these quadrants represent the four ways leadership can be handled with certain individuals - its a model useable by all - it likewise happens to be (as mentioned earlier) easily interpreted by any previous readers of Blanchard's Situational Leadership.

S1 represents a leadership style that sets direction - leaving nothing to chance, never mind the opinionis of others. It is, after all a low relationship factor, yet high in instructions / directions giving.


On the other hand, S2 is high in both Tasks (instructions) and Relationship (communication).


One activity asks the participants to decide which fits more for a given scenario - you have a Best Friend who's ready and willing ot help in a Kitchen renovation - but mind you, with no known skills. And you have a sibling (brother or sister) who is likewise untrained but not as excited in helping with the Kitchen renovation.

The solution given by Beck's case is that for the sister, you use S1 (high task, low relationship); while the best friend is handled with S2 (high task, high relationship). My co-facilitator's bone of contention is that why is this the case, shouldn't it be the other way around?

For a long time, I thought of this as well and if we simply look at things from a Blanchard perspective, that should be the right solution (sister S2; friend S1) because the sister needed a higher relationship style - to possibly convince her to help... remember her low motivation? Whereas the best friend would be more high task, but no need for a high relationship, since this friend is a genuine volunteer. This is the Situational Leadership approach. So what makes L4 see things differently?

Beck has a formula... P = A+M (potential = ability + motivation), and to make a long story short, out of a possible high of 4 (A=2 and M=2) to a possible 0 (A=0 and M=0), we'd have a P1 alligned with S1, P2 alligned with S2, etc... The Sister had an ability of 1 and motivation of 0, while the Friend had ability and motivation of 1 each - hence his was a higher potetial whihc landed in S2.

The reason for this seemingly incongruent thought is that in as S2, you ask them for their input - and the sister wouldn't care less, while the friend would be excited - so we use the less strict style on the friend and the one with tighter control on the sister.

I may be talking goobeldy-gook to some folks here - not surprising since its a blog that enterd the middle of a story and told in a very short manner. I will endeavor to explain things in more detail in succeeding posts.

Note: I recently changed the title of this blog from 'On Facilitating' to "On Facilitating, Coaching and Leading" - why? Well, upon reviewing what I was placing in this site, I realized that most of what I was alluding to, were not just exclusive facilitating skills, techniques or topics - not really.

I therefore just expounded the blog to cover a wider range of topics, and align the title with its contents. Though most of the article may still be facilitator-based, the expanded focus allows me better leeway in inserting ideas, monologues, articles about the three items.

I relate strongly to these three roles, and it is but natural that I like discussing them. Entries to this blog should therefore start picking up, specially since its coverage has expanded.

One of the greater challenges of a facilitator is the lead in query usually mentioned by us in any training. Its simple, yet can be very risky for some - and yet it also shows that we are ready to take on anything that our participants may dish out. What is this lead in query?

"What Questions do you have?"

This means we are inviting anyone to ask questions about the topic - but things don't really just limit themselves to what was discussed - as is often the case, many of my participants ask queries related to the topic, yet are focused on their hoping to hear some comment, opinion or clarification about their situation, problem or concern. At times the questions seem innocent enough, yet they carry deep undertones.

As a facilitator therefore, I need to consider the question - its possible different dimensions and implications. I, of course answer it as best I can. At times a truthful answer may not be what the question's owner needs - at other times, I have to qualify my response as a 'personal opinion' as opposed to this being company policy - specially when what I am about to say is not official company standard lines or answers. Most of the time, I remain candid - and I guess that this is one trait my participants respect in me.

I am willing to answer the question - but I clarify if what I am saying is what the 'official line' is, and if I have a varying opinion to this , I likewise specify my 'personal' counterpoint. In answering some questions, I have to clarify what 'hat' I am wearing - what viewpoint I am coming from... whether it is as an empathizing colleague, or a more measured response from a manager/leader. People like this approach - they know I'm not keeping things form them, and they respond with positive feedback.

The Q & A portion is a dreaded segment not just in trainings, but in public presentations - and many who dread this probably fear themselves looking incompetent or foolish. This may be true if one cannot give a valid answer and then tries to give it anyway. There is also the fear of ridicule - and though I may have had my share of irate or difficult audience members, I have yet to see someone openly contradict me or shame me while I am talking. Why so? Am I just lucky? No... truth to tell, I inform my participants if their query is answerable by me - or if they should consult others about the answer they are looking for.

I don't pretend to be an expert, I don't' force any issue - I simply inform... either by giving an answer - or two, by giving my personal opinion or measured advice, but I will also be the first to admit if I am not an expert in a particular field - but this does not mean I won't help them explore their dilemma, query or concern. I extend a hand to help - if not answer, to understand.

Maybe this helps them - if not by finding the answer, by at least realizing that I am willing to help. Sometimes, this is enough to turn what may be a possible vociferous complaint for not helping them, into a grudging acceptance of my limitations. There is no such thing as a master of all things - that is just hubris... and hubris is the dichotomy of earnestness.

Answer honestly, answer candidly - if need be, explain your answer - if you can't address the question, offer to help them find the answer or solution - then own up to solving it, to helping them. That should get anyone through those next challenges in handling queries when said difficult or challenging questions do pop up.