Category: leadership

Interactions

FabrizioLeave a comment

In a period in which everyone (rightfully) promotes remote and flexible work, and in which technology is at such a stage to make these things very possible, let’s not forget the importance of having a face-to-face chat, of getting to know the people you work with on a personal level, of being able to sit at the same table with others to crack a problem that’s preventing you from moving forward.

Human beings need these types of interaction, and it is strongly correlated to their motivation, engagement and to the quality of their work.

Three ways to manage

Fabrizio1 Comment

Three different ways to manage people.

Here is how you do it – This is the way of (micro)management, telling people what is the right way to do their job. We like to think of this way as a way of the past, a way of the age of manual production lines and repetitive tasks. The objective of this way is to achieve more with less, and for this reason jobs are highly scrutinized, controlled and standardized.

Here is what to do – This is the way of project management. There’s a job to do, the manager splits it into discrete tasks, and assigns the tasks to those who report to them (or sometimes those who report to them get to pick the task they want). There’s usually some sort of performance review attached to this way, and it’s fairly straightforward, as the tasks need to be ready on time, on budget, and on scope.

Here is what to figure out – This is the way of leadership. We know we have a problem, we have identified the problem and agreed on a fairly broad definition of it, and now let’s bring our expertise, knowledge, skills together to attempt to solve it. Measurements do not really fit well with this way of management, and that’s perhaps why so many people feel uncomfortable with it.

Chosen

FabrizioLeave a comment

When choosing someone for a task, make sure you clarify the reason why they’ve been chosen.

You were the first one entering the door this morning.

Everyone else is very busy at the moment.

We’ve already purchased a license for you.

I allocated the tasks so that everyone has a fair chance to show their value.

Sure, these are reasons, and they are used more often than one thinks. But if we leave these decisions to chance or rationality, chances are the person chosen will not really feel motivated to do the task. After all, if anyone can do it, why give that little bit more, why deliver your best game, why bother in the first place.

We consider this a critical task for the company, because of X and Y. You have shown you can deliver fantastic job in this area, for example when Z. You have also told me that you are passionate about A and would like to contribute. This is why I could not think of anyone better in the team to take on this challenge and really turn things around. What do you think?

On the other hand, if the decision is based on a real knowledge of the other person, of their job, of their strengths, of their passions, of what they care about. Well, you can expect the outcome to be a whole lot different, can’t you?

Interests

Fabrizio1 Comment

No company intentionally goes against its interests, the so called shareholders value.

Some companies, though, pursue shareholders value in the long term. And not surprisingly, by doing so, they also manage to more positively contribute to the communities they operate in.

Other companies, instead, pursue shareholders value in the short term. And when doing that, it’s very challenging to also juggle the interests of people that happen to live where the company carries out its business.

A good example of the first type of company is Mars. In 2009, 2013, and 2016, Mars has interpreted a raising trend and has shrinked the size of their snacks, so that they could be consumed while still meeting general guidelines for the assumption of sugars. They have also doubled down on the effort by challenging some high level partnerships and campaigning to reduce weekly consumption of their products.

A good example of the second type of company is Facebook. Despite having been asked to take action for the negative effects on communities all over the world – from threatening western democracies to being a platform used for inciting genocide, from the horrific impact on mental health to the malicious inflation of ads metrics to fulfill their own agenda -, management sticks to their guns and refuses to translate a part of their financial success into effective measures to counter these (and other) problems.

A company is never expected to be a charity, and there are negative side effects to most products or services we are happy to live with. Yet the way business is done draws a clear line between the two types. As you build and grow (or help building and growing) your organisation, you should think about on what side you want it to be.

You are out

FabrizioLeave a comment

There comes a time in most relationships (sentimental or not) when the parts involved simply do not trust each other anymore.

No matter what they say, no matter how hard they try, no matter how much time and resources you spend making their case.

Actually, continuing to state the case in these situations is futile. Chances are the main arguments, values, plans are at least part of the reason why the distrust started developing. So, if that’s all each part has to contribute, the relationship is over.

The only thing to do in these cases is take a step back.

Open your mind, listen, apologize if needed (it usually is). Be critical of your original stance and see if there’s still space for a part of it.

Relationships, as most things, evolve. When you do not evolve with them, you are out.