Is My Ship Sinking?

“This too will pass”.   I’ve heard this phrase uttered often and recently by aerospace and defense (A&D) leaders.  Decisions and actions (or inaction) echo the same sentiment.  Months ago, the concern over sequestration was muted and nearly imperceptible.  Now, with just two weeks left, it appears that some may be taking the whole thing seriously.  Yet sequestration is just one factor A&D executives should be concerned with.  The more significant issue is the fundamental shift underway in the entire market.  Have you missed it?  Is your company prepared for rough seas?  Will you survive or sink?  Is your company on a path to slowly rust away before disappearing?

It’s understandable that seasoned A&D professionals look at the current defense budget with a jaundiced glance.  Having survived previous downsizing periods, they reason that the tide will once again turn.  For a substantial number of mid-upper tier management, the last major contraction followed the fall of the Berlin wall.  At that time, the expected “peace dividend” motivated a period of industry consolidation.  Those that survived felt vindicated when defense spending turned around after 9/11.  Many believe that a new conflict or some other security crisis will reverse the downward trend just like it had previously. 

The downward trend in defense will continue and reach a new, lower ‘norm’.

Why do I believe this contraction is different than others?  What should A&D leaders do if in fact, this turns out to be the case?  Not since World War II, has the Nation’s debt been such a significant concern.  Coupled with a deep recession and prolonged recovery, the Country cannot outrun its debt with growth or taxes.  The economic conditions are exacerbated by a global economy that remains in a funk.  What this means for A&D companies is that the ‘safe harbor’ of international sales used to cushion reduced US budgets won’t materialize.  While these two factors alone could be overcome with time, another factor signals a change in the underlying structure of the A&D industry itself.

That structural change consists of a complex array of issues that will forever transform the way the Defense Department buys.  The signs have been evident for years and sadly companies chose to consider them anomalies instead of sea-state changes.  For example, R&D spending used to be a given in most development efforts.  The Government now has placed more pressure on companies to make their own investments and bring working product to the market instead of relying on RDT&E. The push for more fixed price contracting, the emergence of lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) practices, and a myriad of other shifts have all signaled that Government intends on being a much more disciplined and assertive buyer.  Troubled programs were often terminated and later resurrected with a new name.  Can you name a program that has been restarted lately?

Another shift has been the extended time from RFP to award.  What was once a reasonably predictable timetable has now become unreliable.  Acquisitions within the US are beginning to look more like international sales with cycle times measured in years not months.  Then there are the protracted budget battles that have driven yearly continuing resolutions (CR).  Each year Congress and the Executive branch fail to meet their budgetary obligations on time.  The increased use of CR delays contract awards and impinges on release of funds for ongoing work.  The pattern of annual threats over Government shutdowns is also having a significant effect. 

Large companies often floated the Government during these times by continuing work without timely payment.  Those days however may be rapidly disappearing.  Shareholders will be more reluctant to “loan” money to the Government when there is so much uncertainty.  Smaller companies who have always had a challenge staying in operation during these disruptions will find no safe harbor.  So if there is a Government shutdown or protracted CR, will defense production continue or will companies refuse to work?

There are far fewer systems where Government investment is warranted.  Increased reliance on cyber and other forms of warfare make the traditional RDT&E process increasingly irrelevant.  The new ‘norm’ capitalizes on the pace and advances of commercial technologies that enable them to field new capability without substantial modifications.  When service members utilize their own mobile technology in the field adapting and creating solutions on-the-fly, it raises questions as to the true value of an elaborate acquisition system.  A recent WSJ article highlighted how the F-35 software process is ill-equipped to meet the rapid pace of change.  It used to be that A&D led the technology charge, now they are trying to catch a speeding bullet train that left the station years ago.

A&D leaders have important decisions they should be preparing for or have already made.  First, can the company remain profitable and viable as an A&D enterprise?  If so, in what ways will the company be able to grow in spite of a prolonged contraction in defense spending?  If not, what markets or opportunities have the highest probability of supporting a successful transition?  What products, technologies, and skills are transferable to these new markets?  Which ones should be eliminated?  And these are just the start.  Instead of relishing the success of the past, responsible leaders should be gazing into the future and preparing for the emergence of an entirely new industry.  And the visionaries in that bunch will actually be out front creating it.

Duane Grove is founder of Connect2Action, a strategy execution specialist at the intersection of employee engagement and executive leadership, igniting innovation as a lever to accelerate your growth.  Follow Duane on Twitter @connect2action and connect with him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google+.  Learn more by visiting www.connect2action.com.

The Water Cooler is Empty - Revisited

Companies continue to not “get it” when it comes to social media.  Most view social media as a direct threat, forgetting its origins in the “water cooler” talk that fomented effective organizational communication.  Social media is our new water cooler, with a twist.

Before the advent of social media, employees used hallway talk to air issues, complaints, and opinions.  This talk allowed for frank discussion about management’s shortcomings, creating an authentic organizational communication foundation.  While much of this talk was hidden, occasionally management would get a whiff, but not enough to understand it.  The water cooler whispers were the communication currency of those not plugged into management.  And management was perplexed by that rumor, partially because pinning down its source was nigh impossible.  The “employee channel” was a closely guarded, subscription-only service that management was not qualified to receive.

Enter social media.  Initially used largely for people to connect with friends and stay in touch, it quickly evolved into an outlet of frustrations, opinions, and observations regarding the work organization, a consequence of our inability to easily separate our lives into “personal” and “work” compartments.  While hallway talk continues, this new outlet offers another voice.  This trend will accelerate as younger workers fill company desks.  These employees live in a social media world and social media is their method of communication.

Here’s where companies miss the boat: we’ve seen companies and organizations scour employee social media accounts to learn what those employees are saying about the company, and then use that information to discipline the employee should they step out of bounds.  Water cooler discussions have been happening since the advent of teams.  The difference now is that there is a record of the conversation with attribution, where in the past, employees had plausible deniability.   Companies should welcome social media chatter instead of squelching it by punishing the perpetrators.  Social media is a direct means of pinpointing issues -- without which these issues will remain hidden, only to surface later with higher consequences and more dire remedies.

Social media is an opportunity for enlightened organizations to understand employee communication.  Finally companies have a window into water cooler talk!   Knowing the chatter allows management to understand and preempt potential issues.  Social raises the volume on the hallway whispers while eliminating guesswork.  Bad managers and organizational decisions have deep negative consequences to organizational success, but complaints about those managers and decisions surface too late in the world of hallway talk.  Social media accelerates the problem identification.

Instead of companies using social media monitoring to control employees, they should view it as an essential part of a healthy organization.  Savvy companies will go so far as to sponsor such a resource internally, giving employees an anonymous outlet to let off steam. 

Social media is not going away.  Ignore it at your peril.  The sooner social media is embraced as a positive, creative, and supportive resource, the sooner it will benefit your company. 

Duane Grove is the founder of Connect2Action, a strategy execution specialist at the intersection of employee engagement and executive leadership, igniting innovation as a lever to accelerate your growth.  Follow Duane on Twitter @connect2action and connect with him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google+.  Learn more by visiting www.connect2action.com.

Multi-Tasking is a Farce!

Everyone is trying to multi-task in the fast-paced world we live in.  But is there really such a thing as multi-tasking?  There isn’t!  What we pawn off as multi-tasking is rapidly changing bursts of focus.  The human brain is really not capable of multi-tasking.  Let me explain.

Take for example what happens when someone is walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time.  In our brains specialized areas responsible for these coordination skills are working in parallel.  These functions are happening automatically – in other words, we don’t have to ‘think’ about it.  If instead we focused on chewing, we would find it increasingly difficult to walk.  Tasks that require focus can only be processed one step at a time.  When we “multi-task” we are simply shifting the focus gears faster, but we aren’t doing two or more things at once.

Consider the work of a potter.  Their focus on the clay in front of them is critical.  Every detail must be attended to if the piece is to become what they intended.  Now imagine in the middle of spinning the wheel, the artist looks up to speak to someone.  What do you think happens to their piece?  Chances are, it starts to fall apart.  A loss of focus surely results in a mess.  How is other work we do different?  It isn't.

I don’t like the analogy, but think about how computers perform multi-tasking.  What happens is that a task is divided into segments that are then distributed to multiple processors before returning results and recompiling them.  Each processor is executing a stack of instructions in serial order.  It appears to the observer that the computer is doing more than one thing at a time, but in reality each processor is operating independently doing one task at a time.

Now be honest (and we’ve all done this).  You’re at your desk working on a document when the phone rings.  You interrupt the work to answer the phone and put it on speaker to keep your hands free.  As the person is talking, you keep typing away – ah you are multi-tasking!  However, halfway through the conversation, you lose your train of thought.  The person on the other end suddenly gets your attention with a “have you even heard what I’ve been saying?” to wit you ask them to repeat it.  Your focus had shifted from the person to the document and you missed the conversation.  This happens because the part of the brain that helps us maintain focus can only do one thing at a time.  You may be able to shorten the bursts of focus and chunk them up trading back and forth between tasks, but you’re still only doing one thing at a time.

In companies and organizations, multi-tasking is seen as a positive attribute.  But what would you say to someone who said their greatest strength was an ability to rapidly shift focus from one topic to the next without ever completing a task or maintaining quality?  That is in fact what “multi-tasking” usually results in.  When you interrupt your focus it’s very easy to lose your train of thought.  When you return to the task you stopped (even for a moment), you often have to back up a few steps and regain your focus – and that’s if you’re lucky enough to remember where you left off.  What companies mistake as productivity (multi-tasking) comes at the price of lost clarity and momentum. 

Zen masters had it right all along.  They teach to be singularly focused and mindful in everything you do.  They encourage us to focus on a task and complete it before moving on.  If you can’t complete something, then leave it in a state of rest where it is easier to pick up where you left off.  When we pile so much on our plate that our minds are bouncing around like a Ping-Pong match, we find ourselves falling further behind.  Speeding things up won’t make the process work any better.  Multi-tasking is a productivity killer!

Try being more mindful in how you approach things.  Take the necessary time to do it well and enjoy the peace that comes from knowing you have removed one more thing from your plate.  This doesn’t mean slowing down, but it does mean retaining focus.  If your phone rings next time and you can’t afford to stop what you’re doing, let it ring.  If you choose to pick it up, explain to the other person you need to complete something and call them back.  Being singularly focused is how our brains work.  If you’re looking for productivity, choose to focus. 

Duane Grove is founder of Connect2Action, a strategy execution specialist at the intersection of employee engagement and executive leadership, igniting innovation as a lever to accelerate your growth.  Follow Duane on Twitter @connect2action and connect with him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google+.  Learn more by visiting www.connect2action.com.

You can follow his blogs at:  mindfulperspectives.blogspot.com and connect2action.blogspot.com

The Water Cooler is Empty – Social Has Replaced It

I’m amazed at how arcane companies are when it comes to social media.  Most view it as a direct threat to their authority.  Have these executives forgotten about the “water cooler” talk that formed the undercurrent of organizational communication?  Social media is the new water cooler but with some added advantages for those companies willing to embrace it.

Before the advent of social media, employees used hallway talk and the “rumor mill” to discuss their issues, complaints, and opinions.  Most of that talk centered around how ‘incompetent’, ‘idiotic’, … management was.  These discussions formed the foundation of the authentic communication within an organization.  Most of this talk remained within the employee underground.  On occasion, management would get a whiff of something in the air, but could rarely pin it down let alone address it.  Whispers around the water cooler are where people got their “real” information.  Rumor was the communication currency of those not plugged into management.  And management was often perplexed by what they observed in their organization because pinning down its source was nearly impossible.  The “employee channel” was a closely guarded, subscription-only service that management was not qualified to receive.

Enter social media.  Initially used largely for people to connect with friends and stay in touch, it has quickly evolved into an outlet to voice frustrations, opinions, and observations regarding the organizations people work in.  This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone since we don’t easily separate our lives into “personal” and “work” compartments.  We all share these thoughts with family and friends, and social media is now simply another means of doing so.  Certainly, hallway talk continues, but this new outlet offers yet another means of giving it voice.  As younger generations of workers fill company desks, this trend will only accelerate.  Many of these employees grew up in a social media world and it’s natural that they would use those means to communicate with others.

Here’s where companies miss the boat.  You don’t have to research much to find examples of companies and organizations scouring through employee social media accounts to learn what they may be saying about the company.  So far - so good.  However, what often happens is that people are disciplined, chastised, even fired for what they post.  How is this really any different than the water cooler?  These discussions have been happening since the advent of teams, but social media somehow makes this different?  The only difference now is that there is a "record" of the conversation where in the past, people could simply deny they ever said anything.  Companies should welcome this instead of looking to squelch it or punish the “perpetrators”.  There is now a more direct means of pinpointing where issues exist.  Without social media, many of these issues could persist for long periods of time only surfacing much later when the consequences are high and the remedies more difficult.

Social media should be viewed as transformative in the way organizations handle employee communication.  For once, there is a means by which companies can get a window into the talk around the water cooler.  Knowing what the chatter is allows management to address it.  It raises the volume on the whispers in the hallway and helps to eliminate the guesswork.  Instead of lambasting an employee for a social media outburst about their manager, companies should use it as a means of spotlighting problem areas before they escalate.  Bad managers cost companies money, but complaints often surface too late in the world of hallway talk and rumor.  Social media can serve to accelerate the process of identifying the problems.

So instead of companies using social media monitoring as a battering ram, they should consider its value as a window into their organization.  Savvy companies could even go so far as to sponsor such a resource internally, giving employees an anonymous outlet to let off steam.  Regardless, companies need to realize that social media is not going away and will only evolve and proliferate further.  Ignore it at your peril.  The sooner it is embraced as a positive, creative, and supportive resource, the sooner it will begin benefiting the company.  Want to keep good employees?  Give them a voice.  That voice increasingly includes social media, so get with the program!

Duane Grove is founder of Connect2Action, a strategy execution specialist at the intersection of employee engagement and executive leadership, igniting innovation as a lever to accelerate your growth.  Follow Duane on Twitter @connect2action and connect with him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google+.  Learn more by visiting www.connect2action.com.

Exposing the Uncertainty Shadow

In a recent article, I addressed the uncertainty companies face in the current market environment and National fiscal dilemma (see http://connect2action.blogspot.com/2013/01/all-in-navigating-turbulence.html).  Ellsberg’s Paradox is potentially useful in understanding why many are choosing to wait until the fog clears.  The human tendency to avoid ambiguity and uncertainty sometimes defies logic.  When executives succumb to Ellsberg’s Paradox, they close out options and constrain creative thinking in ways that may not be beneficial.

The Ellsberg Paradox is often demonstrated with the following illustration.  Placed before you are two opaque jars.  Jar #1 contains 10 white and 10 black marbles.  Jar #2 contains 20 marbles but the ratio of black and white is not known.  The marbles in each jar are assumed to be well distributed.  You are asked to draw a black marble from either jar and if successful, you will be given $100.  Which jar do you choose to draw from?  Most will choose Jar #1 believing their chances are better even though in actuality they aren’t.  Your odds are essentially the same with either jar.  But there is a tendency to select from the jar where the proportions are known because of what is known as ambiguity aversion.  Let's face it, most of us don't like situations where the alternatives aren't very clear. 

So what does Ellsberg have to do with the uncertainty executives and leaders face today?  The key has to do with discipline and critical thinking.  First, additional research using the Ellsberg Paradox points to higher levels of activity in the amygdala when subjects face ambiguity or uncertainty.  This is important because it is the amygdala which is the base instinct part of the brain – our fight or flight response.  Therefore, when faced with two or more options where you may have more information with one over the others, the natural tendency is to flee to the one you know more about without logically considering the others.  This is where discipline is important.  You have to train and restrain the brain from jumping to a course of action too quickly.  In other words, pause, take a deep breath, and think!

Once you’ve been able interrupt the tendency to flee, it’s important to apply critical thinking skills to carefully evaluate the alternatives.  One of my favorite tools is the Cynefin framework.  This allows you to dissect the situation, classify it then use basic problem solving techniques.  Another popular and useful approach is TRIZ.  In addition to these, brainstorming and other problem solving tools may be equally relevant and useful.  Whatever approach you select, it’s important that you take the time to carefully explore and potentially experiment with the options.  This process actually reduces uncertainty and ambiguity not only pertaining to that option, but the entire situation.  In the end, you will be better equipped to make a decision having explored the alternatives.

For executives and leaders staring into the fog of uncertainty where traditional scenario tools and predictive analysis have failed, a new approach is warranted.  Sitting on the sidelines waiting for the fog to lift is a decision – one most likely born as a victim of Ellsberg’s Paradox.  You can reason that choosing to wait represents a choice where the future may be 50% good or 50% bad.  No one can accurately predict if/when the fog will lift.  Even if it does, it most certainly will be replaced by yet another fogbank of ambiguity. 

While sitting on the shore, you will never know if an opportunity that could dramatically improve your situation lies just beyond.  Those willing to sail ahead may find the way clear and set course in due haste.  Those companies will have beat you to the next great opportunity.  It is possible they could land on the reef and sink and some most likely will.  What is certain is those that choose to wait may never reach their destination choosing instead to grow old and die as castaways protecting an island no one cares for anymore.

Duane Grove is founder of Connect2Action, a strategy execution specialist at the intersection of employee engagement and executive leadership, igniting innovation as a lever to accelerate your growth.  Follow Duane on Twitter @connect2action and connect with him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google+.  Learn more by visiting www.connect2action.com.

All In – Navigating Turbulence

While Washington politicians continue to argue over the fiscal cliff and the Nation’s tenuous financial position, companies may feel left on the sidelines.  Many are caught up in the turbulence waiting to make investment decisions and struggling with how to adapt their strategies in an environment of uncertainty.  Some are taking a strategic pause waiting out decisions.  Unfortunately, they wait with no voice in the debate, a seemingly decreasing list of options, and a market that continues to churn on.

Standing on the sidelines searching for a way to navigate these waters is a recipe for decline.  Holding onto customers and programs while drawing down on backlog cannot deliver growth.  Executives may believe they can outlast the turmoil, conserve resources, and ultimately emerge relatively unharmed.  But, standing still is a recipe for disaster and demise.  Companies willing to turn their face into the wind and press forward are more likely to emerge stronger and better positioned.  Deciding to stay on the bench will lead to entropy and decline.

Companies should instead play all the cards in their deck while remaining mindful of their environment and the risks involved.  Great poker players often remain in the game despite the cards they’ve been dealt.  These players have learned to keep their options open.  You can’t win if you fold.  Going “all in” is sometimes a strategy to bluff and deceive opponents that your hand is stronger than it actually is.  Other times, you push your chips in because the odds are clearly in your favor.  Poker is a game of risk and while there are strategies that improve your chances to win, the turn of the deck still creates a wild card for which you may win or lose.

What does this mean for companies facing an uncertain future?  First, companies should recognize that choosing to wait for a better hand is like folding.  In the market, there is no such thing as holding your hand.  If you’re not moving forward, you’re headed backward.  While the next hand may offer a better chance to win, it may be equally bad or worse than the hand you have now.  You may be able to conserve your cash by choosing not to play, but someone will win and they will have an even greater reserve to draw from in the next round.  Companies should be in the game to win, not lose.  Despite the circumstances, there are always companies that find a way to capitalize.  This is where innovation comes in. 

Second, you can’t accurately anticipate what your competitors will do.  Staying in the game gives you more information to assess the hands of others at the table.  A bluff is often designed to get your competitor to show their hand first.  It also costs your competitor more to stay longer (as it does you).  This kind of hardball approach drains a competitor’s bank making it more difficult for them to play the next round.  To make this effective, you should have an exit plan knowing at what point you choose to walk from the hand.  Staying competitive allows your organization to remain sharp.  You learn more when you’re in the game, not watching from the sidelines.  By choosing to wait, your organization is losing its competitive muscle and will be weaker.  Keep your competitive edge by playing!

Lastly, when you know you’ve got a strong hand, play it well.  Many companies have great products or capabilities that can be readily adapted to the table they're playing.  Be careful not to overplay your hand and not go “all in” too soon.  Markets change rapidly and if you show your hand too soon, you give competitors an opportunity to play you deep and exhaust your resources.  Keep in mind that the same hardball approach could be played against you.

Dealing with uncertainty separates winners from losers.  Companies should keep all their options in play and remain agile enough to capitalize on emergent opportunities.  That should mean a balanced mix of:

• ·      Maintaining current business through superior customer service.
• ·      Constantly searching out and implementing efficiencies to drive out cost.
• ·      Innovating to create new products and capabilities or to open new markets.
• ·      Experimenting and pursuing new business models and adapting to market shifts.
• ·      Staying competitive by staying in the game.  Don’t let your competition muscles get soft.

Play all your cards and consider folding only when it’s clear your hand will lose.  You won’t win if you don’t step up to the table and play.

Duane Grove is founder of Connect2Action, a strategy execution specialist at the intersection of employee engagement and executive leadership, igniting innovation as a lever to accelerate your growth.  Follow Duane on Twitter @connect2action and connect with him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google+.  Learn more by visiting www.connect2action.com.

Finding Answers or Creating Solutions

I had the privilege today of spending time with a local professor of one of Colorado’s leading universities.  It’s always a privilege spending time with him and I’ve had the opportunity to guest lecture with his students.  What makes it exciting to work with him is his intense and deep-seated pursuit of education excellence.  He endeavors to find ways to not only enhance the learning experience, but to deepen it in a way that prepares his students for successful careers.  His care and concern for those entrusted to him is what education is all about.

We discussed the recurring concern he has with student’s abilities to apply critical thinking.  I reflected on these concerns in a piece I wrote over the summer (http://connect2action.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-death-of-curiosity-and-critical.html).  As we talked about his latest efforts and experiments with new technologies and techniques to improve creativity in learning, it occurred to me that there is a huge difference between finding answers and creating solutions.

With the vast resources available today, it’s far easier to find the answer to a particular question simply by looking it up.  Beginning in grade school, students discover that a quick Internet search will often yield the specific answer to nearly any question.  If that is all that is required, to what extent has learning taken place?  If searching for and retrieving an answer is sufficient to meet the academic requirement, has the student learned anything of perpetual value?  One of the things we discussed was the application of learning from one context to another.  In other words, if certain principles hold true in one context, how might they apply in another?  If you don’t have to solve the problem through analysis and deduction, you probably won’t have the skills to adapt one set of principles for a different situation.  Further, you probably won’t be able to recognize when certain principles apply and when they don’t.

 

Creating solutions requires skills far beyond finding answers.  In my experience in industry, it’s evident that many are missing this important link in the education they are receiving.  Solutions not only require foundational knowledge, but the ability to connect the dots in new and creative ways.  It requires a high degree of curiosity and a certain explorer mentality.  It’s not enough to know the answer to a problem.  Instead, value is found in knowing how the answer was derived including the many paths of failure along the way.  It also requires an ability to know when a situation is different enough that a standard answer doesn’t apply.  Adding to the complexity is the human dynamic which often distorts or changes the environment in unpredictable ways.

This is the work my professor colleague is focused on and I applaud and respect him for it.  We should encourage ourselves and others to ask ‘how’ and ‘why’ instead of simply asking ‘what’ the answer is.  Curiosity is a creative attribute and we need to cultivate and value it in our organizations.  If we hope to develop solutions to today’s problems, we need to quit relying on a simple search for answers and instead journey into that creative place within each of us.

Duane Grove is founder of Connect2Action, a strategy execution specialist at the intersection of employee engagement and executive leadership, igniting innovation as a lever to accelerate your growth.  Follow Duane on Twitter @connect2action and connect with him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google+.  Learn more by visiting www.connect2action.com.