HELP!

It's no coincidence that the Universe randomized The Beatles' "Help" for me yesterday. I often skip it, so cliche, so over-played. But really, it's a heart-felt anthem to my journey point right now.

I know I can't build my business alone. Yet how many of us feel alone, especially when we're bootstrapping a startup and the waters are rising. We can't afford the help we need, and somehow the help we can afford just doesn't seem to bridge the gap. Getting help is often more effort than trying to slog through without it. When help is heavy, is it help at all?

Well, maybe. But often, it really isn't.

Why is help so heavy? Because it's so expensive to give.

What are some common forms of help?

• Resources - help with money, tangible assets, service, support
• Activity - help with getting something done
• Connection/Referral - help making a connection that can possibly provide resources, activity or further connection
• Advice - help with understanding, clarifying and deciding

Why are these forms of help so expensive for a Helper to give? And, more importantly, why are they so expensive for a Receiver to receive? 

So, let's look at Resources.

Resources are expensive to give because resources are already in use. Giving resources requires at least a short-term loss, and increased risk of an unbalanced exchange over time. Unless giving them generates immediate value back to the Giver, it's hard to shake them loose from an organization or a life. Decision-makers must trade-off their social capital and budget items to make space, and even if they want to, they may not be allowed. 

So, it's unlikely you'll be offered much help in the form of resources, even if you're offering a longer-term pay-back. But don't worry:

You may not want those resources anyway. 

Why not?

Start with Money

Money is the vehicle of economic value, and so it is the most flexible, and therefore most guarded, resource. Under these circumstances, money comes with lots of strings. That is, contracts. Legally binding requirements that the money be used a certain way, recoverable a certain way, provide a certain benefit. Socially binding requirements that allow the money-givers to interfere with and influence how you do your work. Bureaucratically-binding requirements for report-back, feedback integration, tracking systems and process certifications. Overhead that sometimes makes you wonder - how much is this help costing me? 

Of course, that's after they decide to give you money. Before that, you must beg in many time-consuming ways including (but not limited to) networking activities, creation of sponsorship packages, engaging onerous application processes, giving presentations, participating in contests and panel-judged competitions, and all manner of distraction from your business. Money is definitely the most expensive resource to receive. 

Okay, Money's expensive. But what about Tangible Assets - like space, equipment, or help with support and services?

Tangible Assets

Tangible assets, like space and equipment, are hard to give unless there is excess, and few people or organizations carry excess for long. Every square foot has a price between $2 and $$$$, and eventually, someone must account for its use. When a financial analyst changes space into money, it runs into the same difficulties as money.

From a business perspective, we can't build our foundations on shaky ground.  

Available space is particularly enticing - a space to do our work feels essential. Yet, if the space is temporary, it might prevent us from looking for a real home where we can settle in and get the work done. Moving has tremendous overhead. If our tenancy is precarious, we might find ourselves homeless at a particularly inconvenient time, moving our network and furniture when we want to be driving our product and marketing efforts. Space also co-locates, which can be very beneficial. It can also mean that you get distracted from your own business. These aren't reasons not to use space, just reasons why it's costly. The cost-benefit analysis is yours to make. 

Equipment may be useful, and being hand-me-down, may not. We take our chances on how big an expense used equipment might be in the long run for maintenance, support and timing of obsolescence. 

So, Tangible Assets come with overhead. But what about real help - like help with support and services?

Services and support are overhead costs to an organization - they don't change with the cost of the product or the sales. They are sometimes easier to get, because to the leader responsible, they are "free." But overhead is always closely watched, and every support person in an organization is generally overtaxed. and support staff can become over-burdened by "helping" you. 

No one is sitting around, waiting to have you add to their workload. Anything else will be their priority - anything for their real boss will take precedence. The service may be slower, less helpful, or difficult to access, and you may feel like you need to minimize your requests and not get what you really need.  Most places already fight for "headcount" just to get the work of the organization done. It quickly becomes a burden unless you begin to pay, and if you are paying, there are probably more straight-forward ways to get better service for the same money. 

I'm not saying help can't be helpful. 

I'm just saying, help can be expensive to receive.

We want to carefully assess the cost-benefit of Help, as we do with our other business decisions, before thinking "help" is the only way we can get done what we need to do. Sometimes, it's more effective and efficient to just do it ourselves. Getting creative about what "help" can look like, being easy to help, and engaging help more lightly are all topics we can talk more about. Get in touch!

I will look at the expense of giving and receiving Activity, Connection/Referral and Advice in further posts. 

*"Contracts": Agreements translated into an unintelligible form of language by experts who only talk with each other and report back simplified translations to the people who are making the agreements, which they seal with a pen-scrawl of their name, often without ever looking each other in the eye. 

Dear Cheryl - A Nice Guy asks...

Dear Cheryl,I try to be a nice guy and get along with everyone, but there are two people in my workplace who are just plain difficult. One is a peer of my boss and I often have to give him information - he will publicly humiliate me, shut me down mid-sentence when I try to answer his questions, and he treats me with total disrespect. The other is a peer of mine, who takes credit for my ideas and she's always jostling for the better project, more attention from management. Sometimes I get so mad I think I will blow up at a meeting or say something I regret. I find myself avoiding them and working around them, but I know that can't last. How can I stay nice and keep working with these two? Sincerely,A Nice Guy reaching his Last Straw

Dear Nice Guy,

People may be difficult because they are still developing certain aspects of their personality, and haven’t reached a level of understanding and competency that would let them behave differently.  If we are more developed in those areas, we can feel compassion for them as they struggle with the results of their underdevelopment, and make efforts to gently help them take opportunities to practice and learn. 

Or maybe they just like being difficult, or have learned that it gets them the results they want.

Either way, we need to keep them from interfering with our purpose, so here are some general suggestions of approaches I’ve found helpful over time. 

If a person is just difficult in an unspecified way…

Try to get to know them.  Get curious about their life.  Imagine their childhood and what they learned from it.  Adapt your approach as though you were dealing with that 8 year old child, while still treating them as an equal.  Celebrate what you learn about them and give them credit for all they’ve accomplished as you learn of it.  Try to find areas of commonality and alignment, and find many opportunities to talk about those things to build rapport.  Appreciative listening, consistently, over time.

If a person is territorial…

Help them to carve out some territory.  Strategically delegate and give up territory that’s not core to your purpose, letting them feel they’ve won it.  Publicly help defend their territory when it’s appropriate to do so.  Clearly stake your own territory and make it clear that you see the benefits of having them keep their territory. 

If a person is political…

Find areas on which you align, and make the most of them.  Help them achieve their agendas in ways that don’t interfere with your core purpose.  Publicly praise them for the things you respect and the good things you notice, on a regular basis.  Most importantly, help them achieve short-term public wins in ways that forward your agenda or at least don’t impede it.

If a person is competitive…

Concede points whenever possible.  Publicly banter with them about their intelligence, overwhelming workload and extraordinary work ethic.  Draw attention to their accomplishments in public, even accuse them of modesty.  Help them achieve wins they care about that don’t interfere with your core purpose.  Watch what things they compete on, and decide whether they are core to your purpose, or whether you could allow them some “wins” over time.  If you do allow a win, ask for a favour as soon as possible, while they may still feel some obligation.

If a person is unresponsive when you try to connect…

Do something nice for them out of the blue.  Save them some time.  Ping them regularly with news items that are in your areas of mutual interest, both personal and professional.  If you know who they listen to, try to build a relationship with those people or ask them to get a response.  If the person reports to someone else and that person is accessible, copy them on an email about the topic.  If they are a volunteer, copy the whole committee on email asking for updates and responses from everyone, then publish generally what has been received and what is outstanding.  If there is someone else from whom you can get some of what you need, do so, but make sure to copy the person and anyone else that’s appropriate on every correspondence.  As a last resort, consider showing up where you know they will be and asking directly if they can help you with a transition plan for the things they are responsible for.

If a person is argumentative…

Forgive them in your heart (this takes lots of practice!).  Acknowledge the extremity of their emotion (you obviously feel very strongly about this; I can hear your passion on this topic; maybe we need to put this issue aside for now).  Identify and clarify their concerns.  Engage them in discussion of what it would take to overcome each of their concerns.  Track progress on a whiteboard.  It may be good to do this individually – ask permission to take it offline for discussion.

If a person is disrespectful…

            …generally:

Behave with integrity and do excellent work to earn their respect.  Pay attention to the people they do respect, and identify what traits win their respect.  Show yourself to demonstrate any of those traits you possess whenever you can.  Cultivate the respect of the people that person respects.  Treat the person with the utmost respect, even slightly exaggerated.  Only say good things about the person, but choose things that are not important or are peripheral to what the listener values. 

…in public:

look directly at the person for long enough to feel uncomfortable and let the silence catch attention from others in the room, then look away.  Maintain eye contact during the silence, pretend no one else is in the room.  You could also decide to find it amusing and smile genially.

…also:

Whenever you reasonably can, ask for the respect you deserve (I’d appreciate if you could use a friendlier tone; I wonder if you would consider speaking more quietly; maybe we could talk about this offline; I wasn’t expecting that; can you explain why you said that?).  Keep your tone easy and straight-forward without inflections of judgment.  This method could follow the uncomfortable silence if it’s systemic behaviour.  Maintain eye contact, pretend no one else is in the room. 

Of course, before doing all of that, you may want to check in with yourself again.  Here are some thinking lines you could take:

• What about you could be triggering behaviours from this person? 
• What is different in your personalities, styles, approaches, expectation and values? 
• How do you feel around them?  What is that based on?
• What are you really concerned about with this person?  What is that based on?  What’s the worst that they could do?
• How do you adapt your behaviour around them? 
• Could any portion of their behaviour be a response to what they perceive in you? 
• What traits do you share with that person, both “positive” and “negative” (although those judgments are relative). 
• Is there something you dislike in that person that you also dislike in yourself?  If so, how does that affect the relationship?
• Do you really want to move past the disconnect, or do you cultivate it?  Why?  Is your decision helpful to your purpose?  Does it hinder it in any way? 
• Who do you like/respect that likes/respects this person?  What are they missing that you see?  Why can’t they see it?  What do they see that you’re missing? 

 You may well find that the majority of the problem results from the other person’s need for development in key areas.  You may find they are just difficult.  You may find that you, yourself, feel very reluctant to treat them better than they seem to deserve. Keep in mind your goals, and the best way to achieve them. Deserving isn't really relevant.

Many people will tell you to forget all this, and just talk with the person about what you're seeing, how it affects you, and your hopes. I  can't disagree - I've seen that work a hundred times. And I've seen it fail a thousand. Trying to have a real, honest conversation without first getting at least a basic level of trust can often prove fatal, especially if the person holds positional power over you. Some of the methods I've described above may help you to put the person more at ease with you, open them a little to trusting you, and start building your understanding of, empathy to, and thoughtfulness towards, the other person. At some point, you may feel ready for the heartfelt conversation that changes everything. Maybe that moment is actually now. Only you can know. 

Either way, hopefully something above can help move things forward. 

Best wishes,

Cheryl

Dear Cheryl: An Unheard Over-Communicator asks...

Dear Cheryl,I get the feeling no one is reading my emails, and I often don't get the responses I need from managers. Recently, one manager told me that my messages are too convoluted and that I share too much information. How is that possible? I thought communication was important? Isn't it true that you can't have too much communication? That same manager will be angry if she doesn't know something important that I was trying to tell her. How can I improve my communication and reduce it at the same time? I'm confused and frustrated. 

Sincerely,Unheard Over-Communicator

Dear Unheard,

Over and under communication are different problems with the same result - information is not getting through the noise. One key way to think about your communications is to ask yourself: Is this an update, a request, or a finding?

I haven't included an Inform category, or Raise Awareness, or Share Information. I haven’t forgotten them, but if you’re being effective, 80% of your outgoing business communication, especially email, will be an update, a request, or a finding. These categories present information in an actionable, useful form. Sharing information that is not an update, a request or a finding tends to provide little value and has the potential to clog up people’s information space.

Update: 

Reporting changes to something your audience cares about

Purpose: To make sure your audience understands the implications of any changes to what they consider important

NOT the Purpose: explaining what’s going on or what’s been done

Some problems you may encounter when giving updates:

·         People think they know what you’re going to say, so they hear what they expect.

·         People don’t remember what you are updating them about or the previous status

·         People think they understand the situation and may not comprehend that they need to actively change their underlying, preconceived notions

·         People get what you’re saying but don’t manage to change all their affected pathways, so they keep remnant expectations.

·         People mistake your Update for a Finding or Request, and get so upset they don’t know what you’re telling them

Request: 

Asking for a responsive action

Purpose: To get your audience to agree that an action needs to be taken

NOT the Purpose: Asking for something

Some problems you may encounter when making requests:

·         People can smell a request a mile away and will be on guard, suspicious

·         Before you ever get to your ask, people will be guessing what it is and evaluating it while you talk or while they read, instead of listening or comprehending

·         People will weigh your request first against your credibility, not your evidence

·         People will pre-decide based on what they already believe and your preamble or explanation can’t touch those beliefs

·         People mostly hear what supports the decision they prefer to make

Finding: 

Reporting the outcome of an action

Purpose: To communicate a completion and the implication to the things your audience cares about 

NOT the purpose: To report the finding.

Some problems you may encounter when reporting findings:

·         They may think this is an update and fail to initiate appropriate action.

·         They may be upset about the finding and unable to digest the evidence.

·         They may not comprehend that no further answer or information will be forthcoming from this track, especially if the outcome is unsatisfactory or unclear.

·         They may not trigger changes to other, related areas of understanding

Understanding the purpose of your communication and limiting yourself to that purpose, keeping in mind how you might address common listening problems in your audience, will help you be more effective in work communications and get the results that communication promises.

Here are a few other tips:

1) Use bullets to itemize lists, rather than listing them in sentences

2) Use bold fonts in email to highlight actions or questions requiring answers

3) Summarize important facts into a list at the start and end of an email - specifically, actions, dates and questions that need answers

4) Provide a time request such as, please provide your feedback to (specific question) by (specific date) for inclusion. 

5) Include a "negative" response request, such as, we will assume you are satisfied with (specific decision or information) if we haven't heard back from you by (specific date). In this case, include the date in the subject line - response required by August 3rd. 

6) Use a separate email for each request, update or finding - keep your messages short and only cover one topic. 

7) Don't use email when a conversation is needed

8) Identify your purpose in the subject line: Update, Finding or Request. For example, your email subject could read: Update - Project A, Goal 9. Or, Finding - Project A, Research Area 1. 

There's lots more to try, but these are a good set to start with. Best of luck, and let me know what works for you!

Cheryl

You have Power (now deal with it)

As a leader, to some people in some circumstances, you are Power. As Uncle Ben would say, with power comes responsibility.

YOU ARE POWER. Being Power means that the person in front of you cannot trust you, no matter how good a guy/gal you are. It also means they SHOULDN’T trust you. You have power. It disrupts your brain. You are in Evaluation Mode whether you like it or not, you are judging this person whether you like it or not, because Power makes you. The question is: are you able, in the moment, to see the judgement?

Power corrupts the brain. Knowledge of power, even unused power, is like being exposed to a toxic, mind-altering chemical. Well, it actually IS being exposed to a mind-altering chemical, if it comes to that. Our bodies and brains have a particular adverse reaction to having power. While responses vary, no one is immune. Accept it. You have power, like you have the flu. The having of power changes your mind in ways you cannot perceive, changes your perceptions and your judgments below your conscious mind. 

Power also changes the people around you. They can’t help it, either. It’s a chemical reaction to your chemical reaction, or maybe it’s just fight-or-flight, but when someone has power over a human, the over-powered human also comes under the mind-altering effect of chemicals in the brain that tell them to be careful not to trigger you to use your power. Or to challenge your power. Again, reactions vary. But anyone who thinks they have immunity is probably delusional, or at least dangerous.

Understanding, not minimizing, the effects of Power lets us mitigate their worst outcomes. So, let's start by acknowledging our institutional, positional "power over" for what it is - a force that makes us less likely to seek common understanding before imposing our view; a force that makes those over whom we hold power less likely to communicate with us honestly and completely. That's where we start, in our work relationships. Now, where do we go?

Don't hold out - just hire someone!

Managers view recruiting through  many lenses - it's hard, it takes a bunch of time, and often we don't find what we need. One reason is that we are trying to hire a perfect machine from a pool of imperfect machines - humans. We think - they must have all these skills, all this knowledge, and be able to hit the ground running. I want people who know what to do and I don’t want to have to teach them how to do it. 

Too bad.

That’s right, that’s what I said. Too bad. Suck it up, buttercup. You may be lucky and have ONE person who comes to you like that, all trained up and perfect. You can spend all your hiring resources trying to find that one person, and maybe you will. But it’s not the safest bet on the table, even though the payoff looks tempting. You’ll lose your shirt.

The honest truth? You can't hire the person you want, only a person who exists and applies. If they are qualified enough that you are interviewing them, and they seem like people you can work with, you’re no worse off than any manager who inherits a team. Just hire someone. Don’t let your job posting sit, waiting for someone who can just pick up the ball and run with it. There aren’t many of them, they are expensive, and they don’t need you. There are lots of people who can learn to pick up a ball and run with it. They will compromise on salary, and they do need you. What can you offer them? Your experience. Your time. Your attention. Yes, your most precious resources, but there's just no getting out of it. 

Pay more attention to attitude, interest and approach. Make sure they are someone you can work with first. I’m not saying just pick anyone off the street. I’m saying – don’t stew on it. People are not machines. You’re not going to find a perfect deal with a lifetime warranty. Pick your best guess, know what they don’t have that you need, and plan out how they will get that, fast. Even better, you get a custom-made person.

And then, you say, they leave.

Poor you. All that investment and no payoff.

No payoff? I bet the next person you hire and train, you do it more effectively, more efficiently. You are using them, too. You’re learning what you really care about, what discerning judgment means to you, how to make yourself clear, how to motivate a person to pay attention the way you would. You’re making mistakes, too, and if you think you aren’t, that’s a mistake.

Recruiting is racket. The truth is, teams are made of humans, and humans all have unique combinations of talents, skills, blind spots, irritating habits, quirks and follies. You won’t easily find the one with exactly the background, exactly the knowledge, precisely the experience, who is also a great match with the team, excellent interpersonal blah blah blah and such and soforth and can read your mind. You could wait a year to find someone who can hit the ground running, only to find that anyone new to an organization cannot hit the ground running without dislocating a knee.  I can’t believe how many people tell me they don’t think they would get hired if they had to interview for their own job in today’s settings.

It doesn’t matter who you hire, there will be issues. It doesn’t matter who you hire, they will let you down sometimes. It doesn’t matter who you hire, they will fail to understand you. It doesn’t matter who you hire, they will sometimes be hard to coach and take feedback personally. It doesn’t matter who you hire, they will want your time, attention and loving support, and they will respond to it when they believe it. 

So it doesn’t matter who you hire. Take a chance. Hire someone with only overlapping competencies and no overlapping experience. Hire someone with only half the skills you’re looking for but a strong desire to learn, and get them trained on the rest. Hire someone who needs some help with their polish but could have creative genius. Hire someone. Hire anyone you like. You can do more with two willing hands and a brain than you can with a vacant job posting.

Don’t hold out for Mr./Ms. Right. Just hire someone. 

Dear Cheryl: A Micromanager asks...

Dear Cheryl, I am a Micromanager. It’s hard to even write those words. My team hates it, and I can tell. Every instruction I give I feel like I’m offending someone. Sometimes I feel like saying: look, it’s true, I DON’T trust you! But that would be terrible. I might be unfair not to trust them, I don’t know. I have high expectations of myself and them and I think it’s best to be clear on how I want things done. My coach told me to focus on the outcomes and let them get to the outcomes their own way, but their ways take too long and it DOES matter how it’s done! I don’t like the tension on my team, but I want things done right. Can you help? Micromanager Boss From Hell

Dear MBFH,

Naming a problem begins its solution. Your discomfort means you are not oblivious. You are already thinking about the instructions and feedback you give, how it is received, and how deep you need to go versus how autonomous your team members feel. This is the path to stay on.

One problem you face is this: at their fundamental core, humans long to be creative.

You want it done your way. They want to find their own way. If the outcome is the same, it doesn’t matter which way it’s done. I hear you saying, “yes it does!” so I ask, “why?” The answers to that question identify the aspects of the task that you haven’t helped your team members to understand as part of the goal.

First, give yourself some slack around trust. It’s not up to you to trust someone who doesn’t earn your trust, and it’s not up to them to earn your trust through anything but showing you who they are and what they can do, then learning from what you teach. Trust is something you build together, over time. Trust doesn’t mean that you know a person will do it your way, but that you know that person well enough to predict that the way they choose will be within your parameters of success.

Trust is a buffer for you. It lets you push levels of daily detail away from yourself so that you can be a strategically-focused manager rather than an overseer of tasks. I see it as a field of energy that we need to actively feed and strengthen, so that we can do our job and other people can do theirs.

We build the Trust Field individually with each person, and with the team as a whole. Individual trust relationships remove emotion-based barriers to communication. It’s like a safe-space that surrounds you all, and can expand out into the organization to grease the wheels and make every task more enjoyable.

But what does “trust” mean to you? To your team? Does it mean you just throw them tasks and “trust” they will be done? I wouldn’t.

A first step is examining what trust means to you in relation to your team. Does it mean you trust them to do exactly what you would do, or that you trust that whatever they do, you will be able to back them up with integrity? Does it mean you trust that their output will be as good and fast as yours would be, or that you trust that the output will meet the goals of the organization?

We can ask ourselves: what do I expect from people now, in relation to how the job would be done if I were doing it myself? Do I expect less, because they are junior, or the same, because they are capable, or more, because they are more capable than me at their job? When I hand over a task or responsibility, what am I trusting them to do? Then, we can evaluate whether we can trust them to do that.

The more we micro-manage, the less trust we have in the person’s capabilities. And ironically, the less trust we have, the less supported people feel, and the less trustworthy they become. They become dependent on the leader to do half their thinking, and then they stop thinking, maybe even get upset when it’s expected. That’s a natural human response to power and control.

Trust takes years to build. In the meantime, what’s a Micromanager to do?

To identify your “trust zone” may I suggest one of the following thought-play?

THOUGHT PLAY EXERCISE IN TRUST: 

What Could Go Wrong?

For each of your team members (or a selection of one or more) choose a specific project or outcome, past or present, that you would normally hand off to that person with lots of very specific direction and instructions.

Write down a quick list of all the things that could go wrong if you just told your team member to achieve the outcome, and gave no other instruction. Name every little thing you can think of. For example, they might not order a part on time, might forget to inform someone of a decision, might fail to get an approval, might upset a leader with a question or comment, etc. Make a list for each specific team member, not just the whole team in general. Personality, maturity and strengths-types make a big difference to how much you can trust a person. Soon you will see where people fall on your “continuum of trust.”

“Affinitize” or group the lists into common subject areas. For example, Causes Delay, Upsets Someone, Breaches Process, Shuts Down Plant, Causes Mass Disruption, etc. See if there are common themes among all the team members, or if you see patterns that can be addressed.

The common subject areas give you names for your “Orbiting Goals” – goals that silently orbit around your Outcome like moons around a planet. Your trust zone buffer will only include people who understand how these surrounding goals matter. There’s only one way to improve your team’s understanding, and that’s to communicate what those surrounding goals are. Sometimes that’s easy, and other times, it’s easier said than done.

For example, if internal politics are a factor, you’ll want to help your team understand that, but not judge it. It’s a tightrope. An organization is a system of information and activity flow, with particular log-jams and boulders to avoid. They need to know what they are, but they don’t need to hold any resentment or derision about the fact that they exist. They don’t need to blame. That’s a tone you can set by talking about the challenges without any personalization or attribution of intent.

Another example might be that a leader your team interacts with has particular bugaboos, agendas, weak spots, blind spots or other tendencies that you aren’t comfortable discussing with your team. These personal factors of the leader absolutely gets in the way of your ability to trust your team to navigate the organization on your behalf. Maybe you’ve avoided letting your team take on interactions or deliver to these leaders, rather than point out what must not be spoken. Maybe you’ve even been a shield for your team. It’s hard to trust someone you are shielding.

You can alert your team to dangers with fact-based lines like, “She/He expects it to be this way,” and “She/He tends towards this priority over that.” Why’s are irrelevant, beyond our control. You don’t have to apologize or condemn, just point out your observations about what the other leader expects. This knowledge is invaluable to your team’s ability to operate on your behalf.

Your orbiting goals represent your hopes to influence decisions within the organization, your desire to maintain particular relationships, your preference for particular forms of order or input/output of work, etc. They are the kinds of goals that rarely get qualified through expressive language, or acknowledged and explained to teams. They are the opportunity for strengthening and expanding your trust zone. If you can help your team members understand and support the orbiting goals, to apply their perspective to whatever outcome they are working on, your team will be well-equipped to begin operating in a way you can learn to trust.

Letting go of micro-management is a little like putting down a potential explosive – you don’t just let go and let it fall. It takes time, careful attention to movement, and a solid foundation on which to carefully place your trust. Just asking the question places you solidly on the path. Stay with it!

Warm Regards,

Cheryl

Problematic Process

How do you know you have a problematic process? Here's a 4-bullet diagnostic tool:

• you have a process, but it's outdated/wrong
• you have a process, but people don't follow it
• you have a process, but a critical component often fails
• you don't have a process, and people are complaining*

Did one or more of your processes come to mind when you read those 4 bullets? You may have a Problematic Process. Don't worry, we can untangle it together. Get in touch.


*What would they likely complain about? The biggest culprits that point to problematic process are complaints about duplicated effort, unclear decision channels, ad hoc handoffs, lack of a checklist, lack of communication, and unclear access.