Dan Erwin

The Most Underrated Skill in Management??

This past Spring’s issue of the MIT Sloan Review (2017) had an intriguing article with the above title, minus the question marks. “This sounds interesting,” I thought. “Wonder what they’ll say?” At the conclusion of the third paragraph the authors wrote, “We’ve come to believe that problem formulation is the single most underrated skill in all of management practice.”

Good shot guys, but not quite. After thoughtfully re-reading the entire ten-page article, I concluded, that the article was exceptionally insightful from a process standpoint. But as far as being the “most underrated” skill, it’s nonsense. Uniquely, it offers me the opportunity to challenge common business priorities that need serious rethinking. But, reflecting for just a few moments more, I was reminded of a brilliant and thought-provoking set of articles edited by the eminent psychologist, Robert Sternberg, entitled “Why smart people can be so stupid.”

The authors of “Smart people. . .” come up with a number of reasons for their conclusion. In spite of the MIT quoted research, one of the most apropos reasons for stupidity is what can be termed the mindless assimilation of social (business) biases. With their impeccable MIT Harvard reputation, these patently smart people demonstrate a bias that is clearly that of the academy. If you read widely and analytically in business, it’s obvious that thinking about people competencies is controlled by organizational behaviorists with a solely psychological background. They look solely at thinking, but not at conversing. It explains too clearly what’s going on in the MIT article. 

It’s an innocent limitation, but limiting conclusions to a single discipline, like psychology or organizational behavior, inevitably limits formulation and potentially creative solutions. Extensive research reveals that...

Can Charisma Be Learned?

There are actually two questions here: can charisma be learned, and will it positively impact business outcomes? Since I’ve worked over the years with clients to develop their charisma, I find the questions, well…amusing. Because the answers to both questions from those in the disciplines of rhetoric and communication is yes. Of course. We’ve known that for years. In fact, for centuries.

But what’s especially interesting about recent research (2011) by the psych and economics faculty at the University of Lausanne is that they look at the question from the perspective of economics in the European context, confirming the power of the discipline of charisma.

But there’s a lot more pragmatic stuff to be added to this research as well as most blogs and studies. The discipline of charisma is inevitably viewed from a public address format: a speaker addressing a group. But for career people, there are far more opportunities to practice and learn in a one-on-one or small group. Furthermore, it’s best to start adding charisma from your tool-kit early on, rather than waiting until you get a managerial promotion. It’s also far less intimidating to learn in a one-on-one or small group, than to wait until you’re a manager and have large group responsibilities.

Given my assumption, let’s ignore the research laundry list of tactics, and the unique opportunities provided by public address settings. Besides, if you gain the competencies in small groups, you can automatically transfer them to the public address context. So, skip those long lists of skills to gain the competency, and focus on just two very significant tactics that will set you on the path to charisma. Furthermore, with just a bit of reflection, these two skills for one-on-ones and small groups will readily open up other strategies..

Three Steps for Reducing Your Decision Errors

Far more often than I ever expected, I’m still in the decision-making business as a semi-retired professional. So, I was initially intrigued and then amused by an article in the MIT Sloan Review on a structured approach to strategic decisions. What caught my attention were the authors: Kahneman, Lovallo and Sibony—some really smart guys in the decision-making process. With that kind of backing and world renown authors, the Sloan Review can get your attention to the process as though it’s something really new--a way to avoid biased decisioning.

The process is not new! But it is masterful.

I first borrowed the model from Russo and Schoemaker’s Decision Traps (1989), (later upgraded to Winning Decisions (2002)). There are two differences between Kahneman’s recommendations and those of Russo and Schoemaker. The MIT article focuses on organizational decision making, while R & S focus on individual decision-making. The second difference is that the MIT article lays out more than a dozen pieces of research, dating from as recently as 2017, while R&S worked from far less research...

Doing a Better Job with People Analytics

There are some jobs that you just can’t trust algorithms to do. Yet more and more organizations are trusting algorithms to make their people decisions. Yet, writing in the Sloan Review, Wharton’s Cade Massey makes what to me is an obvious point. Objective distance is overrated. Although many in artificial intelligence think you can reason better when you’re uncorrupted by the subjective, that doesn’t follow in many people decisions.

The facts are that when you’re dealing with hiring, developing managing and trying to retain people, the better approach is about relationships and trust. That doesn’t mean you need to ignore those algorithms, but that you need to work them in tandem to people. For some analysts, “networking is not only uncomfortable, but dubious.” This mindset can be a real handicap. Being a loner eliminates the safety net of both information and goodwill. And like it or not, sometimes when you’re let go, it’s not about your skills, but about the good will and relationships you’ve failed to create.

I’ve used Richard Burt’s seminal studies on networking for years—and found that it’s applicability in organizations is profound. Decades of research reveal that people gain professional benefits –including both formal and informal power—from the quality and size of their social network—their relationships. I put “quality” first in that sentence, because some confuse size alone with the power of their networking. Quality is usually more important than size. But don’t confuse your algorithmic brain with the total of reality. Algorithms ain’t everything. And being a loner will inevitably get you the short end of the stick, and sometimes serious trouble..

The Trouble with Saints

If you’ve read sociology, you’ve probably read Max Weber. Weber (1864—1920), one of the founders of the discipline of sociology, is the update to Machiavelli. Weber's brief pamphlet, Politics as a Vocation, is the best prescription for politics, especially the politics of the past two years. So, I was both amused and delighted by a brief article in the 1/24 issue of The Economist on Max Weber’s enduring wisdom. Lecturing in the midst of German turmoil of 1918, The Economist emphasizes how his insights still make sense of politics.

Germany was in a far worse state than our Trump world. Rival Berlin factions battled for power in the streets. Several leaders were murdered. On January 28th of that year, Max Weber lectured liberal students “On Politics as a Vocation,” one of the most important contributions to modern political theory, as valuable a map to the contemporary political landscape as it was 100 years ago. (The thirty-page pamphlet is available free on the web, via Google.)

Weber was contemptuous of leaders solely determined to stick to their principles, whatever the consequences. “This ethic of conviction was the hallmark of saints, pacifists and purist revolutionaries...

The Flip Side of Happiness

Too much of a good thing can backfire. And that, research reveals, includes happiness. It’s intriguing to find significant research explaining the downside of emotions. Not least because I’ve always been intrigued with the upside of bad emotions and the downside of good emotions. Anger, for example, has an upside. And, in a never forgotten experience with a client, paranoia—at least for a lawyer—can have an upside too.

American culture is all about the pursuit of happiness. We’ve institutionalized that pursuit in the Declaration of Independence. But we understand the governmental caveats to that pursuit to assume also that we don't do anything illegal or violate the rights of others.

Still, I’m not a happiness-hater. Normally I have more than my fair share of happiness...

The Better Decision is Unconscious

You’ve just moved out of state and are looking for a new house in the new location. The local real-estate broker informs you elaborately about several available houses and takes you on a tour. After a couple hours you find yourself completely lost.

The houses differ so many ways that you find yourself completely lost. You’re not certain you can actually make a sound choice. One house is bigger than the others, and also more expensive. You’ve been promoted to director, not vice-president. Another house has a beautiful garden, a great opportunity for you and your wife to unwind and also enjoy some fresh vegetables. Still a third house is a rickety old mansion. It has three bathrooms, one of them with Tuscany marble. A glorious room. . .

If you want to be great at something, who should you learn from?

In an absolutely fascinating opinion article, Adam Grant opined that "those who can do, can't teach." I laughed as soon as I saw the title. It was pretty clear to me where he was going. Grant argues rightly that the greatest experts in a subject are not necessarily the best teachers. My usual way of getting to this issue is to tell an entry-level person that the best coach will never be more than two levels above you. Beyond that, the expert will be highly abstract, assume the unassumable about you, and won't be able to put the skills in a concrete package.

But Grant's way of going at the issue is so very useful, it needs to be added to your toolkit for coach selection. 

First, pay attention to how long since the teacher studied the material. Ignore the top universities' boast about how most of their classes are taught by top faculty. The best teachers are probably grad students who just learned the material and know what it's like to be a beginner. In my post-doc work, I signed up for a course in adult learning and was initially disappointed that it was going to be taught by a teaching assistant, a grad student in his last year of PhD. From the start, he surprised me with his thoroughness. Later in the semester the top prof in the field subbed for his grad student when he had a bad case of the flu. Wow, was I glad the TA was teaching. The expert couldn't get the cookies on the bottom shelf for us no matter how many questions we asked...

The Demands of Extreme Teaming

In an interview with Harvard’s Amy Edmondson, the professor points out that today’s managers have to work with teams that cross distance, discipline and hierarchy—a task that doesn’t come naturally. She refers to the task as “extreme teaming,” arguing that with the complications of 24/7 global operations, more people than ever are required to collaborate outside the context of a formal team.

Edmondson is extremely cautious in her conclusions. For example, when asked why we’re seeing more extreme teaming, she responds, “beyond the increasingly globalized workplaces, there’s a recognition that we’re not always going to rely on vertical integration to solve all of our challenges. It sometimes just makes sense to team up with another organization to get something done.”

Note the language: “not always going to rely…” “increasingly globalized workplaces” “sometimes just makes sense.” That many caveats and qualifiers in just two sentences of 37 words including articles? Really? In medium-sized or large corporations, 90% of execution is cross-disciplinary. And in small tech firms, close to 95% of execution is cross-disciplinary.

There actually are hurdles, as the interviewer writes, “Many managers are not equipped with the skills to capture the full value of these multifaceted collaborations.” And what about the ordinary workers who are involved in all these cross-disciplinary teams?

Actually, team failures abound in virtually every organizational change. One recent study of 95 teams in 25 leading corporations found that nearly 75% of cross-functional teams are dysfunctional. Engineers don’t converse well with designers, marketing doesn’t converse well with development, and so on. It’s becoming rather clear that the real business of business is conversation. Yet few have these skills at the level necessary for today’s successful business person.

And what about the few that have these skills in spades?

Do Chameleons Get Ahead?

Most employees make getting ahead a very high objective. Promotions can drastically change the lives of both those who stay in a company and those who move to another company. Promotions do more than provide different job duties and better rewards. They can also change where you live and who you get to interact with. In today’s high-pressured workplace, gaining new skills and working with different people can help keep you on the learning curve—and provide for job security.

 

Recently, studies have assessed the power of personality traits to impact promotion and rewards. The studies have ignored the actual performance of individuals and focused, for example, on the Big Five personality traits: conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion and neuroticism. Systematic studies have found that personality can predict job performance fairly well—but only under certain conditions. In fact, you may have lots of job relevant talent and personality traits, like conscientiousness and extraversion, but nevertheless fail to gain power or get promoted. . .