Questions are typically more powerful than answers.  As you begin to get serious about this New Year, there is still time to make plans and benefit from what did and didn’t happen last year.

Here are a few reflective questions that I’ve found to be useful:

• What are the three most important things you learned this year?
• What is something that was difficult for you at the start of the year, but is easy now?
• What hard truths are you avoiding?
• What habits or structures can you set in place to increase the probabilities that you will achieve your goals?

Each year the turning of the calendar reminds me to be grateful for what I have and for what I don’t have.  I have valued family, friends, and clients.  My best to all in 2012.

One question public sector clients of mine frequently ask is, “How can we continue to provide services when we keep getting our budget cut?” All over the country, public sector jobs are more vulnerable now than ever before. In a weakened economy with much distress, many public services are under scrutiny, with some being under attack. Government pensions, benefits and job protections are often resented by the rest of the work force and retirees (i.e. other taxpayers). However they are not the only issues that are affecting the perception and reality of public service. I am not an alarmist, however I wanted to share a little futurist thinking with some practical ideas to consider.

The need or desire for what we now know as public services will not go away. In response to economic changes, public services are necessarily being scaled back to reflect budget constraints. This short-term strategy will buy some time as a survival strategy, but service cuts alone will not address what is really required. A competitive transformation in thinking and doing is necessary for all public sector agencies to avoid being hollowed out, or disappearing. Leaders recognize that changes need to happen soon.

The public sector is faced with increased competition. If the political will exists, many public services will be outsourced or privatized over the longer term. For some agencies and municipalities, this may be unavoidable and even sensible especially if economic conditions continue to stagnate or erode. When pressed, taxpayers won’t be willing to pay a premium to a municipal worker when a private employer, or the agency in the next town, can get the work done for less and perhaps even faster. Insightful and broad-minded union leaders recognize that many public service jobs may be transformed from union to non-union very quickly if the taxpayers decide to go in that direction. If that were to happen, only a small group of public sector project managers overseeing contracts would be needed. Very few public services are immune to this kind of transformation. Currently, less than 12% of the U.S. workforce belongs to a union. Regardless of where, or for whom one works, it is important to remember that union efforts were responsible for important changes and benefits that are found in all workplaces today. Unfortunately the continued erosion of union jobs over time might likely have an adverse affect that would eventually be felt by all workers.

I believe that the public sector can be proactive and transform itself, rather than choose to be change-averse, reactive and defensive in preserving the status quo. The key question that public sector leaders should ask, and be willing to act on, is, “How can we continue to stay relevant and provide value to those we serve?” I believe the answer can be found by following three courses of action right now – Collaborate, Innovate and Automate.

Collaborate

Everyone is busy and many feel they have too much work and not enough help. However, is everyone busy doing what is important and meaningful most all of the time? If not, there is an opportunity to refocus the work being done in order to stay relevant and valuable. Collaboration needs to be more than a buzzword. It has to be part of the way people work together to insure that individual and organizational goals remain focused and aligned. If an “Us vs. Them” mentality is allowed to overshadow “We”, the public sector’s value and effectiveness will continue to diminish. Managers need to be collaborating with their employees to understand from them what they, along with their clients and customers, need and expect. Organizations need to be regularly collaborating and engaging with those same clients and customers to help continually find better, more valuable solutions to their service needs. The result should be organizational goals that support changing needs. When the right goals are pursued at the right time, everyone involved in providing services can refocus their efforts in order to remain current, relevant and valuable. People should be busy doing the right things by design, not by accident.

Innovate

We know for sure that everything around us is moving faster and changing even faster. Every organization, especially those in the public sector, must continually assess and redesign their work processes to keep up with demands and expectations and the need to be increasingly cost-effective. This key may be the most straightforward approach. Every public service employee, regardless of role or classification, needs to be asking, “Is there a better and/or cheaper way for us to do this?” Every public sector leader, up and down the organization should be encouraging these questions and listening to the answers. Leaders also need to have the willingness to implement the sensible answers, quickly. In a competitive environment, agencies that are continually innovating have an opportunity to positively influence how they are viewed or branded by their customers, and the taxpayers that fund them. Even though change has been allowed to occur more slowly in the public sector, that slow pace can’t continue any longer if public service is to be performed by public servants in the future.

Automate

Although many public services require high-touch, in-person interaction to remain valuable, many don’t and those services need to continue to be automated if possible. There are many more opportunities to invest and expand e-government at every level, and across every agency or function. As smart phones continue to get in the hands of people at all levels of the socio-economic strata, all public service consumers will expect that on-line public services should have the same features and be accessed just as easily as commercial services. That means fast. Despite tight budgets, technology investments will need to be made now along with proactive decisions about how best to train and deploy the work force and achieve the right balance of high-touch and high-tech. If public sector agencies can’t or won’t keep up with the public’s evolving service and convenience expectations, the longer-term consequences for public agencies may be more than just missed opportunities. They may not survive in their current form.

To support innovation, there are also many other potential benefits of employing the right, cost-effective technology to streamline work processes internally. In many cases, some of that technology already exists and has been paid for. The problem is that it is not always being used effectively. As an example, how many really understand how to use or are even aware of all the features they already have in their Microsoft Office programs? If more did, is it possible that productivity could increase without any additional investment? There are additional opportunities for public sector workers to benefit from the use of collaboration and video conferencing software to work with each other and interact with customers. Public sector IT professionals should be on the leading edge in search of new technological solutions that incorporate the advantages of cloud computing and balance them with privacy and security challenges.

Every organization, private and public, is faced with the competitive need to respond in effective and meaningful ways to changing customer expectations. Public agencies need to focus on what it currently means to be relevant and valuable in their present form. How individual agencies respond will determine who thrives and survives.

© 2011 Jim Delia

Ever wonder why some people respond to good advice, recommendations or suggestions and some don’t? It may have more to do with their level of readiness than it does with the quality of the ideas or counsel.

A good coaching and leadership practice is to focus on readiness, before moving forward with exploring ideas for improvement. Despite the fact that people may express a rational desire to accept new methods or approaches, the degree to which they are emotionally bound to the way they are currently operating will determine what they actually do to follow-through with the change.

When we work with people, before focusing our attention on what and how something could or should be done, we might want to spend time digging at and helping to remove the emotional roots of their old ways. These may be the real obstacles to acceptance that are reinforcing their habits, not our lack of persuasive skills or their lack of understanding of the potential benefits.

Some good questions to ask are:

• How is what (or how) you’re doing working for you?
• What problem(s) do you see in the way you are doing things?
• What would have to happen for you to consider making a change?
• What are your doubts and concerns?
• What are you unsure about when you think about making a change?
• What happened the last time you tried a similar change?
• What new knowledge or skills do you need to change?
• What are the current (or anticipated) demands on your time and attention?

Previous experience, work and personal, will strongly influence how ready people are to accepting and adopting any new approach, regardless of its merits. The more we can learn about that experience and how it may influence their current choices, the more effective we can be as we try to help.

© 2011 Jim Delia

Many of the challenges and obstacles (problems) we face are often best handled if we go through them, not around them. This is true whether we are trying to manage a diet or exercise plan for our self or the implementation of a new IT system for our organization. What often prevents us from taking this direct path is that we all like to feel comfortable. We do everything we can to get there and stay there. Many have written that the key to success is to be comfortable with being uncomfortable. Being uncomfortable is an example of a mindset that is especially true for leaders who are trying to help teams and team members resolve differences and respond to the discomfort caused by any form of change. Effective leadership requires more than the practice of a set of skills and methods, it sometimes requires a mindset that is counter to one’s personal style and preferences.

It helps to have a long memory for successes and a short memory for failures. Failures are useful if we can incorporate the learning quickly and move on and through the problems, without slowing down to dwell on the experiences. Focusing on previous successes can help bolster confidence and provide insight while working through the problem at hand, especially during the period of peak discomfort.

Personality preferences, and not just cognitive understanding, will greatly influence the degree to which an individual is more or less comfortable with being uncomfortable. For leaders who are conflict avoidant, adopting this mindset will take time, practice and a strong desire. When we see that working through problems and not around them eventually leads to more effective solutions, we might be more willing to be uncomfortable more often. The unexpected result will likely be more overall success and comfort in experiencing it.

© 2011 Jim Delia

Shifting requirements and/or resources typically brings about the need for change in the structure of an organization. Customer needs may be changing, projected revenues may be decreasing, or both.

When this type of change is contemplated, whether it is at a unit level or across the company, paying attention to the culture is wise. Culture is shaped by the beliefs and values of the people within it and it affects how people interpret experiences (change) and behave, individually and in groups. Understanding what people affected by a restructure expect can help guide how to involve them, and this can have a significant effect on the success of implementation.

Be clear about your purpose and vision. Some good initial questions are:

• Why is the restructure necessary?
• What is the overall goal or target? (What is the problem that needs to be solved?)
• What customer or client needs are driving, or will drive, the decisions?
• What financial (budgetary) assumptions are driving, or will drive, the decisions?
• What personnel changes are driving, or will drive, the decisions?
• What organizational values and priorities need to be maintained? Changed?
• What is the desired future state for the organization?
• Who should be included in the planning? (Cross-section of staff, external stakeholders?)
• How and when will the communication begin?

When formulating a project plan to manage the assignments and activities for restructuring and a transition plan to lead the people through the change, consider these cultural dimensions and the degree to which they apply to your organization.

Directness. Are people conditioned to receive messages that are to the point or are implied messages the norm?
Hierarchy. Do people expect to follow orders from leadership (centralized) or are decisions encouraged and expected to be made at all levels (decentralized)?
Consensus. Do people expect to have their opinions heard and understood before decisions are made or is conflict and disagreement generally discouraged?
Individualism. Are people driven more by self-interest or are they more focused on the organization’s needs?

Remember to see before you do.

© 2011 Jim Delia

The recent events in Egypt will be examined and analyzed for many years to come. There will be many lessons learned that more than a few in that part of the world will consider how to apply to their situations. After watching the process unfold over the last 18 days, one recurring lesson that I was reminded of is that change at any level starts in one room, one space, at a time. In the case of Egypt, the beginning of their revolution may have started in a digital space.

Resistance to change is natural, regardless of whether or not the potential benefits are perceived to be positive. Despite our ability to reason and rationalize, we are bound by a fundamental law of physics – inertia.

As you read this, and contemplate whether or not it is worth your effort to lead or support the change your organization needs, consider that every happening, social movement and revolution began in one room, or one space, with one person engaging another in conversation. Then it grew until enough traction and momentum was created to allow that change to take hold.

Not all significant change can occur in the course of 18 days. However, for it to occur at all it needs a spark, on one day, with one person, in one room or space. The hardest part is your choice whether or not to take the first step. Once you commit to overcoming your inertia, dealing with the opposition and conflicts you may find down the line is actually easier. Have the courage to send that text or e-mail, or setup that meeting. If you do, be inspired. You’re in world-class company.

A couple of years ago I decided to start competitive sailing with a friend of mine. Prior to that time, he and I would sail on cruising boats strictly for the enjoyment. Occasionally our skills were tested when we found ourselves in some dicey weather conditions on San Francisco Bay, but typically the sailing was low-key and not overly challenging. As a result, we weren’t really learning that much so our sailing skills improved slowly, if at all. Learning to race provided the incentive we needed to take our learning up a notch or two.

After some onshore racing classes and stints with a few different racing crews, we became team members on a large race boat – ready for action and ready to learn. Our crew, like us, were also inexperienced racers. Together we were trying to understand the differences between racing and cruising as we learned how to perform our various roles on the boat. We were fortunate that a couple of experienced, local sailors from the fleet offered to coach our crew and help get us into racing condition so that we could become more competitive sailors. We agreed to have them onboard to lead us. It wasn’t long before I was reminded of an early lesson about the power leaders have and how they can negatively affect performance. Here’s how it went.

Not long after we raised our sails it was clear that our coaches’ preferred style was to yell and frequently demean crewmembers. We were all big boys and for most of us it was kind of humorous at first. I hadn’t really been yelled at for my performance since I was in high school sports. Our crew initially assumed the screaming was a “performance” for dramatic affect to help get us focused. One guy would run around the boat and bark orders with such intensity and urgency, that I would think that his hair must have been on fire! Even though we believed they were there to help us, the unintended result was not better performance, it was fear.

Grown men were fearful of screwing up and getting yelled at in the presence of the other crew mates. That fear translated into hesitation, often at the wrong times. With someone yelling at you to turn one way, or to bring a line in, it was surprisingly easy to lose focus and do the opposite. I’m convinced that instead of avoiding mistakes, we actually committed more of them. The last straw for me was when one of our team members got so frustrated with the “leader” that he jumped over the rail of the boat, hung on to the lifeline, and yelled back, “I’m going to let go if you don’t shut the &*%# up!”

With respect to leading teams, apprehension or fear can be constructive for some if it results in staying focused and not making dumb, costly mistakes. On a large, powerful sailboat there are a lot of moving parts that can hurt you, like winches and a large, heavy boom that can cause death or serious injury if it hits you in the head. Being a little bit afraid of what can happen sometimes is very wise and appropriate. However, at some point too much fear can result in paralysis of thought and good judgment, which can also result in tragic errors.

Over thinking, worrying about making a mistake, and not reacting in time to do the right thing can be distracting and can get in the way of helping a customer, client, boss or co-worker. Have you ever been afraid to act? Do you blame anybody? If you do blame someone, remember how it felt and be sure you’re not that guy or gal.

By the way, we “fired” our coaches and finished the season performing a lot better without their help.

The number 3 has a mystical tradition in many cultures, including our own. It is a familiar component of the many structures, formulas and patterns that we follow daily. We often use the number 3 to organize our thinking and help our memory. Our stories typically follow a beginning, middle and end; often with three influential characters like three kings, three bears, and three ghosts. The rule of 3 is one of the oldest, dating back to Aristotle.

About five years ago, Jeffrey Phillips wrote an article titled “Smaller the Better”. In it he advocates for making teams and organizations as small as possible. He argues that it is easier to keep teams focused and cohesive when they are small. Larger teams can actually produce lower levels of commitment along with a lowering of standards on the part of managers. Given the power of 3, I believe he was on to something.

As leaders, consider forming teams of 3 whenever possible. Teams of 3 are more accountable to each other because each individual is more conspicuous, making it more difficult to hide. Teams of 3 are more flexible and agile. They can communicate more quickly and more effectively with each other. They have lower barriers to finding space and time to connect to help determine what’s working and not working more quickly. Consequently, the team of 3 is in a good position to make the adjustments necessary to support the team’s goals.

Interdependence is accentuated in small teams of 3. This creates an environment of urgency with more shared responsibility, including the responsibility for leading. Daniel Pink author of, “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us“, talks about the growing need employees have for autonomy, mastery, and purpose rather than extrinsic rewards. Pink makes a strong case that the importance of those “three” concepts is quickly moving from a “nice to have” to a “must have” if we are to position our organizations for future success. The formation of teams of 3 promotes Pink’s current view of motivation. This is particularly relevant for the development and retention of Millenials within our workforces.

Teams of 3 are also easier for managers to support. More individual attention can be provided to those team members who need it. When the manager is out of the picture, the other members can also step up and help their teammate. And if an individual continues to fail on a particular team, it is easier to see that a change is needed and why.

Remember the metaphor of the three-legged stool. It represents balance. Just enough and not too much. This should be true for the size of our teams.

The good news is that successful, modern organizations are becoming more open and transparent. Continual technological advances provide many potentially useful methods of sharing information more widely and quickly than ever before. As the work becomes more decentralized, team-based, and often virtual, individuals can use valuable and timely information to make better decisions about how their work gets done. Smart, professional leaders practice openness and promote information sharing at all levels in their organizations. However, organizations need to avoid the peril of TMI (Too Much Information).

When it comes to managing information, leaders should recognize the importance of discretion, for a number of reasons. Two reasons in particular come to mind. First, practically everyone is wired, typically in more ways than one. The recurring problem is overload. To remain effective people need more than just e-mailed messages, forwarded documents and web-related links, despite the fact that they may be rich in useful content. Leaders should take more time to determine how and why the information may be useful to the recipients before hitting the send button.

Second, leaders need to be prudent with information that relates to change, like potential restructuring. Responding to change is always personal and usually involves some level of emotion. Some leaders, with positive intent, believe that sharing any and all information with employees will always result in more effectiveness. Although that may occur in some situations, the reality is that unfiltered information can actually create more anxiety, mental distractions and fear because of the different ways people react to change at a personal and emotional level. Leaders should consider timing, current events, and the current level of morale to determine how and what to share about what is known and what is unknown about changes that may affect their employees.

It’s clear that there is more information available, to more people, in more ways, with more speed than ever before. Organizations, beginning with senior leadership, can usually do a better job of managing it. By “manage”, I don’t mean “censor.” When managing information effective leaders are aware of both the content and the implications of what they are sharing and are clear about their purpose for sharing it – before they share it.

Some good questions to consider before communicating important information are:
• Is the information I have the most current?
• Why am I sharing this information?
• What are the benefits? What are the risks?
• What is the best method for communicating the message?
• Is this the best time to deliver this message?
• What questions may arise and do I have answers?
• How do I want people to feel after receiving the message?

Leaders can also set an example and encourage others in the company to work on managing the information around them. Using organizational tools like on-line, collaborative workspaces can help (see www.huddle.net). Leaders who manage communication effectively use good judgment and sensitivity as they try to be mindful and understand the context in which their message is being sent. This usually results in getting the desired response and outcomes from those receiving it.

We are products of an action-oriented culture. We like movie action heroes and we tend to value mantras like, “Just do it.” We typically reward and admire action, because that’s what we see. Results are what gets measured and what gets measured is what gets done. Given an uncertain and challenging economy with shrinking resources and financial stress, management’s primary focus is usually on taking action to address the urgency of the situation and get the desired results. Managers expect employees to “Start doing things this way.” “Stop doing things that way.” “Trust me, it will work.” Frustration occurs when employees don’t get with the program quick enough.

What’s true is that when dealing with human beings we can’t cut corners and ignore the psychology that drives us. For real, sustainable action to occur more quickly, managers should first focus on the groundwork that people typically need to have in place before they can begin changing the way they do things – to act differently. Laying this foundation involves two often neglected steps.

Step 1 is to be sure that the language and terminology is understood by those who are expected to act or behave differently. Peter Block, the noted author and consultant, has frequently written about the power of language and how change first occurs by changing the language. Semantic misunderstandings are often unknown, yet significant, obstacles to taking effective action. Managers should first be sure that everyone understands the terms being used in the way they are intended, before moving forward with any initiative.

Step 2 is to focus on the thinking. What ideas, assumptions, beliefs need to change in order for the desired action or behavior to take place? Managers need to help provide the answer to the basic motivation question, “What’s in it for me?” Many significant and potentially advantageous initiatives never get implemented effectively, or at all, because management assumes that the merits of a useful idea or solution itself will be instantly recognized and will result in immediate buy-in. Consequently, a lot of management time is spent addressing resistance to change, after the fact, instead of investing time upfront strategizing about ways to help change the thinking before new approaches, procedures, systems, etc. get implemented.

When people are clear about the specific language (i.e. what “merit-based performance” really means), and they have time to think and process anticipated impacts (i.e. what will be lost and what will be gained by acting or behaving in a different way), Step 3 which involves action, can happen in a manner that produces results much more quickly.

I believe that one reason more attention is not spent on addressing the language and thinking issues is because it involves planning, and planning is not sexy. Planning takes time and doesn’t involve any action you can see immediately, so it often gets minimal attention and is abbreviated. Sometimes we need to go slow to go fast. Some thinking regarding the benefits of planning needs to change if we really want effective action to occur more quickly in our organizations. Maybe what our culture needs is to have an action hero like Jason Statham star in “The Planner” and provide us with a good role model.