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.

There are three primary areas where managers should focus their attention in order to impact how well the people in their units are working together. Many problems and issues that are found in the workplace can be attributed to one or more of these realms. Good supervision and oversight requires continually noticing what’s going on in each realm in order to make timely adjustments and changes when and where necessary.

The first is the technical realm which involves whether or not employees “can do” their jobs at the level required. Does each worker have the skills or competence necessary so that they can do their job? Would they benefit from additional training, direction or other developmental assistance?

The second area of importance is the realm of “will do”. Does each worker have the necessary motivation and attitude so that they will do their job and be a positive contributor? Are there obstacles in their way that are preventing them from being fully committed while they are at work such as personal issues, problems with co-workers, fear of change, coping with shrinking resources, or frustration with the current work process?

The root of all workplace problems does not always stem from employee issues directly. These people problems can sometimes be symptomatic, with the underlying cause traced to the third “how do” realm. The “how do” realm is defined by the business processes along with the reporting structure. Is the work organized so that people can work smart? Are all of the tasks necessary? Do the policies and procedures in place still make sense? Are more policies and procedures necessary to help achieve more consistent outcomes? Involving employees in examining work flow design and in making the right changes may result in helping individual workers better use their strengths and abilities. This can support increased motivation and commitment to the work as well as to customers and co-workers.

Keep in mind that workplace problems, like most problems we encounter, are often interrelated with no clear indication of where they originated. The best solutions can be in finding ways to prevent problems from occurring in the first place. This is particularly true when making the most important decisions a manager makes – who they should hire.

The hiring process is the time to determine the level of importance to be placed on the “can do” vs. the “will do” realms. Traditionally, employee selection practices have placed an over emphasis on technical experience and not enough on screening for interpersonal characteristics, motivation, and positive attitude. Yet the most common and difficult employee relations problems typically involve misconduct or misbehavior and not lack of job knowledge and skill. No one wants to hire an incompetent worker. However, is it easier to train an employee to do a particular job task or is it easier to train them how to take initiative and be flexible?

Good managers support their employees by paying attention and asking good questions. By understanding the interconnection between these realms, managers can develop and apply more targeted, timely and effective solutions in response. Step one is hiring the right people, for the right jobs, at the outset. When this happens managers also benefit as units and teams develop faster and are able to solve many of their own problems. This allows for more time to spend addressing the strategic issues that frequently get neglected.

As our world, and especially our workplaces, become increasingly automated it’s important to remember that people don’t operate like bits and bytes. Whether we are conscious of it or not, we are being trained and conditioned by the speed and capabilities of the technology around us. This includes the technology we control and the technology that controls us. Some of us spend more time actually interacting with a keyboard and an LCD than we do with a flesh and blood human being. An unintended consequence is that our expectations about how people should “operate” can be affected as we become programmed by the performance we get from our laptops or cell phones.

With a few exceptions, technology usually works as advertised. When it doesn’t, it might require an upgrade or replacement. We learn, often through trial and error, what keys to press and what commands to give to get the results we want. Each time I sit in front of my laptop and click the Word icon, it loads and I can create a document the same way I did yesterday or last week. Once I learn how to operate the “program” it may not work as intuitively as I would like, but it does respond consistently. There can be a downside. How often do interpersonal problems occur because we unconsciously expect that our co-worker, our boss, a friend, or family member will respond as consistently as the technology we use? When they don’t, we devalue them.

People are “buggy” software. Dealing with them is often unpredictable and even messy. One day they are in a positive mood, another day they are not. One hour they are incredibly productive, the next they are staring out the window. As skilled as some of us may be in operating and even programming our computers and cell phones, we ourselves are buggy. We have moods, with different abilities to communicate that other people have to respond and adapt to.

The lesson for leaders is to remember that managing people is not the same as managing an Outlook calendar. A lot more patience and flexibility is required to prevent constant frustration that will spill over to people around them. This frustration can contribute to dysfunction in the workplace. I am not suggesting that standards be lowered. I am suggesting that we recognize the benefits of each of the resources we work with, particularly the human variety. Focus on how to maximize all resources, as well as accept their limitations. Let’s remember that even when people meander, a big advantage they can have over technology is their problem solving ability, judgment and creativity. When people feel valued they can apply those abilities and deal with ambiguity, particularly during challenging and uncertain times like these. Computers can’t. At least not yet.

I received a degree from UC Berkeley in Social Science and I believe I benefited greatly from a well-rounded, liberal arts course of study. I learned a lot of theories about people and how we behave. I’m sure that I internalized many of those lessons and have applied them in my personal and professional life. However, I believe that the most useful early education I received was while working in the restaurant business as a host, waiter and especially as a bartender.

As a student, I learned a lot about myself, and about people, while working in a busy basement bar on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. With live music blaring, cocktail waitresses lined up with armloads of drink orders, friendly and aggressive customers leaning over the bar demanding a drink or conversation, and a hovering manager in the wings, there were lots of lessons learned. In time I found that this practical education outweighed my formal education up the street. I could see ways in which people were similar and different. I learned how important it was to stay organized and focused on what I was doing and what needed to be done next. I learned that it was always important to treat customers like individuals whenever you are dealing with them, however brief. I also learned from observing my co-workers that if you don’t really like people at a core level, working with them is not going to really change things.

It is easy to see that the hospitality business is openly about creating a positive experience for the customer and a positive association for the establishment. Isn’t that what we should be trying to do in most every business, including government service?

As the economy continues to improve there will be increased competition for smart, talented workers who are enthusiastic and positive, can handle stress, can organize their time and workload, can remember details, can work well with co-workers, can communicate clearly and are able to consistently treat customers so that they feel valued. Aren’t these the skills and qualities of a really good food server or bartender? Aren’t these also the skills and qualities you would like many of your employees to have?

Sometimes when we hire we get too conservative in our thinking and approach. We can get caught up in the “similar-to-me” effect and favor candidates that remind us of ourselves. Or we place a rigid emphasis on the completion of a specific degree, and make it a requirement to have actually performed the exact work, etc. Next time you review a resume or actively recruit new talent, particularly at the entry levels, be open and creative in how you consider and evaluate the relevancy of previous experience and transferable skills. Some innate skills and qualities are actually more critical to an employee’s success than the technical skills you can provide them through training. Pay attention and you may discover that you have an excellent candidate serving you lunch today.

“Change
it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that’s all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed…”

-Pete Townshend

And so it goes… or does it?

History is changing, right under our noses. Maybe it was a fitting coincidence that the dot-com revolution peaked in January 2000. A nice clean start to the 21^st century. Yes, this is the 21^st century. Almost ten years into it, doesn’t that still have a far away, tomorrow-like ring to it? Thanks to the hyper-changes brought about by the speed and reach of the web, what worked yesterday isn’t working today, and likely won’t work tomorrow. There are enough lessons around us to make that point (see GM). We got the call. Some of us got the early wake-up call. For the rest of us, the alarm has definitely gone off and it would be a mistake to hit the snooze button this time.

Leaders, in any field, at any level, would do well to consider the benefits of organizing around a different set of precepts to fulfill their purpose and continue to thrive and deliver products or services. Now is the time to really do something about getting people out of their mental and organizational silos and not just sit around in meetings talking about it. If you continue to be a slave to artificial constructs like your existing org chart, don’t be surprised if you find yourself and your organization behind the curve once again, continuing to play defense when threatened by increased competition or diminishing revenue. We keep hearing that an improved economy won’t mean we can go back to business as usual. Instead of staying in your bunker, hoping the smoke will clear, you have an opportunity to plan now so that you can charge forward later.

We hear the call to “Take risks. Innovate. Change.” Sounds smart doesn’t it? Have you really figured out what this means? Are you stuck trying to figure out what the boss really wants? Don’t wait because the fundamentals are more important now than ever. As a 21^st century leader you might start by doing these simple things:

1. Focus on what your core business is. What are you good at? Is there still a need for what you offer or how you offer it?
2. Evaluate your talent. Who is good at doing what? How motivated are they to help come up with new ideas and solutions? Who isn’t adding value?
3. Spend time determining how best to get your talent focused and aligned. What should they be doing? How should they be doing it? What support do they need?
4. Take a look at the reporting structure. Does it still make sense? Look at the individual units or even departments. What would happen if you blew up the boxes and started over?

This should be Management 101, right? Then how come you, your boss and your organization aren’t really doing it? Granted, it isn’t easy, but it doesn’t have to be too complex if you plan, take one step at a time and make the effort a priority. This is leading. Do you still want to wait for permission?

“To Change something, build a new model…”

- R. Buckminister Fuller.