Search This Blog

Monday, January 17, 2011

HAVING A BAD DAY

When I come home at night after work, my wife and I typically talk about what we did that day. My wife gives me a journal description of her day from the time she got up until we finally meet at night. She's quite articulate in her adventures of the day which may explain why she looks puzzled at me when she asks me how my day went and I respond by saying simply "Fine" or "Good." Actually, I have a "Bad" day now and then, but not too often. I usually have but one a year, and I don't mean a type of day where you run into some problems at work or a key decision doesn't go your way. I'm talking about a day where everything consistently unravels before your eyes and you are powerless to do anything about it. Maybe a better adjective would be a "Rotten" day. I had one a couple of weeks ago thereby ruining my day.
It began on a cold Wednesday here in Florida, which may sound like an oxymoron, but on this particular occasion a cold Arctic blast came down from Canada. We may have not gotten the snow or frigid temperatures that the Midwest received, but getting into the 30's is still cold by my estimate. As I was leaving for lunch I noticed my car had a flat tire on the left-rear side. "Oh, great," I lamented to myself.
A friend who happened to know my local mechanic mentioned he had an air can containing compressed air which may be able to inflate the tire long enough for me to drive it into the shop where it could be fixed. This sounded like a good idea, so he drove down and retrieved the can for me. The can was rather old and strange looking. Actually, it looked like a rusted and overgrown Jiffy Pop machine turned on its side and built around the time of the first World War. I had visions of Dough Boys using it in the Battle of the Marne to fill their gas masks. Nevertheless, I took the Jiffy Pop machine and hooked its hose to my tire stem. "Pffffst" and only a small puff of air came out of it before it died. I think I should have given it a military funeral in my dumpster right then and there.
I then resigned myself to the fact I would have to change the tire myself with the spare I had in the trunk. Now most people would call AAA or a local service station, but my masculine ego kicked into gear and I was determined to do it myself. After all, I had changed many tires over the years, "What is one more tire?" I said to myself. Unfortunately, I had never changed a tire on this particular vehicle, a Kia from South Korea. Dutifully I took out the tools packaged neatly in the trunk. So far, so good. There was a screwdriver and wrench, as well as a jack and tire iron. However, calling it a "tire iron" would be overly generous. It looked more like an overgrown silver Pixie Stick, approximately ten inches in length.
Before you jack-up a car to remove a tire, it is a smart idea to first loosen the lugnuts. I used the Kia screwdriver to remove the plastic lugnut cover from the wheel, a feat in itself as it stubbornly did not want to come off. I then took the Pixie Stick and tried to turn the lugnuts much to no avail, they were on simply too tight. It was about this time that I noticed sweat developing on my forehead and removed my jacket as I was becoming too warm even in the cold weather. After fifteen minutes of pushing and bending the Pixie Stick (which included some choice expletives on my part), I concluded this was a futile effort. Still determined to see this job through to completion, I borrowed a car and drove home to get an industrial strength tire iron I had in my garage. My house is only five miles from the office, but it wasn't until I was halfway home when I realized I left my house key in my jacket back at the office. Not surprising, there were more expletives.
I turned around and returned to the office where I picked up my keys and headed for home again where I performed a frantic search for the tire iron in the garage. It was, of course, in the last possible place to be found in the garage but I was pleased nonetheless that I had found it. I then drove back to the office where I applied my tire iron to the lugnuts. Even with the considerable leverage afforded me by my tire iron, the lugnuts openly resisted my attempts to loosen them. By this time, I noticed my shirt was no longer tucked in my pants which were now drooping as I was bouncing up and down next to the tire like a pogo stick. Just when I was convinced the people at Kia had welded the lugnuts on to the wheel they finally started to loosen with a rusty squeak. One-by-one, squeak-by-squeak, lugnut-by-lugnut, curse-by-curse, they finally surrendered to me.
With the lugnuts loosened, I then went about positioning the jack under the car to raise the vehicle. Actually, it looked more like a toy than a jack. Years ago, cars came with jacks that were made of big hunks of steel you used to raise the vehicle, and it was actually fun to do so. My Kia jack though was no bigger than my two hands put together and was based on a screw mechanism which came with another Pixie Stick to turn the screw. This required me to use my first Pixie Stick tire iron to turn the other. Since the two were so small, I found myself kneeling on the ground spinning the two Pixie Sticks like you were rapidly peddling a bicycle. I'm sure it was quite comical to watch. Slowly but surely, the jack raised the car up until I could replace the old tire with my spare. I then lowered the car and tightened the lugnuts.
Afterwards I got back on my feet, straightened myself up and was sharply reminded of the arthritis cultivating in my back. I was sweating, my clothes a mess, and my hands soiled with tire filth. Did I mention it was still freezing outside?
After cleaning myself up, I put the tools away properly in the trunk, along with the flat tire and the Jiffy Pop air can from World War I. Finally, I drove my car to my mechanic's shop to drop off the air can and have him replace the tire. Elapsed time: two hours, not to mention my afternoon was shot down as it took me some time to regain my composure. The experience: priceless.
The lesson here is that you should always carry a proper set of tools in your car, have a change of clothing, and wait for proper weather conditions to change a tire. Either that or lose the ego and call a mechanic.
As mentioned, I don't experience "Bad" days often, but when I do it has been my observation they are defined by the domino effect that takes place whereby a series of interrelated screw-ups cascade from one to another. Such events are incredibly frustrating thereby testing your patience.
When I got home that evening, my wife as usual asked me how my day went. I answered "Fine" as I didn't want to see the dominoes progress any further.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.
Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 11:30am (Eastern).

Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

PERSISTENCE AND DETERMINATION

Have you ever wanted something so bad that you worked night and day in a Herculean effort to obtain it? No? Then you do not understand the concept of persistence and determination. You probably also feel you should be entitled to something simply because you are who you are or were present when something happened, regardless if you put forth any effort or not, a kind of winning the Lottery phenomenon. If so, I consider such an attitude as tragic as you will never value anything nor likely experience success of any kind.
In the course of my lifetime I have met with a variety of people who would like to see me just go away, be it in business, the many nonprofit organizations I have been involved in, or the various Internet discussion groups I participate in. It bugs them that I do not. Because of my dogged determination I hang in there and outlast them. This tends to drive them crazy and I must confess I get a certain amount of satisfaction from being able to outlast them and see something through to fruition. Some would call this bullheadedness or stubbornness, but this is when you go through with something even when you know you are wrong. If I am wrong, I will generally back down as I am not a proponent of cutting off your nose to spite your face. If I'm right though, I'll hang in there through thick and thin until I see something through to completion. I will remain focused and on target.
When you talk about determination and persistence, two people come to my mind who earned notoriety through sheer will, Pete Rose and Bruce Lee. Regardless of how you feel about Rose as a person, I was in awe of him on the baseball diamond. His athleticism did not come as naturally to him as it did for others. Consequently, he worked overtime to learn his craft and succeed thereby earning the nickname "Charlie Hustle." Bruce Lee also overcame obstacles to become one of the most influential martial artists of the 20th century. Some would suggest because both men were relatively small people they possessed a Napoleon complex and became overly aggressive to compensate for their size. I do not believe this is a valid argument as I have met many people, of all sizes, shapes and from just about every field of endeavor imaginable, who have gone on to accomplish great things, not because they were particularly talented or brilliant, but because they simply persisted with the same sort of tenacity exhibited by Rose and Lee.
I have yet to meet the person who wins at every game he participates in, that he is undefeated in virtually everything he does. I suspect if such a person existed, we would probably consider his flawless character boring. The fact is, we all suffer setbacks of some kind, be it large or small. It is only natural. To overcome such obstacles and succeed it is necessary to work harder than the next person. When it comes to success, some people are just plain lucky, but they are few and far between. For most of us though, persistence and determination are essential elements for success.
In my office, I have a framed quote from President Calvin Coolidge who said:
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
I believe in the power of the human spirit, but it must come from within not from without.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.
Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 11:30am (Eastern).

Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

GEORGE W. BUSH AS MANAGER-IN-CHIEF

Over the holidays I read President George W. Bush's new book, "Decision Points" (497 pages, Crown Publishers, ISBN 978-0-307-59061-9). The book chronicles his years in the White House and the tough decisions he grappled with. His intention was to go beyond just writing another autobiography, but to also explain how he arrived at certain key decisions. By doing so, he gives us a rare glimpse of the complicated issues a U.S. President faces and the decision making process he used to address them, something that is normally delegated to historians to ponder years afterward.
As a management consultant, I found this book particularly intriguing and wanted to try and define Bush's style of management. To do so, I decided to test it against our "Bryce Management Analysis" feature on our corporate web site, a tool designed to analyze and define a particular management personality based on a person's responses to a series of questions posed to him. From this, we can deduce a person's management characteristics regarding such things as leadership, style, corporate culture, environmental considerations, and results orientation. After I finished the President's book, I answered the questions on his behalf and produced the following analysis. Please keep in mind I inputted responses based on Bush's own personal perspective as explained in the book. In other words, it is produced solely from his perspective and not others such as members of the media, political rivals, or even other friends, family, or colleagues. What follows below is the analysis produced from our tool along with supplemental comments pertaining to each section.
ANALYZER: "In terms of LEADERSHIP, it appears you are properly articulating your goals and priorities with your workers. You appear to be in tune with the needs of your business and, as such, I suspect your goals and objectives are synchronized with the business. It appears you have the necessary leadership skills to lead your people."
The American public will be surprised to learn how spiritual the President was and how his beliefs guided him throughout his presidency. From this, he showed great empathy for the people serving him, particularly the troops and victims of catastrophes. He wrote, "I felt it was my responsibility to comfort those who had lost a loved one" (pg 204). In turn, Bush drew his strength and resolve from the people he was trying to comfort.
Throughout the book, Bush reveals his frailties as a human-being and the mistakes he has made. He would be the first to admit he is certainly not perfect, just a human-being trying hard to do what is right, which is all we can ask of any manager.
When he was convinced of the necessity for doing something, he doggedly pursued it. His persistence created a sense of urgency among his people. He would listen to arguments from all sides before forming a decision, but after it had been made, there was no second-guessing.
Bush was also smart enough to know his limitations and when he didn't know the right course of action to pursue, relied on the advice of others. To illustrate, in discussing military operations in Iraq he wrote, "I did not try to manage the logistics or the tactical decisions. My instinct was to trust the judgment of the military leadership. They were the trained professionals;..." (pg 195).
A U.S. President must inevitably react to events outside of his control. In Bush's case, it was 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, and the Great Recession of 2008. To his credit though, he understood the need for being more proactive than reactive even if it meant sharp criticism from the media and his political opponents. For example, in describing his approach to combating terrorism he wrote, "We needed to disrupt attacks before they happened, not just investigate them after they took place" (pg 145). He goes on to write, "From the beginning, I knew the public reaction to my decisions would be colored by whether there was another attack. If none happened, whatever I did would probably look like an overreaction. If we were attacked again, people would demand to know why I hadn't done more. That is the nature of the presidency. Perceptions are shaped by the clarity of hindsight. In the moment of decision, you don't have that advantage" (pg 180).
Bush met frequently with his team to make sure everyone was operating on the same page. Communications and consistency were important to him, as was simple teamwork. In describing his loss in the New Hampshire primary to John McCain he explains, "The conventional playbook called for me to fire a few people and claim a fresh start. I decided to go in the opposite direction. I got the senior staff together and told them I refused to chuck anyone overboard to satisfy the loud voices on TV. One person deserved blame, and that was me. Win or lose, we would finish this race as a team" (pg 72).
These earmarks caused me to conclude he possessed good leadership skills; he was a principled man, drew strength from his people and constituents, believed in being proactive as opposed to reactive (he clearly understood the difference between complacency and action), promoted the concept of teamwork over individual achievement, and stressed the need for his people to perform their duties in a consistent manner. Despite all of this, mistakes were still made and he frequently took the blame as opposed to his people (a trait shared by other presidents, particularly Lincoln). Throughout the book he openly admits when his team got something wrong. He would then take the blame himself as opposed to his underlings, thereby shielding his people and creating a sense of trust and loyalty.
ANALYZER: "In terms of MANAGEMENT STYLE, your responses indicate a Theory Y form of management with some leaning towards Theory Z. This means you are willing to delegate responsibility and empower your workers to do the job they are assigned. I also suspect you have a good rapport with your workers and are inclined to trust them. It also sounds like they are beginning to act like a team as opposed to a group of individuals."
As mentioned, Bush knew his limitations and leaned on the advice of people he trusted. There is no evidence that he micromanaged anyone, but created an esprit de corps whereby his people were charged with assigned tasks and given a certain level of power to make their own decisions. It was definitely a "bottom-up" approach where Bush empowered his people and they, in turn, reported to him on progress and asked his advice on key decisions.
This meant Bush was careful in his selection of people to serve key positions surrounding him. A person's sense of integrity, honor and trustworthiness was critical. The president would stand with you through thick and thin so long as you maintained your integrity, but if you deviated, he would rightfully abandon you. He would also look for team players and stressed the need for it. As he wrote, "I started each personnel decision by defining the job description and the criteria for the ideal candidate. I directed a wide search and considered a diverse range of options. For major appointments, I interviewed candidates face to face. I used my time to gauge character and personality. I was looking for integrity, competence, selflessness, and an ability to handle pressure. I always liked people with a sense of humor, a sign of modesty and awareness" (pg 66). Later in the book he wrote, "But as someone who valued personal diplomacy, I put a high premium on trust. Once that trust was violated, it was hard to have a constructive relationship again" (pg 234).
There are clear signs in the book that Bush understood the necessity of building consensus among his people (an essential element of Theory Z management). As an example, "I laid out a process for making it (a complex decision). I would clarify my guiding principles, listen to experts on all sides of the debate, reach a tentative conclusion, and run it past knowledgeable people. After finalizing a decision, I would explain it to the American people" (pgs 110-111).
Bush used a common technique for gathering information and testing his subordinates, "I learn best by asking questions. In some cases, I probe to understand a complex issue. Other times, I deploy questions as a way to test my briefers' knowledge. If they cannot answer concisely and in plain English, it raises a red flag that they may not fully grasp the subject" (pg 109). "Explaining my decision would be almost as important as making it" (pg 118).
ANALYZER: "In terms of CORPORATE CULTURE, it sounds like you have a very professional working environment, a place that workers are proud to work at and call home. It also sounds like you have been successful in terms of instilling some very positive work habits. In addition, it appears you have reached a homogeneous working environment where everyone is working in a concerted manner."
From the book, it is rather obvious the president clearly understood the need for defining and controlling the corporate culture. The physical appearance of his offices were used to convey certain subliminal messages and signals, both in Texas when he was governor and the White House. He was also mindful of the power of dress and decorum. There was a time and place for conducting the business of state and a time to relax. Rarely were the two ever confused inappropriately.
Being punctual and organized were considered two important elements of the culture. To illustrate, it was well known the president would order the doors to cabinet meetings closed and locked when they were scheduled to begin. He wrote, "Timeliness is important to make sure an organization does not get sloppy" (pg 109). As a result, the Executive Branch ran on time.
ANALYZER: "In terms of other environmental considerations, it sounds like you may have to tighten some things up, such as minimizing distractions, and improving the workers' skills and proficiencies. It may also be time to reevaluate and update your working standards."
This became rather obvious after 9-11, Katrina, and the Great Recession, where new tactics and new thinking was required to remedy problems.
Organizationally, the size of the executive branch begs the issue as to whether it can be effectively managed by any one person. Because of the calamities he faced in office, President Bush was forced to make changes in the organization structure. Perhaps the most visible indication of this was the creation of Homeland Security which consolidated several organizations under one roof. This may be fine for pacifying the moment, but the federal government still needs to be flattened as evidenced by the recent report of the Debt Reduction Commission, not simply due to economics, but to improve communications, productivity, and manageability, thereby making it more responsive to the needs of the country. It could very well benefit from some Enterprise Engineering as I have described in the past.
ANALYZER: "In terms of RESULTS ORIENTATION, it appears you have some work ahead of you in terms of raising the consciousness of your workers in regard to quality and satisfying the customer. It also sounds like you might have a few workers who watch the clock as opposed to deliverables. Try holding some meetings with your workers to discuss these problems and set them on the right path. You want to nip such behavior early so that it doesn't fester and become worse."
The first sentence really caught my attention. As we all know, the president's approval ratings were high in his first term, and dismally low by the end of his second. A lot of this is due to his inability to dispel misconceptions and falsehoods about his actions and connect with his constituents.
Early in his first term, Bush met with many Congressmen on both sides of the aisle to develop a rapport with them. So much so, he was accused of conducting "the biggest charm offensive of any modern chief executive." This worked fine initially, but as his second presidential election approached, his detractors fought him relentlessly, thereby adding to the gridlock of Washington. Consequently, Bush had to spend an inordinate amount of time answering his critics and opponents which distracted him from conducting the business of his office. As he wrote, "The toxic atmosphere in American politics discourages good people from running for office" (pg 121).
Despite such distractions, he persevered; "The shrill debate never affected my decisions. I read a lot of history, and I was struck by how many presidents had endured harsh criticism. The measure of their character, and often their success, was how they responded. Those who based decisions on principle, not some snapshot of public opinion, were often vindicated over time" (pg 121). He goes on to say, "I didn't feel sorry for myself. I knew there would be tough days. Self-pity is a pathetic quality in a leader. It sends such demoralizing signals to the team and the country. As well, I was comforted by my conviction that the Good Lord wouldn't give a believer a burden he couldn't handle" (pg 459).
One other Bush characteristic caught my attention which is not directly related to management but I think is noteworthy. Based on his narratives in the book, it was obvious to me the president possessed a profound belief in the goodness of America and the principles on which it is based. Like Churchill and Reagan before him, Bush saw Democracy as a vehicle for combating terrorism and securing peace. "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world... So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" (pg 396, from 2005 inauguration speech).
Conclusion
Some will interpret "Decision Points" as nothing more than a rationalization for his failures. I didn't. I found it an intriguing explanation of how he formulated decisions. If his writings are correct, he has done the American public a great service as we only have a rudimentary understanding of what actually goes on in the White House. Here, Bush gives us a front row seat in terms we can all understand.
I have given the president some rather high marks for his management style. His only weakness was his inability to control the external influences facing his administration. By this I do not mean just world events, but answering his critics, the media spin doctors, and communicating with his constituents. This gnawed away at his credibility and forced him to be distracted from tending to the business of state. Then again, there are not too many of us who can focus on their job when they are constantly under attack. Fortunately, Bush had some rather thick skin and took it all in stride graciously.
From Bush's perspective, he always tried to do what was pragmatic and fair, not necessarily in accordance with the dogma of his political party. Based on his narrative, I have no reason not to believe him. I'm sure others will, but before finding him guilty I would suggest you read his book first. He makes some pretty compelling arguments. Regardless of your political persuasion, as a consultant, I heartily recommend this book as a management read. True, the book has historical significance, but I find it a fascinating first hand account of the decision making process of the Manager-In-Chief.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.
Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 11:30am (Eastern).

Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

LOUD AND CLEAR

My father has been gone for six years now. We worked together for nearly thirty years and in that time, he taught me the ins and outs of the information systems industry and the corporate world. What I particularly miss about him is the arguments we would get into. I don't mean vicious discourse but rather serious debates on a variety of topics. He had a good logical mind and we would often spar if for no other reason than to clarify an idea or concept. My dad was old school though who was of Scottish stock and came up the hard way. If you screwed up, he would let you know about it loud and clear. There was no sugarcoating a mistake with him. Over time I came to learn the reason he jumped down your throat was that he didn't want you to commit the same mistake twice, and to his credit, you wouldn't.

Some people were offended by his candor, others thrived on it as they understood the intellectual dynamics involved. Even customers would call my father to pick a friendly fight with him and, in the process, would learn a lot. I knew of other men of his generation who were also not exactly politically correct and not afraid to give it to you loud and clear. However, I think we now live in a time when such discourse is frowned upon and you don't see too much of it anymore.

People are hesitant to be critical in the work place, school, or just about everywhere. I think this is bred into people at an early age whereby everybody has to be a winner, and nobody should suffer the stigma of being labeled a loser. Consequently we become hesitant to tell someone when he is wrong in that it might hurt his feelings. The only problem here though is if everyone tells you nothing is wrong and that everything is great, you'll never get to the bottom of what is wrong. Every once and awhile you need the naked truth, and you can only get this through honest criticism.

Sugarcoating a problem only delays its resolution thereby costing more money to correct or allowing someone to commit a mistake repetitively. If you give it to them loud and clear, they may not like how you said it, but they will most assuredly comprehend what you meant and will not forget it. One point to make in this regard, when you are criticizing or arguing with someone, simple "yes" and "no's" are not sufficient. It is vital you explain your rationale, otherwise they will remain skeptical and learn nothing.

Perhaps the biggest problem with honest criticism is to learn not to take it personally. The "loud and clear" person is trying to teach you something and obviously thinks it is important for you to learn it properly which is why you are getting it loud and clear. I realize we are supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of others, but we must understand that conducting business does not involve participating in a personality contest. Sometimes, to get the necessary results, a manager needs to get into a worker's face and talk to him heart to heart. We would make little progress if we had to constantly hold the hands of our workers. At some point, the training wheels have to come off and they have to drive the bicycle themselves.

Years ago, when I first volunteered to be a Little League umpire, I had to attend a clinic to learn the duties and responsibilities of the job. At the time I was only signing up to umpire eight year old girls softball which I didn't exactly consider a heavy duty assignment. The instructors of the clinic taught us a lot of things, but one thing they emphasized was to make your calls "loud and clear" regardless of the age of the kids or sex. A watered-down call or one without authority will challenge your credibility not only with the coaches, but with the players as well. Basically, they were saying, "If you're going to do something, do it right." As I was quick to learn, this was perhaps the best advice I could have received. Consequently, I rendered my calls as umpire "loud and clear." Interestingly, I discovered even the youngest kid on the team seemed to instinctively understand what I was doing and respected the call. In all the years I umpired, not once was a tear shed.

For those of you who believe loud and clear is "not cool" in the workplace, you have to remember we live in a fast paced world and managers do not always have the time or luxury to patiently offer tender and sympathetic advice. Honest criticism is a fact of life and a necessity for us to grow and evolve, and we should certainly not be embarrassed to receive it "loud and clear."

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 11:30am (Eastern).

Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

THE HASSLE OF METAL KEYS

A person's trustworthiness can be measured by the number of metal keys he possesses. Each key represents a trust or responsibility the person has committed to maintaining. I tend to believe the more keys a person has, the more he is trusted; the fewer keys he possesses, less so. I have three sets of keys I maintain; one set for my office and home, one for the Masonic Lodge where I serve as Secretary, and a set of car keys; in all, I generally carry 40+ keys which is a lot and quite uncomfortable if I try to carry them in a single pocket.
We use keys because most of us cannot remember combinations or passwords. For example, I would be hard pressed to remember combinations and passwords to replace my 40+ keys. Keys may be low tech, but they are effective for safeguarding most of our possessions, such as houses, offices, desks, equipment, supplies, vehicles, boats, garbage cans, weapons, etc. Some people believe magnetic cards are an effective alternative to keys, but I am hearing too many horror stories of people having their identities stolen through such cards. Key pads are nice too, but again you have the memorization problem to consider. Keys may be a hassle to carry, but they are probably the most cost effective solution around.
Perhaps the biggest problem with keys is we often forget what they are used for. As I mentioned, I have three sets. I know all of my car keys, but I probably only know 75% of my office/house keys. I have had them so long I frankly have forgotten what they are all used for. The big keys I can generally figure out, usually for a door of some kind, but it's the little ones where I draw a blank. I'm sure they are for some obscure cabinets or desks I've long forgotten about. I may have even discarded the cabinets or desks and forgotten to throw the keys away in the process.
The same is true with my Lodge keys which I inherited some time ago. I know most of them, but there are a few that I simply draw a blank. This disturbs me greatly as I don't like to be so disorganized, but I think all of us are in possession of a key or two (or more) which we haven't got a clue as to its purpose.
When I assumed the Secretary's duties, I dutifully cleaned out my predecessor's desk. In the process, I found even more keys which looked quite old but seemed to be important. I've tried them on many locks but cannot seem to figure out what they are used for. I suspect one is for some secret vault where Masonic treasures are stored, such as the Holy Grail.
As tempted as I am to throw all of these old keys away, I'm afraid of doing so because, "You never know" when they might indeed serve a purpose. I don't know about you but my luck is such that as soon as I discard a key, I inevitably discover its purpose and need to reproduce it requiring a locksmith thereby becoming a more costly proposition.
The only thing worse than having too many keys is to lose them. For most of us, this is the closest thing to madness we'll ever experience. It's bad enough we have misplaced our keys, we then begin to suffer from delusional scenarios of Jack the Ripper sacking our homes in the middle of the night.
Keys may be symbolic of someone's trustworthiness, but they are certainly a hassle to hold and to lose. I just wish retina-scanning or fingerprint technology was more advanced and affordable. It would certainly be a lot easier on my pocket and state of mind.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.
Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 11:30am (Eastern).

Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

FLATTENING GOVERNMENT

People in the Capital are only now beginning to realize the size of the federal government is too massive and thereby contributing to our deficit. The president has ordered wage freezes to which I say, "So what?" as it is only a temporary solution. Even the president's debt reduction commission has come to the realization the government is simply too big. To illustrate, from the commission's "Moment of Truth" report: "Washington needs to learn to do more with less, using fewer resources to accomplish existing goals without risking a decline in essential government services." The report goes on to suggest trimming the government's work force by 10% and budget by 15%. No doubt this will save money, but it is only a guess as to how much to trim. I contend they could trim as much as 25% or more of the work force and still provide adequate government service.

First, you have to recognize the federal government is a perfect example of Parkinson's Law whereby "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." I tend to see Air Force One as an example of this. True, it is an opulent icon of our country, but is the extravagance really worth it? According to U.S. military estimates, the total operating cost to fly Air Force One is $181,757 per hour. I'm told this does not include other travel expenses, such as maintaining backup aircraft and helicopters, or transporting the president's motorcade. Undeniably, this is more expensive than the days of the old Boeing 707s, but then again there were fewer people involved. As Air Force One got bigger, Parkinson's Law kicked in and the president's entourage grew radically. If the plane was smaller, fewer people would obviously accompany the president.

Air Force One is but one small example. All three branches of government are undoubtedly bloated. How much though? We can only guess. Unlike a commercial enterprise, government is rarely, if ever, trimmed of fat.

Back in the 1990's Jack Welch embarked on a program to flatten corporate behemoth General Electric to rid the company of waste and get it to operate on a leaner and more productive level. One by one he patiently waded through the many divisions of G.E. and flattened them down to size thereby earning him the nickname "Neutron Jack."

Welch used a "three purge" approach to flatten each division. The first purge was used to eliminate the dead wood everyone knew existed and were glad to rid themselves of. However, in the second pass, everyone began to feel the pinch as some clerical staff members were eliminated, thereby forcing managers to devise imaginative ways to accomplish the work without such assistance. The third purge was the hardest as key people were eliminated or forced to retire, but it was Welch's intent to find out what exactly made the division work and only by flattening it could this become apparent. Now, with a leaner and meaner operation in place, Welch could vividly see what was working profitably and what wasn't thereby allowing him to make informed strategic decisions about the company.

Basically, Welch's approach tackled Parkinson's Law head on, something that has not happened at the federal government level. It has been speculated that Welch's tactics were based on Russian dictator Joseph Stalin who executed bloody purges in his country multiple times in the 1930's. One by one, Stalin purged each government and political body methodically, using the Army as his muscle. Not surprising, the Army was purged last using Stalin's secret police. This happened not just once, but twice. Although Stalin's motives were entirely different than Welch's, his tactics didn't go unnoticed.

Bottom-line, having the debt reduction commission suggest the federal government should be trimmed by 10% is plain and simply a wild guess and not based on any credible facts. Only a purge approach a la Welch (and not Stalin) would tell us just how fat our government truly is.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 11:30am (Eastern).

Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Monday, January 3, 2011

CULTURAL ASSIMILATION

When new people join companies and nonprofit groups there is a natural tendency for them to try and change the culture to suit their work habits, attitudes, and customs. Such changes are sometimes welcomed by the culture, but more often than not, it is steadfastly resisted and the person is rebuffed. Those people who believe the culture should adapt to them, as opposed to the other way around, are in for a rude awakening.
Any time you join an organization, you have to remember YOU are joining THEM, they are not joining you. You would be wise, therefore, to tread lightly until you truly understand the culture and can work within it. In order for any employee or member to be successful, they must believe in and possess the ability to adapt to the corporate culture.
Over the years I have been involved with a plethora of nonprofit groups and have observed the initial reaction of new members to the group. Some can adapt and become a member of the group, others tend to butt heads, become frustrated and quit. As a new member, there is a natural inclination to question policies and procedures in order to better understand the dynamics of the group. I consider this healthy. As an aside, I'm mystified when people join a group blindly and don't ask any questionS whatsoever. However, before offering suggestions to change the group, be sure to understand how the group is organized, its history, the duties and responsibilities of the officers, and the politics involved. With rare exception, nonprofit groups can be every bit as political as commercial enterprises, perhaps more so.
People who offer changes without first studying the corporate culture are usually surprised when the officers, elders or the entire membership reject their ideas. As a result, they feel rejected and move along to the next group where they will inevitably run into the same scenario again. Remember this, no matter how logical your arguments are in favor of a change, it is an emotional decision as people perceive it as an alteration to the status quo. If you are a dictator, people will reluctantly accept your changes, but most nonprofits involve a group of officers and people who only understand the status quo and, as such, staunchly defend it. Their mantra is typically, "That's the way we have always done it."
So, what is the best way to implement changes in such groups? First, assimilate the culture and take note of what is right and wrong with it. Second, get into a position of authority, such as an officer where you can establish your visibility and credibility. Third, introduce your changes in smaller increments. If they are successful, the group will begin to trust your judgment thereby paving the way to implement bolder changes later on. Just remember, "You eat elephants one spoonful at a time." (Bryce's Law) If you come on too strong, too bold, too fast, you will undoubtedly become too disappointed and too disillusioned.
Do not despair if things do not go your way. You will inevitably meet with setbacks. It is only natural. You can either decide to withdraw from the group or lick your wounds and move forward. Either way, do not take it personally; you are fighting a culture, not an individual.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.
Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 11:30am (Eastern).

Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.