The author of the recent highly successful biography of Steve Jobs (soon to be made into a film according to rumours) has produced an article in HBR, picking out the 'Leadership Lessons'. This was exactly what I tried to do in two previous blogs, so I thought it would be interesting to see what I hit and what I missed.
Isaacson seems to have none of the concerns that I and others have expressed about the dangers of taking lessons from a genius when there are very few, if any, of his calibre of people around. And many organisations wouldn't want too many people like him as he was, for many people, an impossible working partner. But, with these reservations, here Isaacson's extra points that are worth sharing.
The first lesson is that, when you are behind competition in the innovation stakes, there is no point in trying just to catch up, because by the time you catch up, you will be behind again. The lesson is that you must leapfrog your opponents by anticipating the next big thing. Jobs did this when left behind by competitors who introduced music onto PCs, he leapt over them all by developing iTunes and the iPod.
The second is that Jobs somehow managed to combine the big picture and the details, proving that CEOs don’t necessarily have to make that choice. He could have a vision to develop the next big thing while also 'fretting over the shape and colour of the screws'. And he would never allow compromise on the details, even if it meant delaying a launch or making his staff work all night. He believed that allowing a product that was capable of improvement would not only lead to lower long term sales but also to a corporate culture that allowed second best.
Isaacson quotes other combinations that made Jobs different from other leaders. He could combine the Humanities with the Sciences, to stand at the intersection between the two disciplines, the secret behind his ability to harness creativity and apply it to technology. He was not a great scientist or a great designer artist but he was great at bringing them together and developing them into a business strategy.
The last point made by Isaacson is that, despite his great success, Jobs remained a rebel at heart, never accepting the conventional wisdom, always thinking different, often arguing for the sake of it but always challenging the status quo. Even as CEO, he always wanted to be the 'crazy one who would change the world', which is just what he did.
These were the lessons that I missed previously; the other lessons put forward by Isaacson tie in pretty well with my analysis - his belief in simplicity for the consumer, putting products before short term profits, pushing for perfection, only tolerating 'A' players, believing in face to face meetings to develop innovation.
However it is interesting to read on the HBR website the comments from readers who do not all share the adulation of Jobs. To quote one sceptical contributor; 'Does anyone seriously think that Jobs’ success would have been any less had he not been a 'screaming a-hole' who terrorised his employees?' An interesting question to which, according to Isaacson, Jobs replied 'It’s who I am'.
And it's a question that never could and never will be answered.
Read the article;
http://hbr.org/2012/04/the-real-leadership-lessons-of-steve-jobs/ar/1
Previous blog reviews
Part 1
http://alanwarner.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/steve-jobs-exclusive-autobiography-by.html
Part 2
http://alanwarner.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/steve-jobs-exclusive-autobiography-by.html
Thursday 24 May 2012
Friday 18 May 2012
The rise of the Introvert by John Morrish, Management Today, April 2012
This is a thought provoking article, based around a new book by Susan Cain titled ‘Quiet’ and with a sub-title that summarises its theme- ‘The Power of Introverts in a world that can’t stop talking’. The article and the book are unashamedly biased in favour of those of us who are introverts, arguing that such bias is necessary to counter the normal prejudice in favour of extravert behaviour.
The message is that organisations are wasting talent. They allow their cultures to develop in such a way that they give more weight to the opinions of extraverts, promote those with extravert tendencies and favour processes that allow such people to shine. Brainstorming is quoted as a clear example of the latter; introverts prefer to process data and reflect on their own; they do not like to shout out multiple ideas in the company of others.
The author of the book argues that introvert tendencies are innate rather than learned and can be seen at an early age. One surprising outcome of research is that it is the quiet babies who become extravert – they need extra stimulation to become involved - and vice versa for introverts. She also argues that parents try too hard to push children towards extraversion, because this is how society values people from an early age and how the education system in most countries is slanted. (As I read this I thought to myself that this includes the management education system with its focus on group work and the tendency to judge participants by their contribution to discussions)
The article then moves on to show examples of introverts who have achieved success by working alone and includes in that list Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs’ original partner at Apple. I thought that this was an unfortunate example to choose because, though Wozniak was undoubtedly successful, his more illustrious and clearly extravert partner was many times more so. There is a reference to Jobs later in the article but the career of this man – the ultimate extravert who favoured personal interaction as a management process - is surely evidence that this approach is more likely to achieve outstanding results over the long term. Maybe the introvert can make the scientific breakthrough but the extravert is needed to tell the world about it.
This selective use of evidence tends to devalue some of the arguments. When commenting on leadership, it suggests that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are introverts - which is credible – but then claims that Richard Branson might be the same. A more convincing argument is that such people need extravert partners to succeed and quotes Jobs and Wozniak as an example, though it fails to mention that they could not work together over the long term.
There is an interesting argument that the modern tendency towards communication by email and text is tilting the balance back to the introvert; so is the increasingly common practice of working at home. It is also suggested that it is easier for introverts to ‘fake’ extravert behaviour than for extraverts to go the other way. Therefore there may be an increasing trend for introverts to be more successful and to be more recognised in the modern business environment.
The article ends with a questionnaire that allows you to test your own tendencies. This brought back memories of the Eysenck personality test - which was all the rage in the seventies before Myers Briggs came along - ranking on the dimensions of extraversion and stability. This questionnaire is less threatening and probably less scientifically validated but it is a useful – though rather superficial – guide to preferences.
I would recommend that the article as a good read and as food for thought. I am not sure I would recommend the complete book unless you have a special interest in the topic.
Read the article
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1124091/rise-introvert
Buy the book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quiet-power-introverts-world-talking/dp/0670916757/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318505677&sr=1-1
The message is that organisations are wasting talent. They allow their cultures to develop in such a way that they give more weight to the opinions of extraverts, promote those with extravert tendencies and favour processes that allow such people to shine. Brainstorming is quoted as a clear example of the latter; introverts prefer to process data and reflect on their own; they do not like to shout out multiple ideas in the company of others.
The author of the book argues that introvert tendencies are innate rather than learned and can be seen at an early age. One surprising outcome of research is that it is the quiet babies who become extravert – they need extra stimulation to become involved - and vice versa for introverts. She also argues that parents try too hard to push children towards extraversion, because this is how society values people from an early age and how the education system in most countries is slanted. (As I read this I thought to myself that this includes the management education system with its focus on group work and the tendency to judge participants by their contribution to discussions)
The article then moves on to show examples of introverts who have achieved success by working alone and includes in that list Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs’ original partner at Apple. I thought that this was an unfortunate example to choose because, though Wozniak was undoubtedly successful, his more illustrious and clearly extravert partner was many times more so. There is a reference to Jobs later in the article but the career of this man – the ultimate extravert who favoured personal interaction as a management process - is surely evidence that this approach is more likely to achieve outstanding results over the long term. Maybe the introvert can make the scientific breakthrough but the extravert is needed to tell the world about it.
This selective use of evidence tends to devalue some of the arguments. When commenting on leadership, it suggests that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are introverts - which is credible – but then claims that Richard Branson might be the same. A more convincing argument is that such people need extravert partners to succeed and quotes Jobs and Wozniak as an example, though it fails to mention that they could not work together over the long term.
There is an interesting argument that the modern tendency towards communication by email and text is tilting the balance back to the introvert; so is the increasingly common practice of working at home. It is also suggested that it is easier for introverts to ‘fake’ extravert behaviour than for extraverts to go the other way. Therefore there may be an increasing trend for introverts to be more successful and to be more recognised in the modern business environment.
The article ends with a questionnaire that allows you to test your own tendencies. This brought back memories of the Eysenck personality test - which was all the rage in the seventies before Myers Briggs came along - ranking on the dimensions of extraversion and stability. This questionnaire is less threatening and probably less scientifically validated but it is a useful – though rather superficial – guide to preferences.
I would recommend that the article as a good read and as food for thought. I am not sure I would recommend the complete book unless you have a special interest in the topic.
Read the article
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1124091/rise-introvert
Buy the book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quiet-power-introverts-world-talking/dp/0670916757/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318505677&sr=1-1
Friday 11 May 2012
Business Challenge - a virtual business simulation
Over the past couple of years MTP have been working with Unilever to virtually deliver a simulation-based business acumen training program to a global sales audience. The program was developed together with Accenture and Enspire Learning.
The specific learning outcomes agreed upon were to improve participants’ ability to:
- Use financial metrics to inform business decisions
- Make business decisions cross-functionally
- Create business proposals that met company and customer financial needs
The simulation itself is a web application that can be accessed from anywhere in the world with a standard web browser equipped with the Adobe Flash plug-in. Teams can collaborate on decision-making simply by signing into the web application simultaneously and discussing their strategy by phone.
MTP was selected for the facilitation of the programme due to our deep experience in finance and training. Our skills in generating highly engaging and interactive materials were recognised as important, but especially so with a virtual programme. The material that was created features short interactive sessions that link elements of the simulation to key issues that affect a Unilever sales manager’s day-to-day role. The sessions were run on webinar software, and were designed to be as interactive as possible by making full use of quizzes, polls, group discussions and short industry-specific case studies.
The final result is a program that mixes sixteen rounds of competition in the simulation, with interactive sessions and discussions. It is delivered for four hours each day, for four days. This design allows participants to continue to schedule appointments during the days of the course – valuable for sales managers with busy diaries and demanding clients.
Outcome
After an initial pilot run with participants joining from four different countries, the program was refined and has since been delivered to Unilever audiences across Europe, the Americas and Asia. The response from participants and their managers is overwhelmingly positive.
This program has shown that engaging, effective learning programs can be delivered virtually to a global audience. Final proof of the program’s business value is the fact that Unilever has begun to roll-out a variation on it to a wider management audience within the organization.
Click here to read our detailed case study on how the programme was designed and delivered or find out more about our other business simulations.
The specific learning outcomes agreed upon were to improve participants’ ability to:
- Use financial metrics to inform business decisions
- Make business decisions cross-functionally
- Create business proposals that met company and customer financial needs
MTP was selected for the facilitation of the programme due to our deep experience in finance and training. Our skills in generating highly engaging and interactive materials were recognised as important, but especially so with a virtual programme. The material that was created features short interactive sessions that link elements of the simulation to key issues that affect a Unilever sales manager’s day-to-day role. The sessions were run on webinar software, and were designed to be as interactive as possible by making full use of quizzes, polls, group discussions and short industry-specific case studies.
The final result is a program that mixes sixteen rounds of competition in the simulation, with interactive sessions and discussions. It is delivered for four hours each day, for four days. This design allows participants to continue to schedule appointments during the days of the course – valuable for sales managers with busy diaries and demanding clients.
Outcome
After an initial pilot run with participants joining from four different countries, the program was refined and has since been delivered to Unilever audiences across Europe, the Americas and Asia. The response from participants and their managers is overwhelmingly positive.
This program has shown that engaging, effective learning programs can be delivered virtually to a global audience. Final proof of the program’s business value is the fact that Unilever has begun to roll-out a variation on it to a wider management audience within the organization.
Click here to read our detailed case study on how the programme was designed and delivered or find out more about our other business simulations.
Thursday 10 May 2012
A new model of evaluation’ by Bob Little, Training Journal, May 2012
The author positions himself as a writer on corporate learning and the article is well written. However, there is an element of sycophancy in the way he reports the latest work in the area of learning evaluation by John O’Connor. There is no doubt that the ideas behind O’Connor’s ‘Results Assessment (RA) Model’ have some merit but to position it as breakthrough thinking is an insult to those who have battled with the thorny issue of evaluation for many years.
The RA model is based on the idea that any evaluation of learning effectiveness must be based on results which are linked to business goals. It claims to go beyond Kirkpatrick but there seems little to distinguish his thinking from Kirkpatrick level 4. There are a number of references to research carried out by O’Connor but no convincing evidence and no examples of its application in practice.
There is great emphasis on the importance of stakeholder engagement and understanding business goals, which is valid but hardly new to those of us who are involved in targeted, tailored learning solutions.
The frameworks that are offered make sense but are quite similar to what we see in many top companies as a matter of course when they launch major programmes, for instance;
- - Think and act with customers in mind
- - Focus on performance outcomes
- - Measure results that add value
Or how about these four RA processes?
- - Alignment
- - Planning
- - Data Collection/Analysis
- - Reporting results
My reluctant conclusion is that this is not ‘beyond Kirkpatrick’ as the author claims; it is just another vain attempt to find the Holy Grail of learning evaluation. It could be argued that this is harmless but I believe there is potential damage from the suggestion that this kind of evaluation (and here I quote Dr O’Connor) is ‘easy to do’. It is not easy because it is rarely possible to isolate the impact of learning from the many other factors driving business results. How can you know what those who receive learning would have done without the benefit of their increased knowledge and skills? This fundamental challenge is not even acknowledged in the article.
This is not to suggest that we should not try to measure outcomes where possible and cost effective and the sort of questions posed by O’Connor’s framework may be helpful to those who have never tried to get beyond Kirkpatrick’s first two levels. But to suggest that this RA model is new or makes things easy is misleading. And the author makes things worse by a failure to question, challenge or acknowledge the model’s limitations.
Read the article
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2012-05-01-a-new-model-of-evaluation/
Read the article
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2012-05-01-a-new-model-of-evaluation/