For the past several months, I have been conducting research into the leadership of change.  My interest is in finding out what differentiates effective leading of change from ineffective.  Although my research is far from complete, I have found something you might find interesting – the leadership of change has a much different focus than leadership in general.

One of the hallmarks of general leadership is “leadership style”.  At the heart of leadership style is the idea that leaders have a particular way or pattern of leading and that not all patterns are appropriate or effective in all situations.  Leaders who are very production or task oriented, for example, will tend to be more effective in situations where getting things done is paramount than will leaders who are more affinity or relationship oriented.  Based on this literature, one would expect that the effective leadership of change would also involve leadership style, but it doesn’t.

In the literature on change leadership, such as John Kotter’s book Leading Change, the focus is on steps, not style.  More specifically, the focus is on identifying the “right steps” or the “right process(es)”, which if fully and appropriately followed, will result in the successful implementation of change.  Apparently, when it comes to change, it is not the leader’s personal style that matters, but the steps they use in conducting change.

What I find interesting about the steps approach to change leadership is that it ignores the very extensive literature on general leadership which indicates that how leaders treat and interact with followers matters.  The steps approach implies that no matter what a leader’s style might be, or how ineffective it is on a daily basis, it won’t matter when it comes to change as long as they fully and appropriately implement the right steps.

Come on, are they serious?  Are they really saying that steps trump style?  Does anyone really believe that a jerk of a leader can successfully engage people in a change if she simply follows the right steps?  It would seem a marriage of the two approaches would give a more complete picture of what is required for the effective leadership of change, but so far I have not found such a marriage.

Clearly this type of research is extremely valuable IF you have a portfolio of leaders with known leadership styles and a portfolio of changes to which the leaders can be assigned such that their styles complement the change situation.  In these cases, the fit between style and change is likely to result in a more effective change.  But what if you don’t have this?

Most changes are given to the leaders that are already in place, regardless of their leadership styles.  As a result, there is a very high likelihood that there will be a “misfit” between the leader’s current style and the change they are to implement. In these cases, which I believe are the norm rather than the exception, knowing that some styles are more effective with certain types of changes than others is of little or no value.  How do we help leaders, regardless of their “style”, to be more effective regardless of the type of change they have to implement?  What can be done to help any leader be more personally effective when their “style” is not a match for what they have to accomplish assuming they even know what their “style” is?

If you want to improve the quality and timeliness of what you get back from people, then start making good requests and getting good promises.  By good requests and promises, I mean ones in which both parties are clear they are in a performance conversation for giving their word and are awake to what they are committing each other to.  All too frequently, people make “drive by requests” and “drive by promises” – ones that are made on the run or while doing something else and where at least one party is not completely present to what they are promising.  The result is that what gets delivered is not always accurate, complete, or timely.  Making good requests and getting good promises are integral to personal leadership effectiveness.

A good promise is one that is made in response to a good request, and here is how you make a good request:

Step 1:
Request what you want, by when you want it, and explain why it matters.

Step 2:
Get answers to each of the following questions:

1. Do you have any questions about what I want, when I want it, or why?

2. Are you available to do this? Do you see when you could do the work? Are you aware of anything that could keep you from completing it on time?

3. Do you have some ideas as to how this might be done? [This is particularly important when requesting something they haven’t done before.]

4. Do you have the necessary information and resources or do you know where to get them? [This can change over the duration of a project as things that were not known become known – one reason why you would want to schedule progress reports.]

5. Are you accepting my request?

When you get answers that leave you confident the work will be completed accurately, completely, and on time, you have a “good” promise. If you are not confident, explore the answers that give you concern until you are confident. It is better to withdraw a request you are not confident will be completed than to “hope” it will get done.

Peter Bergmann suggests that the secret to ensuring follow through is to create and use a checklist when making each request.  Using a checklist (see Bergmann’s checklist) as a matter of policy increases the likelihood of making good requests, increases consistency (which builds trust), and makes the interaction easier.

What is a “sufficient period of time”? It is the amount of time it takes to get something done given (a) the nature of the work required and (b) the productivity of the person (people) doing the work.  In general, the more complex and involved the work, the longer it will take to get done compared to work that is less complex or involved.  Similarly, the more productive the person (people) doing the work, the less time it will take than someone who is less productive.

Example

One of the jobs I perform several times each University quarter is grading exams.  How long it takes me to grade an exam depends first on the nature of the work required. Are there 50 exams to grade, or 150? Just as important, what type of exam is it? An exam that has all objective questions – multiple choice and true-false questions – is much faster to grade than an all essay question exam.

And in addition to the nature of the work, what are the factors that influence my productivity?  One is my reading speed, which is influenced by the writing quality of the student answers on essay questions. A second is my writing speed, for making comments that will give students feedback on both types of exam. And a third is my sitting tolerance – how long I can stay focused on the grading task. I find my tolerance is higher when student writing is good, and lower when it’s not.

A sufficient period of time for me to grade exams, therefore, depends on what type of exam I give and my productivity while grading. The only two ways I can reduce the time it takes to grade an exam is by (1) changing the design of the exam (more objective, less essay) and/or (2) improving my productivity.

As an example, if it takes 1.5 hours to grade one question in a short-answer essay exam for a graduate class of 25 people.  If there are four questions on the exam, I will need a total of 6 hours in order to grade the entire exam for the whole class. I can choose to break it up into four segments of 1.5 hours, or two segments of 3 hours, etc. But if I schedule less time than that, I will not complete grading the exam.

Like the Law of Gravity, we must account for the First Law of Accomplishment.  In order to accomplish something, you must have a sufficient period of time in which to get it done.  If you don’t allocate the time, it won’t get done. Of course, you can get something done in less time if you do a sloppy job. Doing incomplete work, however, damages people’s credibility and reputation.

Steps to Obeying the First Law of Accomplishment

There are four things that will help you obey the First Law of Accomplishment.

1.       Record Your Promises.  You can’t accomplish what you can’t find or can’t remember.  Keep a record of everything you have agreed to do. Write your promises and commitments down somewhere – preferably in one place, like a promise log – and then refer to it regularly until the promises are completed.

Ideally you record (a) What is due to someone, (b) Who it is to be delivered to, and (c) When it is due – plus enough particulars about the “deliverable” so you can determine how much work will be involved. Be sure to consider the different types of work that may be involved – the desk and computer work, phone and email work, research, writing, getting approvals, etc.

2.       Determine the time periods needed to complete the accomplishment.  Given the nature of the work to be done and your level of productivity, determine how much time will be required to complete the assignment.  Bear in mind that most people are overly optimistic about how long something takes to get done, and as a result they often grossly underestimate the amount of time they will need.  If something takes six hours, don’t assume you can get it done in five.

I have learned that most people do not know how long it takes to do the many jobs they have, even the ones they do on a recurring basis.  It took me several University quarters to determine how long it takes to grade different types of assignments.  And grading is only one part of my work!

Determine whether your promise for a particular “deliverable” (a promised product, service, or other result) will take four hours, or fourteen hours. And decide if it would be best to do it all at once, broken up into two or three – or more – steps, i.e., the number and size of specific “periods of time” you will require to accomplish the promised result.

3.       Determine the time available in your schedule to do the work. If you are like most people, you have far less time in which to do the work you have promised than you realize.  The reason for this is because of meetings, appointments, recurring events (including lunch and breaks), and interruptions.  When you are engaged in any of these things, you are not available for working on the other things you have promised – the “accomplishment work” that will fulfill your commitments.

In order to determine when you can work on the things you have promised, start with a blank schedule, then put in all the appointments and meetings you plan to attend, the recurring events like meals and coffee breaks, and an estimate of when you are most likely to be interrupted (and for how long). NOTE: Most of us have more control over interruptions than we think we do, and we know something about our typical patterns of timing and duration of interruptions too.

So what’s left? The time that remains after all these things are accounted for is your unscheduled time.  That is the time you have available for working on everything else – including your “accomplishment work”.  Pause a moment here to allow yourself to be shocked at how much time you are giving to appointments, meetings, recurring events, and interruptions, and how little you are giving to your “accomplishment work”.

4.       Schedule your work, then follow your schedule. Now that you know how many time periods are needed to complete the work you have promised (#2 above) and how much time you have available for doing that work (#3 above), you can schedule the work.  Put the periods of time necessary to accomplish your promises into your calendar.

One trick here is not to schedule yourself too tightly (i.e., back-to-back with no space in between), so that when unexpected events occur, you have some flexibility to deal with them.  Another trick is to use your schedule when people ask you to do things: when someone wants you to do something, pull out your calendar and look to see when you will be able to do the work required.

Remember, the First Law of Accomplishment says, “The accomplishment of anything requires a sufficient period of time in which to accomplish it.”  When your schedule is full, you will be unable to make new promises without modifying or revoking existing promises. Use your schedule as a guide to when you can say yes, and what conditions you must apply to the agreements you make.

This will put your all of your communication skills to work. You can make requests for resources and support, decline to take on something you know you cannot deliver, and make requests to change agreements on due dates for promises you have made with other people.

Conclusion

The biggest challenge to our personal performance is finding ourselves overcommitted because we have (1) failed to keep a good record of everything we have promised, (2) underestimated the amount of time a job will take, and/or (3) overestimated the amount of time available.  When we say yes to more things than we have time in which to do them, we are in an argument with the First Law of Accomplishment. This argument is stressful and unwinnable.  The integrity of your scheduling process is what produces your calendar, establishes the validity of your promises, and provides the foundation for your personal effectiveness. It’s best to make friends with the First Law of Accomplishment.

[This article is reprinted from The Great Managing Newsletter, Vol. 9, Issue 22, November 30, 2010 by permission of Jeffrey and Laurie Ford. For additional information, visit www.laurieford.com or www.professorford.com]

I was recently at a holiday dinner reception at the Fisher College of Business hosted by the Dean.  At my table were several other faculty members.  At some point, the conversation turned to a favorite complaint of faculty – “Why don’t students do what is needed to do well in class?”  Now, if you notice, this is a general complaint in that with a few minor substitutions, it can be applied to anyone, anywhere, at anytime.  Consider “Why don’t [fill in the person or group] do [fill in the blank] to [fill in the blank]?”

Examples:

• Why doesn’t Ed do the report according to the specifications so we can move the project forward?
• Why don’t the Democrats/Republicans put more effort into cooperation to get things done?
• Why doesn’t the faculty spend more time with students so that they will do better in class?

What each of these (any many other) complaints have in common is that someone is not doing something someone else thinks they should when and how they think it should be done.  With those at my dinner table, students were not behaving in what was considered by those at the table in a responsible way; they were not being personally accountable.

It was during this discussion that I realized something was really missing – common ground.  The faculty at the table were assuming that students saw the world much in the same way they did.  But they never tested the assumption.  They just held students accountable for not being personally accountable.

The term “common ground” has different meanings.  For many, it means a common or background understanding of something.  For example, if we both go to a professional football game, then we have a common background understanding of what such a game is like; we have a similar experience.  Or, if we both take a course on art appreciation, we have a background understanding in common. Accordingly this meaning, the way you increase common ground is by exposing people to the same or similar experiences and information.

In the case of performance and accountability, however, I don’t think this meaning of common ground is sufficient because it does not necessarily provide mutual knowledge.  Mutual knowledge is another view of common ground in which both parties know the same thing.  For example, if you like chocolate ice cream, and I know you like chocolate ice cream, and you know I know you like chocolate ice cream, and I know you know I know you like chocolate ice cream, we have mutual knowledge.  We both know you like chocolate ice cream and we both know that each other knows it.  We have that knowing in common.

There are two things that make common ground interesting to me.  One is that it seems to be necessary for good communication between parties.  The other is that it is apparently missing for most of us.  Creating common ground takes work – it takes dialogue and really getting to know people.  But rather than do that, we seem to assume that they know what we know (or they should) and then operate from there.  Or worse still, we dismiss their world as invalid.

I have just started my investigation into the role of common ground and how it impacts performance, but what I have learned so far indicates it could be a key ingredient in “misunderstandings” and “miscommunications”.