I just finished reading Big Think Strategy: How to Leverage Bold Ideas and Leave Small Thinking Behind. Another excellent book, it discusses the behaviors of people who achieve bold accomplishments. Specifically what he calls the "the big three of Big Think": guts, passion, and perseverance. And my favorite quote in the book: "Leading a Big Think project requires guts, passion, and perseverance; you must have an agenda and consult various people by moving in different circles."
Unfortunately it is not availible on Kindle. The audio version was a great and easy listen.
On Amazon On Audible
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Currently Reading: The Back of the Napkin
The Back of the Napkin is a book that I am just starting and it is already impressing me. It explains techniques everyone can use to create pictures and diagrams that help solve problems.
I'll post more when I am done.
On Amazon On Kindle
I'll post more when I am done.
On Amazon On Kindle
Policies vs. Principles
I had a great conversation on Friday with Mark and Ian about how smaller companies often have almost no policy manuals and employees are often expected to "do the right thing." When companies grow, this tends to get supplanted by lengthly books that attempt to capture the right behaviors in detailed rules that capture every scenario.
A better approach would be to hold onto the culture of "doing the right thing." This could be augmented with a book that captures stories and anecdotes of right and wrong behaviors that can occur. In his series of books, Patrick Lencioni teaches concepts through the use of fables.
Teaching with stories has the distinct advantage of being memorable. Many studies show that we remember information and concepts much better when they are wrapped into stories.
Another advantage is that when resented with a clear set of rules, people will tend to change their behavior just enough to circumvent rather than break the rule. Often this is not completely intentional. They don't want to break the rule so they read it throughly and figure out how they can achieve BOTH their desired outcome AND obey the rule. We often refer to this as obeying the letter of the rule but not the spirit.
When expectations are principle based rather than rule based, people tend to act in such a way as to respect the principle, then formulate their own behavioral guidelines that fit the moment much better than any black-and-white rules written years earlier. We might even think of these principles as capturing the condensed "spirit of the rules," since that seems to be what we really want followed anyway.
In a sense, this method treats employees as intelligent people who, when given guidance and ownership over the outcome, can act in a principled way that also agilely adapts to new situations as they arise.
In his book Stirring It Up, Gary Hirshberg speaks often about how they used a few simples principles to guide then in their decision making while they created and grew Stonyfield Farms.
We can achieve some amazing things when we simply raise our expectations.
A better approach would be to hold onto the culture of "doing the right thing." This could be augmented with a book that captures stories and anecdotes of right and wrong behaviors that can occur. In his series of books, Patrick Lencioni teaches concepts through the use of fables.
Teaching with stories has the distinct advantage of being memorable. Many studies show that we remember information and concepts much better when they are wrapped into stories.
Another advantage is that when resented with a clear set of rules, people will tend to change their behavior just enough to circumvent rather than break the rule. Often this is not completely intentional. They don't want to break the rule so they read it throughly and figure out how they can achieve BOTH their desired outcome AND obey the rule. We often refer to this as obeying the letter of the rule but not the spirit.
When expectations are principle based rather than rule based, people tend to act in such a way as to respect the principle, then formulate their own behavioral guidelines that fit the moment much better than any black-and-white rules written years earlier. We might even think of these principles as capturing the condensed "spirit of the rules," since that seems to be what we really want followed anyway.
In a sense, this method treats employees as intelligent people who, when given guidance and ownership over the outcome, can act in a principled way that also agilely adapts to new situations as they arise.
In his book Stirring It Up, Gary Hirshberg speaks often about how they used a few simples principles to guide then in their decision making while they created and grew Stonyfield Farms.
We can achieve some amazing things when we simply raise our expectations.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Getting to Know Candidates: The interview flipped upside down.
During interviews it is common for a candidate to have between 3 and 6 one hour interviews. Often the purpose of each session is to determine if that person is right for "the position" or has the "right technical background" for the group. At some organizations the interviews are scripted or outlined to ensure each area is covered. In practice these efforts are short sighted. Consider another objective and method.
If instead of thinking of the interview process as trying to access the correct "binary result", hire or no hire. I propose the interview is an opportunity to get to "know who the candidate is professionally." What kind of jobs can they handle? Where are their passions? Where do they excel? And where do they falter? Rather than asking "Does this candidate fit in the role or group?" instead ask "What kinds of roles and groups would this candidate fit into?" I will explain further.
At times a candidate "bombs" an interview which means he has shown that he is not a good fit for the position availible. Now, significant expense has already been invested in scheduling time, preparation, etc. If we fail to figure out where the candidate might be useful, the effort has been a complete loss. The further interviewing time is either canceled or fails to gather any more data at all.
Getting to know the candidate means instead of "beating a dead horse," we use our intellect and agility to shift the interview to locate the areas the candidate shines. This will require a willingness to explore a bit. The end result is that you will be able to make valuable recommendations that the candidate might fit another role, or group, or company, or that he might consider brushing up on certain technologies or concepts.
Another benefit is that the candidate leaves the interview feeling like he had a positive experience. It is important that candidates feel known during the interview. in The Three Signs of a Miserable Job author Patrick Lencioni says that anonymity is a major factor in people being dissatisfied with their jobs. This feeling of anonymity can start right in the interview if the interviewer does not ask about the things the candidate feels is most important about their experiences and abilities.
Certainly in the tech industry, companies can become so focused on hiring someone who might be able to do ColdFusion, or MegaSort, or whatever, that they fail to realize that even though the candidate did that once in a role, it is not where they are focusing and not where they intend to focus. I have turned down offers before at companies that were interviews were completely focused on the companies needs and did not appear interested in my needs or interests.
So my advice to interviewers is get to know your candidates. My advice to interviewees, is if your interviewers are not interested in finding out who you are and who your are trying to become, move on. Great employees are in demand and it is a job hunters market. Find a place to work that is focused on people more than technology and more interested in who you are than what cog you can be in their machine.
If instead of thinking of the interview process as trying to access the correct "binary result", hire or no hire. I propose the interview is an opportunity to get to "know who the candidate is professionally." What kind of jobs can they handle? Where are their passions? Where do they excel? And where do they falter? Rather than asking "Does this candidate fit in the role or group?" instead ask "What kinds of roles and groups would this candidate fit into?" I will explain further.
At times a candidate "bombs" an interview which means he has shown that he is not a good fit for the position availible. Now, significant expense has already been invested in scheduling time, preparation, etc. If we fail to figure out where the candidate might be useful, the effort has been a complete loss. The further interviewing time is either canceled or fails to gather any more data at all.
Getting to know the candidate means instead of "beating a dead horse," we use our intellect and agility to shift the interview to locate the areas the candidate shines. This will require a willingness to explore a bit. The end result is that you will be able to make valuable recommendations that the candidate might fit another role, or group, or company, or that he might consider brushing up on certain technologies or concepts.
Another benefit is that the candidate leaves the interview feeling like he had a positive experience. It is important that candidates feel known during the interview. in The Three Signs of a Miserable Job author Patrick Lencioni says that anonymity is a major factor in people being dissatisfied with their jobs. This feeling of anonymity can start right in the interview if the interviewer does not ask about the things the candidate feels is most important about their experiences and abilities.
Certainly in the tech industry, companies can become so focused on hiring someone who might be able to do ColdFusion, or MegaSort, or whatever, that they fail to realize that even though the candidate did that once in a role, it is not where they are focusing and not where they intend to focus. I have turned down offers before at companies that were interviews were completely focused on the companies needs and did not appear interested in my needs or interests.
So my advice to interviewers is get to know your candidates. My advice to interviewees, is if your interviewers are not interested in finding out who you are and who your are trying to become, move on. Great employees are in demand and it is a job hunters market. Find a place to work that is focused on people more than technology and more interested in who you are than what cog you can be in their machine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
