W. Edwards Deming had a lot to say about how managers use data incorrectly and waste the resources of an organization. It was part of his philosophy of quality which he called “profound knowledge.” He stressed a number of mistakes typically made by managers when handling data. Here are some of the problems along with the antidote for each misuse.

Mistake 1 – Assuming variation is a result of special cause variability when it is really due to common cause variability.

Common cause variability is when a system is in statistical control with small random type variation going on. The only way to tell if a system is in control is to consider all the data, usually by plotting it, and find out if the data variability is within certain defined bounds. If it is, then for managers to ask people to explain the variation is simply a waste of time. People will dutifully go off and try to find out what caused the variation, but the answer will be only a guess and not valid information.

When one or more data points go outside the bounds of normal variability, then there is a special cause. In these cases it is not only possible but vital to determine what caused the variation so it can be controlled and eliminated in the future.

Most managers fail to determine if a signal is due to special cause variation when they ask underlings to explain what happened. This causes a large waste of effort and time.

Mistake 2 – Assessing the capability of a process based on the most recent data point.

It is tempting to react to the most recent data and ask people to take corrective action based on that. At home, we might say, it’s cold in here, why not turn up the heat? But just because it is cold at the moment does not mean the system needs to be adjusted. It may be the low point of the cycle that is in common cause variation. In which case, if we turn up the thermostat, we are doing what Deming called “tampering.” Tampering is defined as moving the set point of a system experiencing common cause variation in an attempt to reduce the variability. In fact, it can be demonstrated that “chasing” the perfect setting will result in a large increase in the variation of the process. It is better to leave things alone.

Many of us have experienced this when sitting in a meeting. All of a sudden someone will say, “Whew, it is very warm in here” and turn down the thermostat. Ten minutes later people in the room are reaching for their sweaters because they are chilled, so up goes the thermostat. All day long people fiddle with the darned thermostat and swear at the heating system. The problem resides in the fingers of the people playing with the setting, not the furnace control. They are tampering, which results in roughly double the temperature variation than if they just left things alone.

Mistake 3 – Interpreting two points as a trend

This flaw is ingrained so deeply into the fabric of our thinking that we rarely even realize how stupid most statements of movement really are. Every day we read in the paper or hear on the news something like the earnings for Company X are up by 20%. We think that is a good thing. Rubbish! All it means is that in comparison to four quarters ago the earnings are 20% higher. It says nothing about the actual trend of the data. For knowledge of how the company is doing we need to plot the data and consider the quarterly earnings over something like 8 consecutive quarters. Then we can know what is going on.

Many advertisements for products are based on the faulty logic that two points make a trend. When we hear that interest rates on mortgages is down by ½ point, that is a symptom of two points equaling a trend. We really cannot use that data to imply what has been happening to interest rates in the past or is likely to happen in the future.

Mistake 4 – Looking for blame rather than root cause

When something goes wrong, managers often focus on who messed up and why rather than what aspect of the system was the root cause so it can be fixed. They think if they can pinpoint the culprit and punish him or her that will eliminate problems in the future. Actually, the reverse is true. By trying to find a scape goat, people tend to hide the truth and work to pin blame on other people to protect their own interests. That leads to infighting and other disruptive behavior.

Mistake 5 – Too much automation of process data.

This issue is counter intuitive. One would think that data plotted and interpreted by computers would be superior to that plotted by hand. In fact, data where people have been involved in the process is more useful because people have the ability to spot peripheral issues and correct them where a computer will just keep logging rubbish. When people rely on the machine always being right, there can be disastrous results because at the root of it the machines are controlled by people, but once programmed, people tend to rely too much on the machine and forget to check for sanity. That is how pilots occasionally fly into the side of a mountain, because they rely too much on the dumb auto pilot and forget to watch where they are going.

These 5 mistakes are the most common ones. There are other symptoms of how managers use data incorrectly to the detriment of their organization and the people. The antidote for each of these problems is to make sure managers are educated on these flaws and modify their behaviors to avoid the pitfalls.

Most of us do not have to look far to find our own worst critic. We just need to look in the mirror. Even though it is not good for our physical or spiritual health, we all tend to dwell on what we need to do better.

There is an antidote to the malaise, and it is easier that we think. All we need to do is re-train our minds to avoid dwelling on our deficiencies. Easier said than done? Not really. There are three simple steps you can take that will alter your self perception if you have the will to do them.

http://www.leadergrow.com/WhoisYourWorstCritic.pdf

I was having a discussion in one of my leadership classes today about how we sometimes talk about people behind their backs. There is damage done to relationships when individuals gossip about a third party who is not present. Here are some guidelines we can consider to change our attitudes and make the world a better place.

1. Establish an environment of trust. Teach leaders to always reinforce candor and encourage others to do the same.
2. Always assume the “mute button” is defective. That is, try to speak well of people even if they are not able to hear you.
3. Be forthright if you have an issue with another person, but do in in a kind way using the Golden Rule.
4. Do not engage in gossip about other people and inflame an existing conversation. Just opt out of these hurtful discussions when they come up.
5. Remind people who want to denigrate other people how they would feel if someone was doing that to them.
6. Try to establish a social norm in your sphere of influence that values people for their contributions rather than there deficiencies.
7. Increase your ratio of positive to negative comments about other people. One good idea is to keep track of these for a week.  Just put hash marks on a 3X5 card. Then change your ratio by at least 50%.
8. Model openness with other people by discussing the habit of talking about people to their face rather than behind their backs.
9. When there is a disconnect with another person, make it a habit to assume the best intent rather than the worst.
10. Increase Transparency. Challenge any gag rule to see if it is really required. Often it is more of a paradigm than a necessity.

These tips are all common sense. The world would be a better place if we  all made them common practice.

Your style leads to your observable behavior in any circumstance. Since behaviors govern how the world reacts to you, it is critical to understand your own style. Equally important with understanding your stlye is to actively manage it.

Many people spend a lot of time and energy understanding their style. They know that they are an INFP on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator or a High “D” with strong “I” tendencies on the DiSC Scale. This tells them the pigeon hole they rate themselves in and how that pigeonhole relates to the rest of the world.

These indicators are extremely helpful at helping people understand not only their own actions but how they can relate better to people with different styles. Unfortunately, these indicators view style in a static sense and do not consider that we are all changing and growing every day.

My opinion is that the study of one’s style should go way beyond these mechanical descriptors of what we currently are. Our style should also include what we might become if we actively manage it.

The attached white paper is an attempt to put some framework around this topic. It is far from a complete study, and I would be interested in any references or ideas others have to share.
http://www.leadergrow.com/ManagingYourStyle.pdf

There are many good books on how organizations can make change initiatives work well. Two of my favorites are “Who Moved my Cheese” by Spencer Johnson and “Our Iceberg is Melting” by John Kotter. These simple parable-type books make a compelling case for how easy it can be to make rapid change in large organizations.

But it is really not easy at all because the vast majority of change initiatives in corporations are dismal failures. They fail to produce more than a tiny fraction of the intended result and are often very expensive “programs” that actually serve to lower rather than raise trust. I set out a list of 9 groundrules for successful change. Some of these are similar to other author’s concepts and some are unique. Here is my list:

1.Demonstrate an urgent need for change
2.Communicate a compelling vision of the future
3.Create the right environment before starting training programs – no mechanical fix to problems
4.Draw on the diverse ideas that are available
5.Be willing to accept risk – fosters creativity
6.Reinforce the small wins along the way
7.Integrate the new methods well into the culture
8.Demonstrate constancy of purpose over time – avoid jumping from one “program” to another
9.Understand the psychology of change

For those who are interested in more detail, the attached white paper has additional information from my first book.
http://www.leadergrow.com/LeadingChangeInitiatives.pdf

I have a theory on Micromanagement. It is not entirely the fault of the leader who is intrusive into the workings of employees. I believe the employees are as much to blame as the micromanager.

Reason: I used to work for a leader who was known as the king of all micromanagers. He basically tried to run everything by telling people exactly how to accomplish their tasks. He was an excellent leader otherwise, but people always dinged him on being way too intrusive.

I learned about his reputation before ever going to work for him. During my first few weeks I went way overboard in my preparation. I would anticipate any potential question he might have and be prepared with data to support my conclusions. When he would suggest something to try, I usually could say, “it has already been done.” I would communicate to him every day (including weekends) my plans and ask lots of questions about what was wanted. He never had an opportunity to get to me because I always got to him first. After a while, he basically left me alone and did not micromanage me very much for the next 25 years. We got along great, while he continued to micromanage others.

So, my rule of thumb on this one is that credibility and communication allow you to manage things as you see fit. Lack of credibility and communication leads to being micromanaged.

We have all been there at some point. We need to communicate on a delicate issue, and e-mail is the only method possible because the other person is unavailable for any other type of communication. The situation can be a CTO (Career Threatening Opportunity). First of all you will be putting snesitive material in writing in a medium where there is no chance to fully erase it. Second, time is usually short in these circumstances, so there is not a lot of opportunity for detailed analysis.  Finally, the subject matter gives you the feeling that you are walking on eggs.

Wouldn’t it be handy to have a check list of things to do to protect yourself in these circumstances?  If you follow the steps in the attached article, you can be assured of doing no damage while not compromizing your beliefs or integrity.

The length of the list may seem burdensome until you try it and find that using this process actually takes very little incremental time, and it vastly improves your political prowess in online communication.

 http://www.leadergrow.com/WritingchallengingE-Mails.pdf

I teach leadership in several universities. One thing that has disappointed me is the discussion of corporate culture in most of the MBA textbooks. They usually leave out the most important parts of culture. This topic has fascinated me for years. The success and longevity of any organization is directly linked to its culture. We sometimes notice the parts that make up culture, but often they are transparent because they are just a part of doing business in a particular group. If we stop to think about what defines culture and work to manage or influence it, we can uncover some powerful leadership leverage.
Most of the Leadership textbooks I have read describe the culture in terms of physical attributes that characterize an organization. For example, here is a typical list of the things purported to make up a company culture.
1.Physical structure
2.Language and symbols
3.Rituals, ceremonies, gossip, and jokes
4.Stories, legends, and heroes
5.Beliefs
6.Values and norms
7.Assumptions
The above list is a montage of the lists in many textbooks. When you think about it, these items do go a long way toward defining the culture of an organization. Unfortunately, I believe these items fall short because they fail to include the emotions of the people. After all, organizations are made up of people, at all levels, interacting in a social structure for a purpose. Let us extend the list of things that make up the culture of an organization.
1.Is there a high level of trust within the organization?
2.To what extent do people have the opportunity to grow in this organization?
3.Do people feel safe and secure, or are they basically fearful?
4.How do people treat each other on their own level and on higher or lower levels?
5.Is the culture inclusive or exclusive?
6.Do people generally feel like winners or losers at work?
7.Is the culture one of reinforcement or punishment?
8.Are managers viewed as enablers or barriers?
9.Are people trying to get into the organization or trying to get out? 
10.What is the level of satisfaction for people in this organization?
11.Can people “speak their truth” without fear of reprisal?
12.Do people follow the rules or find ways to avoid following them?

I could go on with another 20-30 things that relate to the human side of culture. I hope you agree that the items above are at least as important as the items on the first list in terms of describing the culture. Why then do the textbooks on leadership not mention them when they discuss culture? It baffles me. Perhaps the view is that these “people-centered” items are best discussed separately and only the “system-centered” items define the culture. Personally, I do not agree with that.
Let’s zoom in on just one item of my list above: item #1. The level of trust in an organization is actually the most significant part of the culture in my book. The reason I put Trust in the front and center of culture is that with high trust, all of the other things (rituals, ceremonies, values, language, etc.) work to engage people in the business. With low trust, you can have all the trappings, but people will laugh at you behind your back.
You are probably familiar with the CEO who spouts out the values at every chance, but does not live them, so there is no trust. The values are just a useless pile of words. In fact, they are worse than useless because every time the CEO mentions the values it reminds people what a hypocrite he is.
Why is Trust so powerful? Let’s contrast a few dimensions for a company with high trust versus one with low trust to view the impact.
Problems
All organizations have a steady stream of problems. If the culture is one of low trust, each problem represents a high hurdle to overcome. We have to stop everything and have a meeting to figure out who said what and try to unscramble the mess. If there is high trust, first of all there will be fewer problems, but then the remaining problems are easily overcome, like pebbles in the road we kick aside with our shoe. We can focus energy on the vision rather than the problems.
Communication
In groups with low trust, trying to communicate is like walking on eggs. Every word or phrase is a potential trigger for a sarcastic remark. Things are frequently taken the wrong way and create damage to control. With high trust, communication seems easy. People have the ability to “hear between the lines” and the instinctively know the intent of the message even if the words come out wrong. Employees are not coiled and ready to strike anytime there is an opportunity.
Focus
In areas of low trust, people are focusing on protecting themselves or bringing other people down. Most of the energy is directed inward to the organization in numerous battles that really don’t help the organization succeed. If trust is high, people are feeling aligned so their focus is outward at the opportunities (customers) or threats (competition). This shift in focus from inward battles to outward opportunities is huge in terms of organizational success.
Rumors
When trust is low, rumors spring up due to poor communication. Since there is nothing to retard them, they take on a life of their own. The rumors and gossip spread like wildfire all over the organization creating significant damage control for management. In areas of high trust, there will still be rumors from time to time, but they will be easily extinguished before they do significant damage. This is because people believe management when they say something is not true.
Attitude
Look at the people in an organization of low trust; what is their general attitude? Usually it is one of apathy. They need their job in order to live, but they dearly wish it wasn’t such a struggle. Now look at the attitude of people in an organization of high trust. You will see passion and motivation to really help the organization succeed. The difference here is huge in terms of organizational survival. For one thing, customers notice the difference immediately. You know the feeling of sitting in a restaurant where the trust level between management and the servers is low. You get an uncomfortable feeling and may net even realize why you decide to not patronize the place again.
We could go on with numerous more examples of the difference between a culture of high trust and low trust, and that is only the first item on the list. I hope it is obvious that having the right kind of culture makes all the difference in the ability to survive in business. Take the time and energy to work on your culture, The ROI is astronomical.
The preceding information was adapted from the book The TRUST Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, by Robert Whipple. It is available on www.leadergrow.com.
Mr. Whipple is also the author of Leading with Trust is like Sailing Downwind and, Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online. Bob consults and speaks on these and other leadership topics. He is CEO of Leadergrow Inc. a company dedicated to growing leaders. Contact Bob at bwhipple@leadergrow.com or
585-392-7763.

©Leadergrow Inc. 2009
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

We all want to be successful in life. Success has meaning to us in a very personal way. Some people long for financial freedom to be able to live out their lives in relaxation with enough money to pay the bills. Other people define success in terms of power, they want to have a large span of control. Still others think being successful means having excellent personal relationships and love in their lives.

I have been highly influenced by two authors who taught the world some vital lessons about what success really is. Those authors are Napolian Hill and Earl Nightingale. I have extracted a white paper on the subject of defining success from my recent book, Leading with Trust is like Sailing Downwind. Here is a link to that white paper. You may be surprised by the simple description of success given by Nightingale that can have great impact on you and your friends at work.

http://www.leadergrow.com/DefiningSuccess.pdf