Peter Alderliesten's Blog

Fortunately, the distribution of Outlook to all of our laptops has been followed by an incredible increase in professional handling of interpersonal communication with respect to meetings. Therefore, we can now declare an end to “The Middle Ages of Communication” in which the following allergy enhancing strategies were employed to bother us all:

Invitations to meetings
• Send a mail to meet at a particular date and time instead of an invitation. (Which mail in the best of cases would at least contain that information.)
• Send an invitation without checking whether I am available at that time according to my electronic calendar.
• In Germany it is customary to go and have a(n of course planned) lunch with your colleagues. Only the shy maintained their own agenda with just plain ‘busy blockers’ for lunch, so that nobody would invite them for that social occasion. A repeating appointment put on ‘tentative’ would just be cluttering the agenda, of course.
• Not maintaining one’s own Outlook calendar so that when someone sent out an invite for a free space the response came: “Sorry, I am blocked at that time”.
• Or even worse, an e-mail instead of an Outlook-proposal “Sorry, I am blocked at that time, would the next day work?”
• Or even topping that: “Sorry, I am blocked at that time, could we do it later?” The absence of any substantive response kept you from inviting that person again, ever.
• To think about even sending a response to an invite was outrageous, of course, people would decide on the day itself which of their invitations was the most pressing.
• During our holidays, we did not yet have an automatic cancellation of our invitations during that timeframe, so that a group wass waiting for a person who just happened to have taken off that day.
• Out Of Office was not shared with colleagues, either through either access to the agenda or by sending out an invite to them (non-blocking, no response required of course)
• A way of pretending you are busy was blocking your agenda – and for good measure put in an Out Of Office-message – when you were working from another site of the same company. Access to e-mail generally was not guaranteed there, of course.
• When adding a participant to a large meeting, not just forwarded the meeting to the new participant but also distributing the update to all existing ones.
• Not proposing an agenda for the meeting at sll.
• Or going overboard: not only proposing a list of topics to discuss for the meeting but also updating all participants on the whole discussion about putting the agenda together.

System enhancements
• When organizing a recurring meeting with multiple participants sometimes Outlook took over the creation of obnoxious errors: I once had a colleague who updated the time of a meeting once, but Outlook took care of it to repeat the same message to all 85 participants four times. (No, not a lame excuse, verified error.)
• While we are at system errors: Skype had the habit of not adding a Skype link to an invite for addressees if the invitor happens to be offline himself, for instance if he had just changed his position after coming from a meeting room. To facilitate greater confusion, the Skype invite did show up in the invitor’s own agenda.
• When making a mistake like above, no colleague informed us about it.

Meeting minutes
• No meeting minutes were kept at all, to facilitate confusion later on about what was agreed upon. A secretary to minute the Board meeting, of course, is way too expensive.
• Meeting minutes that were unclear and not identifying among ‘Information shared’, ‘Decisions taken’ and ‘Actions agreed’.
• Action items were not understandable out of context
• No confirmation that the meeting minutes had been agreed would be exchanged (“That is how you might have written it down, but that is not what I said three months ago”)
• No storage methodology for the meeting minutes was available. Nowadays it could be in mails, a folder, Sharepoint or anything else, as long as participants can find it back.
• Meeting minutes consisted of only the slides shown, which was very helpful to document the discussion they triggered.

Behavior in meetings
• My absolute favorite: “We will do this ASAP (As Soon As Possible”). For those of you not in the know, ASAP is a public holiday on the first Sunday in September. Every year I organize a barbeque in my (non-existent) rooftop garden for those who have used that word that year in my presence.
• “We will do it later”. Apparently the task was not taken seriously enough to plan it with a date. The worldwide implemented remedy is to ask the question “When?”
• “We will have to re-visit this”. Even more abstruse (=unclear) language to say the same as “We will do it later”. Same remedy has been implemented.
• “I need more information”. Apparently the authors of these words were just trying to get away from the task since they did not even specify what information they needed to do it.
• “I do not know the answer” or “I can not”. The questioner was not taken seriously but just ‘brushed off’. Here the remedy of “Please specify what you would need to provide the answer or do it” has now been universally implemented.
• Some colleagues liked to hear themselves talk. Their counterparts apparently had insignificant contributions and did not matter. Usually this pattern was evidenced by people preventing questions by increasing their pitch and volume to ‘outvoice’ their ‘subjects’. Unfortunately, Outlook does not have a solution for that yet.
• Finally, items were analyzed “in order of urgency”: First the actions were agreed, then the decisions to justify the actions, and finally the information was shared to justify the decisions. Of course, this very productive way of working is to be continued.

In short, thanks to technological progress we now have also improved how we interact with one another. One step has been made on the road to universal happiness.

Especially when dealing in an intercultural environment many different ways of dealing with this (until now by most considered to be necessary) ‘evil of physical or teleconferencing meetings’ can be found. In one project we developed a way of working that I still consider to be ‘best practice’ and which agreements I would like to share with you.

There are extremely funny Youtube video´s sharing the ´Don´t´s Observations, below also the suggested ´Do´s Alternatives. These rules I hold for self-evident:

Setting up one`s own generic agenda

Observation1      No entry of all meetings in agenda                                                           Alternative1        If agenda shows empty space and the subject is ‘appropriate’, acceptance is guaranteed

Observation2     A repetitive blocker for e.g. lunch with yet unspecified partners is set on `busy’                                                                                                                                  Alternative2        Such a repetitive blocker is set on ´tentative´. A repetitive blocker for doing work that can be moved is also set on ´tentative’  indicating the slot may be used if   alternatives the same day remain in my  agenda. Acceptance not guaranteed.

Observation3      Blockers have various starting times                                                Alternative3        In principle, one-hour meetings start the  on the whole hour only, to maximize the number of slots in a day

Observation4     Colleagues have no reading rights to my agenda                                             Alternative4       Depending upon sensitivities, reading rights an agenda to agenda is spread as broadly as  possible.  Just don’t put sensitive details in an invitation title but in the text

Observation5     Immediate colleagues do not know where I am                           Alternative5       Immediate colleagues either have a ‘non-blocking absence notice’ in their  agenda or can read it in my agenda

Organizing a meeting

Observation11      Repetitive meetings planned individually                                       Alternative11        Repetitive meetings planned 3 months in advance. On standard times and days of  the week

Observation12      60-minute meetings planned back-to-back all day long         Alternative12         50-minute meetings leave 10 minutes for closing and checking for urgent messages

Observation13      Working without agenda                                                                Alternative13        Best practice: sending an agenda 1 week  in advance . Good practice: sending an agenda a day in  advance

Observation14     Agenda with only content                                                               Alternative14       Start with (Welcome and) ‘Setting the agenda’ , .end with ‘Miscellaneous’. Declined invitees receive agenda in cc

Observation15     Always hold meeting                                                                              Alternative15       Always plan the meeting, but if not sufficient content, cancel it

Responding to a meeting request

Observation21        No response at all (From either of 2  Schools ´If I did not respond, I will not attend´ or ´If I did not respond, I will attend´)                                         Alternative21           Decline or confirm

Observation22       Confirm or decline via general mail                                                Alternative22         Confirm or decline via invite response

Observation23      `This time does not suit me, could we do it later?                     Alternative23          Suggest time proposal

Observation24      ´This time does not suit me, does … fit?´                                      Alternative24        ´This time does not suit me. I see in your´ Schedule Assistant that … would be open, so I sent this proposal. Would that fit?

Observation25       Always participate because it shows you are important                              Alternative25         Only participate if added value is clear

Chairing a meeting

Observation31     Incomplete group at 5 minutes, keep on waiting until complete                 Alternative 31      Start or cancel after 5 minutes

Observation32    No agenda                                                                                          Alternative32      Best practice: send an agenda 1 week in advance. Good practice: send an agenda 1 day in advance

Observation33    No meeting minutes                                                                        Alternative33      Best practice: meeting minutes draft later that day. Good practice: meeting minutes in 1 week. Absent regular participants sent minutes in cc

Observation34    Just continue when meeting goes beyond planned end          Alternative34       Stop 5 minutes before planned end, explicitly discuss continuation or closure, in case of continuation allow for those who have to leave to do so gracefully

Participating in a meeting

Observation41       No notification if late                                                                              Alternative41         When expecting more than 5 minutes late  Whatsapp or Skype notification to chairperson. Best practice when more than 20 minutes late, pays for coffee for all who have ´waited´

Observation42    Being called and answering (walking out of the meeting is no excuse)                                                                                                                                   Alternative42      Best practice:  on airplane mode. Best practice in case of important call± announcing at the start of the meeting, declining to answer other calls and send them a prefab message instead. Good practice in case forgotten to turn the cell phone off: let it ring. Medium practice: taking the call and verbally indicating that unavailable

Observation43     When joining after ‘Welcome and Setting Agenda’, new round of greetings                                                                                                                                 Alternative43       Partial participation will occur without separate  welcoming or departing greetings since  these generally are too disruptive. Early departure should be announced at the ‘Setting agenda’

Observation44     ‘Breathers’, car noise, wailing sirens etc                                         Alternative44      Put yourself on ‘mute’ when not speaking. That also provides the chairperson an overview of  who would like to say something. (Explicit requests to be allowed and say something usually is too formal to work smoothly.)

One final comment: these are Best Practices, that does not mean that we are (or I am)  always in a position to live up to them…

Most of the readers of this blog will be familiar with the ´Peter-principle´, below I will argue that this principle is not only limited to the ´vertical incompetency´ but also has a ´horizontal´ equivalent.

The hierarchy

But first a little discourse into the background of career making in larger corporations. To understand the management layers of a large corporate, one can divide employees into several layers.

The real work is done by the general workers. Protected by unions, central labor contracts and the like they provide the basic production or service work, constituting the core of the organization. These employees are steered by the ´lower management echelon´, the foremen and teamleaders that by themselves are again the backbone of any organization. As such they were already seen by Napoleon, who recognized the importance of the sergeants in his armies. This group of employees generally also is covered by the central labor agreements.

One step higher in the hierarchy we find the lower middle management: operational management, but also staff members like lawyers, accountants etc. Usually they are not covered by the central labor agreements any more, do not have to ´clock´ their time because of ´work sovereignty´, which in practice means that their overtime is not getting paid. That may sound unfair but it is the only way to practically get the job done:  if a Sales Person travels 50% of her time internationally, how are you ever going to get that properly registered and paid? Most people I know in such positions also accept this phenomenon as unavoidable and just belonging to the job.

Those ´lucky´ enough to make the next step up from middle management are getting into the layer of ´higher management´. Here we get into the formal decision-making structure, these are the people that formally need to sign off on decisions, registered with Regulatory organizations etc. Some insiders consider them ´the workhorses of the organization´.  Here we find the high-potentials who have proven themselves capable of growing to the ultimate top and who have to work long hours to prove it. Of course they do not work in the weekends, because that would mean they can not handle their workload, but early Monday morning is an awfully productive time for them.

To prove themselves capable they need to – among others – delegate rather than just ´work hard´. Therefore it is crucial that in your last middle management job you have the possibility to show that capability. If you do not show that behavior while being considered for this level, your chance of ever getting that promotion is lost. Another spoiler: if you happen to be in a ´class´ with so many potentials that the company threatens to go overboard on their quota of ´higher management´ there is a chance you do not get the promotion, and any future chances of you ever getting to that level again are shot. The explanation is simple: these required character traits can not be learned, so if you have not attained them by then, you will never.

When the description above is combined with the three topics for every meeting as described in an earlier blog, you will notice that each of these levels of the corporate pyramid are focusing on one of the three levels, as shown in the picture below

Breadth of experience

Usually, a corporation has several requirements for Executives all geared towards grooming them broadly enough for general management instead of just one specialized field. These requirements often are also made explicit: they need to have spent at least x years abroad, they need to have worked in multiple businesses and in multiple areas of responsibility etc. Some enlightened companies even have the possibility to count taking care of a needing relative as well, but that is not the case everywhere.

Most organizations have nice generic statements that the new entrant can choose where to pursue a career, as a Specialist or a Generalist. Some even add Project Management as a possible third career path.

Spoiler: generally, neither is completely true. The first myth is that Project Management would offer an equivalent career path as Generalists. Despite what some glossy corporate brochures might say, in practice, pure Project Managers can get up to a middle management level, but to progress higher you will need General Management skills. Project Management skills might help you perform, but that is all.

The second, broader spread-myth is that Specialists might have similar chances of advancement as Generalists. That is about true as the statement that a carpenter may earn as much as a manager: it only works if the carpenter learns general management or entrepreneurial skills. Most specialists also get stuck in the middle management layer. If you want to get an idea of what kind of specialists might make it to the top: look at the Management Board. Almost always, General Management and Sales will be represented. Less frequently Finance, maybe HR, maybe IT. If there is a picture of the Process Landscape, usually there are 3 layers, with the core process in the middle. Look at which processes are depicted on top, as “Management Processes”  as opposed to “Support Processes” at the bottom. Now which Specialists have a heavy say in the organization, do you think?

Management Development

Against this backdrop, new entrants are initially scanned into three categories:

• Anybody with no university goes towards the lower management and workers.
• Anybody with a university degree goes towards middle management
• And a very few of the university degree entrants are selected as a high potential, or hipo.

Hipo’s typically are given a middle management or staff position. Ideal is to start as assistant of a Board member, where you get a first row seat on the major corporate decision making and where you can develop your relationships with the top brass. Crucial here is to get a ‘mentor’ who will take a personal interest in your development and where you can go and ask in moment of utter bewilderment.

To develop their potential, hipo’s need to obtain a broad array of skills and are sent around to different divisions. In that process, several of them just turn out to not have the skills required for the next step and they will get stuck or leave the company. Others get moved to just that area of expertise that they can not master. Whether that is true because of real skill gaps or character deficiencies or pure bad luck does not matter. Those are the victims of the ‘horizontal Peter principle’. Only those that avoid this pitfall make the step to the top and enter the “C-suite”.

Introduction

At this moment I have the privilege of updating a Project Management Directive as part of my project. Not something I looked forward to. Usually pretty dry stuff, where most people involved have to try and stay awake, which needs to be ímposed´ top-down, followed by numerous missionaries conducting trainings while trying to evade the psychological equivalent of Bonifacius´ fate at Dokkum.

Instead, heated discussions evolve, around topics like: the level of Sponsor required for a Project, which acceptance test questions to pose at which milestone, and the qualifications required for Project Managers, clarity of sentences, to name a few. People newly involved are surprised how ´hard´ these discussions take place and how much room criticasters get in the meetings. For me, all that criticism equates to presents. Let me explain.

Constructive criticism

If I stand in a room and declare it to be horrible, that does not add any value. However, if I state that the walls should be painted pink with purple dots, that is an alternative. Whether the owner of the room agrees or not is a different matter, I have provided an alternative by spending my time and thereby added value in the economic sense of the word. The owner can accept or reject.

When a woman I do not know passes by in a horrible dress, I will not make a comment about it. However, if my sister/mother/wife/friend does the same, I will shut up in public, but when we are alone feel obliged to make a comment about it. This all assumes we have a good relationship of course. Constructive criticism is an expression of the quality of the relationship. Something one should also keep in mind in relationships.

To take this further: if I have spent my time and effort to help the house owner improve his room, the choice is to him, just as the woman can decide to follow my fashion advice or not. (Generally the latter is advisable, to be honest.) Since the criticaster has invested this effort, that gives the criticized the moral duty to at least feed back what he has done with that feedback. Also and especially when he does not accept it, which is a rejection of the value add, and again criticism of the criticism.

Room for criticism

Criticism should be nurtured, regardless of whether the recipient agrees with it or not, the mere fact that somebody constructively criticizes should be acknowledged and protected. Especially in the beginning stages of a group, when the ‘norms’ are being set during its ´puberty´, it is very valuable to have a participant go ‘too far’ according to some in providing criticism: by doing so he proves that there is room for it and he paves the way for others to feel comfortable and bring in their comments. That drive, that ´Sturm und Drang´ is just as much value added as the content of constructive criticism.

In a more settled environment, of course all participants have the responsibility to provide criticism of a certain quality. That does not mean that the criticism needs to be shared by all, but succinctness and accuracy of wording are requirements in that respect to keep the discussion on course.

Diversity

Often, when presentations are held about new concepts, ideas or information, participants are away in their head, or even worse, even physically answering e-mails, since they “will get it anyway”. Until you ask them a question on-topic. Alternatively, everybody just listens to the Northkorean-style speech of the Great Leader and nods in approval. Those examples of unisonity occur often and do not add value per se. What does add value is asking the right questions – which is an art by itself – and bringing in suggestions for improvements or alternatives. Those ideas are by definition different from what has been presented before, and therefore add value. The more unique the position the more value it adds. Even when it goes beyond the ‘Veto’-threshold of participants, because it might help in opening up somebody´s eyes. Those value-adding ideas can only come up if the participants have a different mindset than the rest of the group.  Therefore, those ideas and constructive criticism are proof of the diversity in thinking of the group. Let’s nurture that diversity.

Even though Diversity might be in corporate slogans, that does not add value by itself. Value is added by showing diversity to prospective employees and attracting them, but the most concrete value lies in the constructive criticism it generates. That constructive criticism creates better decisions. Better decisions lead to better products, like the Project Management Directive that will help to implement better Projects.