Pearl Zhu's Blog, page 1448
March 14, 2015
Simplicity as an Agile Principle
Agile principle : "Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential."
Agile becomes the major software management methodology, Agile principles are also the management philosophy to run business today. "Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential." What is it all about, and how does it affect the team performance and project success?
Agile advocates "just enough" concept: in line with Einstein's quote: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." If you do analysis of all the features upfront, you might not even build them or they might change by the time you get to build them. Instead if you focus on what you need to build now, this will eliminate the wastage (hence reduce the amount of work done) and keep things simple. Another understanding could be to make sure the system you build is not so complex from an architectural, deployment and testing perspective that you end up repeating the same tasks (fixing the build, manual testing tasks, crap the code) over and over.
Avoiding waste vs. eliminating waste: Rational - eliminate waste is about eliminating something which is not used and saving effort on maintaining it. Avoiding waste is more about not building, non value adding features. In traditional software development, there is a tendency to build things "just in case" you might need them some day without any real data to support that idea. There are a lot of waste going into features that are never, ever used. Not only the waste in the initial creation of the feature, but also the waste of maintaining that feature. So avoiding waste is even better than eliminating waste. Put simply, it means to have enough process buy-in from the business that you always have a meaningful, prioritized backlog containing well-defined issues that translate well into their actual needs.
Agile can improve productivity because of simplicity principle: Many people want to adopt Agile because they think it will help them deliver software faster because of process improvement. But in reality, one of the reasons to see improved productivity is because of the simplicity principle. There are always constraints, so simplicity principle helps build as little as possible (maximize the amount of work not done), but also maximize outcome (benefit for users/customers).The most important part of the context is that the work you are "not doing" is the work that hinders your agility, your ability to respond to changes. So unit tests aren't thrown out with the bathwater because they are a key practice in maintaining agility. On the other hand, it challenges a practice such as 'literate coding' because that would introduce a level of redundancy to the code which makes it more costly to change the code. In general, it’s a call to scrutinize the team working practices to ensure they are contributing towards agile values such as early and continuous delivery, responsiveness to change, close and frequent collaboration between business people and developers. By prioritizing the ability to change course, this scrutiny will plainly favour the stripping down and reduction of overheads.
Simplicity emerges synergistically from “work reduction.” But it is not in itself a goal. Indeed, continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility which can drive the team towards the necessary complexity (every intelligent thing has certain complexity in it), but efficient, low overhead practices, is the characteristic to build a quality product fit for customer’s need.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Agile becomes the major software management methodology, Agile principles are also the management philosophy to run business today. "Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential." What is it all about, and how does it affect the team performance and project success? Agile advocates "just enough" concept: in line with Einstein's quote: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." If you do analysis of all the features upfront, you might not even build them or they might change by the time you get to build them. Instead if you focus on what you need to build now, this will eliminate the wastage (hence reduce the amount of work done) and keep things simple. Another understanding could be to make sure the system you build is not so complex from an architectural, deployment and testing perspective that you end up repeating the same tasks (fixing the build, manual testing tasks, crap the code) over and over.
Avoiding waste vs. eliminating waste: Rational - eliminate waste is about eliminating something which is not used and saving effort on maintaining it. Avoiding waste is more about not building, non value adding features. In traditional software development, there is a tendency to build things "just in case" you might need them some day without any real data to support that idea. There are a lot of waste going into features that are never, ever used. Not only the waste in the initial creation of the feature, but also the waste of maintaining that feature. So avoiding waste is even better than eliminating waste. Put simply, it means to have enough process buy-in from the business that you always have a meaningful, prioritized backlog containing well-defined issues that translate well into their actual needs.
Agile can improve productivity because of simplicity principle: Many people want to adopt Agile because they think it will help them deliver software faster because of process improvement. But in reality, one of the reasons to see improved productivity is because of the simplicity principle. There are always constraints, so simplicity principle helps build as little as possible (maximize the amount of work not done), but also maximize outcome (benefit for users/customers).The most important part of the context is that the work you are "not doing" is the work that hinders your agility, your ability to respond to changes. So unit tests aren't thrown out with the bathwater because they are a key practice in maintaining agility. On the other hand, it challenges a practice such as 'literate coding' because that would introduce a level of redundancy to the code which makes it more costly to change the code. In general, it’s a call to scrutinize the team working practices to ensure they are contributing towards agile values such as early and continuous delivery, responsiveness to change, close and frequent collaboration between business people and developers. By prioritizing the ability to change course, this scrutiny will plainly favour the stripping down and reduction of overheads. Simplicity emerges synergistically from “work reduction.” But it is not in itself a goal. Indeed, continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility which can drive the team towards the necessary complexity (every intelligent thing has certain complexity in it), but efficient, low overhead practices, is the characteristic to build a quality product fit for customer’s need.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The Digital Leadership Brainstorming
The future of leadership will answer less, but ask more; less commanding, more engaging; less controlling, more flexible; less bureaucratic, more creative.
Leadership is about future, what’s the future of leadership? Leaders are the people with influence, what does the big influence come from? The backbone-character, the fresh ideas, the recombinated capabilities, the influential skills or the in-depth technical knowledge? There’re still many questions tangled around the future of leadership, but there are even more collective insight on how to grow the digital leadership and future of leaders.
The leadership character is like a raw diamond, part nature, part nurtured, Building character can't be achieved at the classroom. It can be sharpened with coaching guidance from mentors and coaches. It's not good enough to talk over, but it must be lived through. Many factors contribute to what leads to successful. Every situation differs with variable elements - resources and limitations at play. However, universal principles and values are part of leadership character, not just personality. Consistency of a leader’s behavior, in terms of his/her being, decision and action are all important in inspiring followers. With consistency follows admiration and respect. One can be born with the propensity to learn those easier than others, but what is important is many skills can be learned. It comes down to a person who has mastered the art and science side of leading a group or groups of people towards a common goal upon their own free will. The art side is having the subjective skills like good character, innate strength, integrity and dependability to name few. The science side is having the technical skills or T shape expertise required for certain discipline or specific domain. The trick is to apply those in practice in a genuine way to build up the trust of the group and inspire them to follow you towards the achievement of the common goal or mission. During this whole process you will build other leaders.
The business culture plays a big role in who gets to be identified and given the role of leader. What criteria defines the leaders in any given corporate culture is important. In some corporations, leaders are selected based on criteria that may not rate skills/abilities such as creativity, learning agility or cognitive difference as the premium factor for selection. However, in order to manage today’s over-complex and ambiguous business dynamic, the cookie cutter standard or static credential is not sufficient to groom the future of leaders, the leaders’ effectiveness is more based on the gaps they can mind or the influence they can make for problem-solving, business growth or human progress. How about leadership development in those high-mature digital masters, those are the "flexible organizations," which are able to "navigate" the change and the complexity of the present business world. The organizational flexibility is essential for business success. And leadership is not only flexible for the ability to learn and adapt to new responsibilities, but also and above all, in the effectiveness of its initiatives, the creativity with which complex problems are solved, in actively seeking feedback on its effectiveness. The agility is also manifested in the ability of managers to change their style of decision-making in response to a wide range of parameters such as urgency, level of risk, time constraints and the regional and cultural differences. Not all decision-making styles can be applied everywhere or constantly. Agile organizations tend to have managers with the right mix of personal attributes, that is, people who demonstrate a variety of skills, clearly comfortable with ambiguity and respectful of processes, without being slaves of them. They understand the difference between influence and authority, and therefore are completely at their own ease in influencing and participating in the team. They do not focus on hierarchy, but on ideas, information flow, creativity, flexibility, openness and curiosity. Together, these leaders do team, with extensive experience, are resolute, responsive, flexible, able to speed up the decision-making process, given that the main issues have already been discussed. One of the biggest challenges in this complex world is the fact that we need different perspectives, different knowledge and different ways to solve a problem. Sometimes there is not "one" answer: there are some, or many: That is why what is first of all needed is to be an open minded leader who embraces the collective wisdom.
Delegation without collaboration = silo. Leaders are, most simply, people with influence. This influence can be formal (as in a work situation between an employer and employee) or more informal. Especially now, the digital blurs the working and personal life, leadership is more about the continuous delivery or even daily influence, the progression of your thought process, the creativity for problem solving, and the advancement of your decision scenario. Many companies have "integrity" as their foremost values. Yet how is it manifested across the culture beginning with the top leadership. When followers see cracks in the system and behaviors, they are awaken to the reality and adapt to the new culture. And, the drawback costs are usually distrust, risk aversion, reaction and play safe just to survive. Effective leadership has to start with a culture of empowerment reinforced by trust. It is almost impossible for anyone to function well in an organizational structure that does not have trust as its core foundation. Leader of a team or organization and their ability to cultivate the trust necessary for people to feel comfortable being who they are and taking the risks necessary to fulfill their potential. The factors that seem to help build a creative business environment are decision making, user involvement, organizational architecture, open communication, the reward system, personnel selection, available resources, the technology, the clarity of the objectives, less bureaucracy, the autonomy, the help of colleagues, the risk appetite, etc. So inside of a creative environment people feel comfortable in expressing their ideas, also received positive support to develop them.
The future of leadership will answer less, but ask more; less commanding, more engaging; less controlling, more flexible; less bureaucratic, more creative; less micro-managing, more mindful and thoughtful. The future of leaders are multi-dimensional thinkers and digital forerunners.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Leadership is about future, what’s the future of leadership? Leaders are the people with influence, what does the big influence come from? The backbone-character, the fresh ideas, the recombinated capabilities, the influential skills or the in-depth technical knowledge? There’re still many questions tangled around the future of leadership, but there are even more collective insight on how to grow the digital leadership and future of leaders.
The leadership character is like a raw diamond, part nature, part nurtured, Building character can't be achieved at the classroom. It can be sharpened with coaching guidance from mentors and coaches. It's not good enough to talk over, but it must be lived through. Many factors contribute to what leads to successful. Every situation differs with variable elements - resources and limitations at play. However, universal principles and values are part of leadership character, not just personality. Consistency of a leader’s behavior, in terms of his/her being, decision and action are all important in inspiring followers. With consistency follows admiration and respect. One can be born with the propensity to learn those easier than others, but what is important is many skills can be learned. It comes down to a person who has mastered the art and science side of leading a group or groups of people towards a common goal upon their own free will. The art side is having the subjective skills like good character, innate strength, integrity and dependability to name few. The science side is having the technical skills or T shape expertise required for certain discipline or specific domain. The trick is to apply those in practice in a genuine way to build up the trust of the group and inspire them to follow you towards the achievement of the common goal or mission. During this whole process you will build other leaders.
The business culture plays a big role in who gets to be identified and given the role of leader. What criteria defines the leaders in any given corporate culture is important. In some corporations, leaders are selected based on criteria that may not rate skills/abilities such as creativity, learning agility or cognitive difference as the premium factor for selection. However, in order to manage today’s over-complex and ambiguous business dynamic, the cookie cutter standard or static credential is not sufficient to groom the future of leaders, the leaders’ effectiveness is more based on the gaps they can mind or the influence they can make for problem-solving, business growth or human progress. How about leadership development in those high-mature digital masters, those are the "flexible organizations," which are able to "navigate" the change and the complexity of the present business world. The organizational flexibility is essential for business success. And leadership is not only flexible for the ability to learn and adapt to new responsibilities, but also and above all, in the effectiveness of its initiatives, the creativity with which complex problems are solved, in actively seeking feedback on its effectiveness. The agility is also manifested in the ability of managers to change their style of decision-making in response to a wide range of parameters such as urgency, level of risk, time constraints and the regional and cultural differences. Not all decision-making styles can be applied everywhere or constantly. Agile organizations tend to have managers with the right mix of personal attributes, that is, people who demonstrate a variety of skills, clearly comfortable with ambiguity and respectful of processes, without being slaves of them. They understand the difference between influence and authority, and therefore are completely at their own ease in influencing and participating in the team. They do not focus on hierarchy, but on ideas, information flow, creativity, flexibility, openness and curiosity. Together, these leaders do team, with extensive experience, are resolute, responsive, flexible, able to speed up the decision-making process, given that the main issues have already been discussed. One of the biggest challenges in this complex world is the fact that we need different perspectives, different knowledge and different ways to solve a problem. Sometimes there is not "one" answer: there are some, or many: That is why what is first of all needed is to be an open minded leader who embraces the collective wisdom.
Delegation without collaboration = silo. Leaders are, most simply, people with influence. This influence can be formal (as in a work situation between an employer and employee) or more informal. Especially now, the digital blurs the working and personal life, leadership is more about the continuous delivery or even daily influence, the progression of your thought process, the creativity for problem solving, and the advancement of your decision scenario. Many companies have "integrity" as their foremost values. Yet how is it manifested across the culture beginning with the top leadership. When followers see cracks in the system and behaviors, they are awaken to the reality and adapt to the new culture. And, the drawback costs are usually distrust, risk aversion, reaction and play safe just to survive. Effective leadership has to start with a culture of empowerment reinforced by trust. It is almost impossible for anyone to function well in an organizational structure that does not have trust as its core foundation. Leader of a team or organization and their ability to cultivate the trust necessary for people to feel comfortable being who they are and taking the risks necessary to fulfill their potential. The factors that seem to help build a creative business environment are decision making, user involvement, organizational architecture, open communication, the reward system, personnel selection, available resources, the technology, the clarity of the objectives, less bureaucracy, the autonomy, the help of colleagues, the risk appetite, etc. So inside of a creative environment people feel comfortable in expressing their ideas, also received positive support to develop them.
The future of leadership will answer less, but ask more; less commanding, more engaging; less controlling, more flexible; less bureaucratic, more creative; less micro-managing, more mindful and thoughtful. The future of leaders are multi-dimensional thinkers and digital forerunners.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
March 13, 2015
Digital Master Tuning #57: The Digital Dimensions of Organizational Structure
The future of digital organizations is complex enough to act intelligently and nimble enough to adapt to the change promptly.
Digital means change, choice, speed and customer-centricity. One of the key business competencies is agility, which is the capability to adapt to the changes; and the ability to manage complexity more effectively than competitors provides a competitive advantage. From organizational structure perspective, how can you fine tune the digital dimensions of your organizational development?
The digital dimension of organizational structure is enjoying a powerful tailwind: Evolution needs catalysts for change. When the enterprise is at risk of being defeated by smaller, nimbler, more agile competitors, then the silos’ owners understand it is in their own benefit to collaborate and build “horizontal” organizational interdependencies to achieve better time to market for global products & services, deploy knowledge from one subsidiary to another, or gain efficiencies in the global supply chain. In traditional organizational structure, the processes are more formal and rigid, that has been the past (and present for some digital laggards). But, nowadays the process dimension is enjoying a powerful tailwind. New generations of digital technologies such as social platform or other collaboration tools, are enabling not only the structured processes of the past, but also the unstructured processes of social enterprise. It is the hybrid organizational structure well blends structured and unstructured processes to run with two speeds: industrial speed and digital speed.
Structured cross-border interdependencies vs. Loosely structured cross-border interdependencies: Structured cross-border interdependencies can be enabled with formal organizational elements; such as standardized business processes and management systems (planning, control), centralized functions at headquarters. These elements function like a set of well-designed highways able to carry the “heavy organizational traffic” of cross-border structured interdependencies across well-known origins and destinations. Loosely structured cross-border interdependencies, on the other hand, require a much greater dose of informal organizational elements such as social networks, shared corporate values & culture, common business language, multi-dimensional skills, regular face-to-face meetings of cross-border people, and so on. These elements function like a large set of small roads (even non-paved) able to carry the “capillary organizational traffic” of emergent cross-border, non-structured interdependencies across organizational nodes.
Strategic synergies and organizational interdependencies have a life cycle. They start as non-structured ill-defined ideas. The informal organizational elements are very effective to carry this “emergent traffic.” Then, some synergies prove to be very successful and need to be escalated. Usually, the original informal elements are replicated and augmented, but the coordination costs increase heavily. This is the result of carrying “heavy organizational traffic” through a network of effective but not very efficient small roads. This efficiency crisis eventually creates the need to incorporate the formal structured elements, which is only successful when the corresponding learning curve has reduced uncertainty to the point where both the strategic synergy and organizational interdependence can be structured. In such scenario, it is possible that organizations of the future will exhibit a diminishing set of structured organizational interdependencies and a larger set of informal organizational elements. The bandwidth of the informal network for “capillary organizational traffic” could expand at low cost. That would make it cost-and-effectiveness-competitive with the traditional formal network for “heavy organizational traffic.” Then, the new organic, self-organizing system approach to organizational structure could become a reality. And that will be true evolution for digital transformation!
The digital balance to human nature will need to have some combination of structural design and incentives: The digital global strategy represents the demand side of organizational design as it points toward the cross-border synergies that need to be developed to create value. These synergies require effective and efficient cross-border organizational interdependencies. The “organizational design problem” would be to build the “best” mix of organizational elements (the supply side) that enable those organizational interdependencies. What works and what doesn´t, it depends on the nature of the organizational interdependencies that need to be enabled. From talent management perspective, promoting people based on taking advantage of the opportunities for horizontal and lateral engagements is likely to be a core principle for actually building global digital organizations. Maintaining the digital balance is a never-ending business life-cycle. The challenge for organizations is to manage its portfolio of relevant cross-border strategic synergies and organizational interdependencies with the appropriate mix of enabling organizational elements, engaging digital talent and balancing effectiveness and efficiency.
Due to the “VUCA” nature of digitalization, the business complexity is unavoidable, firms that are skilled at managing complexity can gain advantages by pushing the boundaries of a more complicated business mix that provides opportunities to create inter-business value. The future of digital organizations is complex enough to act intelligently and nimble enough to adapt to the change promptly.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Wikipedia Introduction
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Book URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun Quiz
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Digital means change, choice, speed and customer-centricity. One of the key business competencies is agility, which is the capability to adapt to the changes; and the ability to manage complexity more effectively than competitors provides a competitive advantage. From organizational structure perspective, how can you fine tune the digital dimensions of your organizational development?
The digital dimension of organizational structure is enjoying a powerful tailwind: Evolution needs catalysts for change. When the enterprise is at risk of being defeated by smaller, nimbler, more agile competitors, then the silos’ owners understand it is in their own benefit to collaborate and build “horizontal” organizational interdependencies to achieve better time to market for global products & services, deploy knowledge from one subsidiary to another, or gain efficiencies in the global supply chain. In traditional organizational structure, the processes are more formal and rigid, that has been the past (and present for some digital laggards). But, nowadays the process dimension is enjoying a powerful tailwind. New generations of digital technologies such as social platform or other collaboration tools, are enabling not only the structured processes of the past, but also the unstructured processes of social enterprise. It is the hybrid organizational structure well blends structured and unstructured processes to run with two speeds: industrial speed and digital speed.
Structured cross-border interdependencies vs. Loosely structured cross-border interdependencies: Structured cross-border interdependencies can be enabled with formal organizational elements; such as standardized business processes and management systems (planning, control), centralized functions at headquarters. These elements function like a set of well-designed highways able to carry the “heavy organizational traffic” of cross-border structured interdependencies across well-known origins and destinations. Loosely structured cross-border interdependencies, on the other hand, require a much greater dose of informal organizational elements such as social networks, shared corporate values & culture, common business language, multi-dimensional skills, regular face-to-face meetings of cross-border people, and so on. These elements function like a large set of small roads (even non-paved) able to carry the “capillary organizational traffic” of emergent cross-border, non-structured interdependencies across organizational nodes.
Strategic synergies and organizational interdependencies have a life cycle. They start as non-structured ill-defined ideas. The informal organizational elements are very effective to carry this “emergent traffic.” Then, some synergies prove to be very successful and need to be escalated. Usually, the original informal elements are replicated and augmented, but the coordination costs increase heavily. This is the result of carrying “heavy organizational traffic” through a network of effective but not very efficient small roads. This efficiency crisis eventually creates the need to incorporate the formal structured elements, which is only successful when the corresponding learning curve has reduced uncertainty to the point where both the strategic synergy and organizational interdependence can be structured. In such scenario, it is possible that organizations of the future will exhibit a diminishing set of structured organizational interdependencies and a larger set of informal organizational elements. The bandwidth of the informal network for “capillary organizational traffic” could expand at low cost. That would make it cost-and-effectiveness-competitive with the traditional formal network for “heavy organizational traffic.” Then, the new organic, self-organizing system approach to organizational structure could become a reality. And that will be true evolution for digital transformation!
The digital balance to human nature will need to have some combination of structural design and incentives: The digital global strategy represents the demand side of organizational design as it points toward the cross-border synergies that need to be developed to create value. These synergies require effective and efficient cross-border organizational interdependencies. The “organizational design problem” would be to build the “best” mix of organizational elements (the supply side) that enable those organizational interdependencies. What works and what doesn´t, it depends on the nature of the organizational interdependencies that need to be enabled. From talent management perspective, promoting people based on taking advantage of the opportunities for horizontal and lateral engagements is likely to be a core principle for actually building global digital organizations. Maintaining the digital balance is a never-ending business life-cycle. The challenge for organizations is to manage its portfolio of relevant cross-border strategic synergies and organizational interdependencies with the appropriate mix of enabling organizational elements, engaging digital talent and balancing effectiveness and efficiency.
Due to the “VUCA” nature of digitalization, the business complexity is unavoidable, firms that are skilled at managing complexity can gain advantages by pushing the boundaries of a more complicated business mix that provides opportunities to create inter-business value. The future of digital organizations is complex enough to act intelligently and nimble enough to adapt to the change promptly.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Wikipedia Introduction
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Book URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun Quiz
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How do you Change Mindsets?
Change happens when mind SET turns into mind FLOW.
We live in the era, more often the "mainstream" mind is far lagging behind the internet speed. It must be acknowledged that changing mindset can be a very long process, it takes both vision and strategy. It occurs only through a dialogical process. It requires a devotion to fairness, correctness, truth, progress and solid respect for fundamental rights. Change happens when mindset turns into mind flow.
“A mind is like a parachute, it works best when it’s open.” In order to change anyone’s mindset, the individual must have an open mind. Some say "the most expensive thing anyone can own is a closed mind.” We can look at changing our own mindsets in the context of ourselves; we are all part of social systems with both individual and collective mindsets. Everyone can take the time to listen to and create some space for us to realign what is important to us? What do we value? What is our purpose in life? We learn our beliefs. Most beliefs are learned and ingrained in our minds at a very young age. Our beliefs are developed from what we see, hear and experience growing up. Some of these beliefs develop from our misinterpretation of what we see, hear and experience. Too often, we operate on autopilot, with our thoughts, emotions and decisions coming from a subconscious level - accurate or not. Unfortunately, these learned beliefs are oftentimes limiting your mind, forming your bias or blind you from seeing the other side of coin.
Communication is key. Good communication and feedback is essential throughout the mind change process - if people don't regularly see the reason for change, they will revert to old way to do the things. You have to start with creating an awareness of the need for change. In a company setting, that would mean identifying, agreeing and communicating the vision. Thereafter, identify the minds and behaviours required to pursue it. Next, do an inventory of the current status to show the difference between 'as-is' and 'to-be' to determine the required changes. Following this, implement training, coaching, mentoring as necessary to begin the change. Next step is to positively embed the change; for example, recruitment and promotion criteria are weighted in favor of the open and learning minds and new behaviors required.
Gain deep understanding about what pushes your buttons: Each of us generally knows what will push our buttons, but we haven’t taken the time to analyze why a particular action, comment or image upsets us. This is why so many people and organizations cannot rise any higher than they are in life. They are stuck, unable to make the necessary changes to grow and thrive. The good news is we can change! Using the “button pushing” analogy, we try to change our emotional response to events, looking for better ways to react and interact. This is like trying to change the fruit on a tree. The root must change for the fruit to change. We must change the belief that causes the thought that creates the emotion. Once the belief has changed, the reaction will automatically change. By peeling back the layers after the layers, individuals and organizations can discover why they think, feel and operate the way they do. Once you find where a particular belief originated, it’s easier to realize that the beliefs can change. By changing your thinking, you change the beliefs and change the emotions leading to different decisions, different outcomes, and become a more self-aware and self-improving person with empathy.
Knowledge is key to changing mindsets, biases, prejudices: Everyone has the ability to change their mindsets. Because every person has degrees of both open and closed mindsets in different contexts.Tied into this is the degree of resistance to change. We are all works in progress; learning, growing and changing. It is important to consider that having an open-mind does not equate to have a critical-mind, and this difference has fundamental implications regarding the process through which mindset changes or expands. Sometimes, we have lost some of our ability and continuous learning using critical thinking and replaced it with criticizing and belittling. It is our job to change that behavior in ourselves and help people learn to change it for themselves.
So, you are not likely to see the mind changes overnight. It is a long process, it could take from seven-year itch to lifetime learning. Optimistically, we live in the digital age, may the progressive thinking gets amplified and distributed promptly to speed up such mind changes.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
We live in the era, more often the "mainstream" mind is far lagging behind the internet speed. It must be acknowledged that changing mindset can be a very long process, it takes both vision and strategy. It occurs only through a dialogical process. It requires a devotion to fairness, correctness, truth, progress and solid respect for fundamental rights. Change happens when mindset turns into mind flow.
“A mind is like a parachute, it works best when it’s open.” In order to change anyone’s mindset, the individual must have an open mind. Some say "the most expensive thing anyone can own is a closed mind.” We can look at changing our own mindsets in the context of ourselves; we are all part of social systems with both individual and collective mindsets. Everyone can take the time to listen to and create some space for us to realign what is important to us? What do we value? What is our purpose in life? We learn our beliefs. Most beliefs are learned and ingrained in our minds at a very young age. Our beliefs are developed from what we see, hear and experience growing up. Some of these beliefs develop from our misinterpretation of what we see, hear and experience. Too often, we operate on autopilot, with our thoughts, emotions and decisions coming from a subconscious level - accurate or not. Unfortunately, these learned beliefs are oftentimes limiting your mind, forming your bias or blind you from seeing the other side of coin.
Communication is key. Good communication and feedback is essential throughout the mind change process - if people don't regularly see the reason for change, they will revert to old way to do the things. You have to start with creating an awareness of the need for change. In a company setting, that would mean identifying, agreeing and communicating the vision. Thereafter, identify the minds and behaviours required to pursue it. Next, do an inventory of the current status to show the difference between 'as-is' and 'to-be' to determine the required changes. Following this, implement training, coaching, mentoring as necessary to begin the change. Next step is to positively embed the change; for example, recruitment and promotion criteria are weighted in favor of the open and learning minds and new behaviors required.
Gain deep understanding about what pushes your buttons: Each of us generally knows what will push our buttons, but we haven’t taken the time to analyze why a particular action, comment or image upsets us. This is why so many people and organizations cannot rise any higher than they are in life. They are stuck, unable to make the necessary changes to grow and thrive. The good news is we can change! Using the “button pushing” analogy, we try to change our emotional response to events, looking for better ways to react and interact. This is like trying to change the fruit on a tree. The root must change for the fruit to change. We must change the belief that causes the thought that creates the emotion. Once the belief has changed, the reaction will automatically change. By peeling back the layers after the layers, individuals and organizations can discover why they think, feel and operate the way they do. Once you find where a particular belief originated, it’s easier to realize that the beliefs can change. By changing your thinking, you change the beliefs and change the emotions leading to different decisions, different outcomes, and become a more self-aware and self-improving person with empathy.
Knowledge is key to changing mindsets, biases, prejudices: Everyone has the ability to change their mindsets. Because every person has degrees of both open and closed mindsets in different contexts.Tied into this is the degree of resistance to change. We are all works in progress; learning, growing and changing. It is important to consider that having an open-mind does not equate to have a critical-mind, and this difference has fundamental implications regarding the process through which mindset changes or expands. Sometimes, we have lost some of our ability and continuous learning using critical thinking and replaced it with criticizing and belittling. It is our job to change that behavior in ourselves and help people learn to change it for themselves.
So, you are not likely to see the mind changes overnight. It is a long process, it could take from seven-year itch to lifetime learning. Optimistically, we live in the digital age, may the progressive thinking gets amplified and distributed promptly to speed up such mind changes.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
What are the Agile Metrics for Senior Management
Senior executives are more interested in “value realized” by the organization than the “value delivery” by the team.
Agile is not only the methodology to manage software projects, but also a philosophy to run a digital organization. More and more senior executives or cross-functional group leaders intend to learn more about Agile, besides major agile principles, what’re the significant details they would like to know? What kind of agile metrics the development team should track, that can be presented to leadership and has been a value add. Also, keep in mind, such tracking is not pressurizing the development team negatively, but for improving project success rate.
It depends on what the senior management really wants to see and the meaning they will derive from the metrics they are shown. As an idea, you could perhaps capture the number of defects raised for a given release; or you can start small and do this for a sprint. Perhaps you could give them data about the number of stories committed by the team vs. the number of stories completed. Perhaps you can capture amount of time the team spends on non-sprint work that may come in the form of planned/unplanned meetings, production support issues, help needed from your team members due to their specialty that only a few others possess, you get the idea.
Typically the output of the team is 'added business value.' If you want to quantify anything, it should be that, because, at the end of the day, that's what counts. What it should not be, if you use it, is the team velocity, be it in story points or user stories. That's a team's own metric, meant for the team to improve itself. Velocity is just a number and does not convey meaningful information beyond perhaps a trend that is only valuable if the team has stayed together for considerable amount of time and will do so for the foreseeable future. The burndown charts are not entirely valuable especially if the underlying data is not kept up to date and more than anything it causes the team anxiety. Further, if the management starts comparing two teams together it could also be a disaster, sometimes you compare the apple with an orange. So, more importantly, present some ideas and elicit from them about what they want and what purpose would that information serve to them.
The senior leaders are more interested in getting update about the measurement of the common business goals. Organizationally there should be common goals; this kind of common goals help to create collaboration and cohesion between the "business people" and "the developers." In many circumstances, having different goals tend to lead to differing priorities, communication breakdowns and the growth of "silos." However, at the team level, the team that is working together should come up with their goals in alignment with the organization goals. The team should have autonomy in figuring out what works for them and what doesn't. They should then improve what doesn't work for them to make it work.
In most organizations, "value realized" is based on enhanced competitive advantage, and is usually measured in financial terms. These are usually increases in revenue/company valuation/user base or reductions in costs. What it really comes down to is an organization providing a culture that aligns its working with the Agile manifesto and just to name a few aspects – individuals, interaction, working software, collaboration etc. You build a lot of trust and respect by letting people come up with what works best for them, even amidst some semblance of a boundary. For such an organization, no additional metrics are needed, but they are evident in the workings of that organization.
To put simply, senior executives are more interested in “value realized” by the organization than the “value delivery” by the team; they would more likely “scrutinize” the metrics from different angles, their intention is to ensure the healthy status of the project portfolio and overall project success rate; most importantly, they would like to understand the significant details and put them together to weave a big picture, and they want to become the change agent from doing agile to being agile.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Agile is not only the methodology to manage software projects, but also a philosophy to run a digital organization. More and more senior executives or cross-functional group leaders intend to learn more about Agile, besides major agile principles, what’re the significant details they would like to know? What kind of agile metrics the development team should track, that can be presented to leadership and has been a value add. Also, keep in mind, such tracking is not pressurizing the development team negatively, but for improving project success rate.
It depends on what the senior management really wants to see and the meaning they will derive from the metrics they are shown. As an idea, you could perhaps capture the number of defects raised for a given release; or you can start small and do this for a sprint. Perhaps you could give them data about the number of stories committed by the team vs. the number of stories completed. Perhaps you can capture amount of time the team spends on non-sprint work that may come in the form of planned/unplanned meetings, production support issues, help needed from your team members due to their specialty that only a few others possess, you get the idea.
Typically the output of the team is 'added business value.' If you want to quantify anything, it should be that, because, at the end of the day, that's what counts. What it should not be, if you use it, is the team velocity, be it in story points or user stories. That's a team's own metric, meant for the team to improve itself. Velocity is just a number and does not convey meaningful information beyond perhaps a trend that is only valuable if the team has stayed together for considerable amount of time and will do so for the foreseeable future. The burndown charts are not entirely valuable especially if the underlying data is not kept up to date and more than anything it causes the team anxiety. Further, if the management starts comparing two teams together it could also be a disaster, sometimes you compare the apple with an orange. So, more importantly, present some ideas and elicit from them about what they want and what purpose would that information serve to them.
The senior leaders are more interested in getting update about the measurement of the common business goals. Organizationally there should be common goals; this kind of common goals help to create collaboration and cohesion between the "business people" and "the developers." In many circumstances, having different goals tend to lead to differing priorities, communication breakdowns and the growth of "silos." However, at the team level, the team that is working together should come up with their goals in alignment with the organization goals. The team should have autonomy in figuring out what works for them and what doesn't. They should then improve what doesn't work for them to make it work.
In most organizations, "value realized" is based on enhanced competitive advantage, and is usually measured in financial terms. These are usually increases in revenue/company valuation/user base or reductions in costs. What it really comes down to is an organization providing a culture that aligns its working with the Agile manifesto and just to name a few aspects – individuals, interaction, working software, collaboration etc. You build a lot of trust and respect by letting people come up with what works best for them, even amidst some semblance of a boundary. For such an organization, no additional metrics are needed, but they are evident in the workings of that organization.
To put simply, senior executives are more interested in “value realized” by the organization than the “value delivery” by the team; they would more likely “scrutinize” the metrics from different angles, their intention is to ensure the healthy status of the project portfolio and overall project success rate; most importantly, they would like to understand the significant details and put them together to weave a big picture, and they want to become the change agent from doing agile to being agile.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
March 12, 2015
Digital Master Tuning #56: How to Foster innovation and Manage Digital Disruption?
You cannot push forward innovation, but have to pull the resources together for building a culture of innovation.
In order to survive and thrive, innovation is “must have,” not “nice to have” approach in running business today. But for most of organizations, innovation is just a big puzzle with many tangled concerns: Can innovation be planned? What are some of the ideas that were applied to innovative initiatives that you have underway or experienced, either as the driver or participant, that helped facilitate or impeded their success? What are some viable approaches to being innovative while addressing the constant budget squeeze? Is innovation management a paradox? Do you have such an abundant innovation pipeline? If yes, what are the important considerations for leaders or managers to focus on? If not, how can organizations recognize innovation? In either case, how can leaders or managers in organizations leveraging innovation on their digital transformation journey?
A good way to foster innovation is to first define what is meant by innovation. You have to define what you mean as different kinds of innovation might need different approaches. Although there are countless discussions on this, it’s still worth clarification. Is the company looking to add new features or capabilities to an existing product? Is it looking to build on skills and products where it is already successful? Or is it looking to build or create something entirely new, a new product category? People have different skills sets and the group that may be right for one of these tasks is not necessarily right for another one. So first determine what is desired then assign the right people to do it, and have the long term strategy to build an innovation portfolio successfully.
Take four-step method to manage innovation driven by important customer & market needs and value creation: Although there are different driver behind innovation. Tactically, more organizations focus on meeting important customer needs, instead of focusing simply on interesting research topics, helps assure that the results of the work will have positive impact for your clients, partners, end users, and the marketplace. For every initiative, you work closely with clients to articulate their important needs; define the most compelling and unique approach to address their needs; analyze the benefits per costs of that approach; and quantify why the chosen approach is better than the competition and alternatives. This four-step method—Needs, Approach, Benefit per Costs, helps organizations manage innovation in more systematic way to improve innovation success rate.
The challenge is to provide the most desirable environment, or to build the culture of innovation: Some innovative organizations provide “play time” to encourage creative thinking and experimenting. Surely it doesn't mean creativity is all about free thinking or wild thought without boundary, it’s more about giving free space to unleash talent potential via trust and self-discipline. People need some time to just fiddle around with ideas or new technologies. From our own personal experience that some of best ideas occur when we are "playing" the problem, of course, you need to show results as well. So, employees should present what they are playing with to their peers for feedback. This not only makes the play more goal directed, but the presentations can stimulate the creativity of others as well.
Recognize innovation champions and shape high-performing innovation teams: Each project is driven by a passionate advocate to advance the value creation process. Having a champion for each initiative is critical to success. For some highly innovative companies, there’s no champion, there’s no project. Champions build productive teams. The multidisciplinary, team-based approach they take taps into the collective genius of your organizations, your customers, your partners and the ecosystem, to bring the best collaborators and ideas together to delight customers. Measuring innovation is a challenging task as well, but it’s critical to ensure it is focused on delivering the highest business value.
Like many of other important business initiatives, innovation has to be managed via well-aligning talent people, robust, but not rigid processes, and the latest technology tools. However, you cannot push forward innovation, but have to pull the resources together for building a culture of innovation, and you should not just hunt for the breakthrough or radical innovation only, but also have to manage those incremental and evolutionary innovation skillfully.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Wikipedia Introduction
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Book URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun Quiz
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
In order to survive and thrive, innovation is “must have,” not “nice to have” approach in running business today. But for most of organizations, innovation is just a big puzzle with many tangled concerns: Can innovation be planned? What are some of the ideas that were applied to innovative initiatives that you have underway or experienced, either as the driver or participant, that helped facilitate or impeded their success? What are some viable approaches to being innovative while addressing the constant budget squeeze? Is innovation management a paradox? Do you have such an abundant innovation pipeline? If yes, what are the important considerations for leaders or managers to focus on? If not, how can organizations recognize innovation? In either case, how can leaders or managers in organizations leveraging innovation on their digital transformation journey?
A good way to foster innovation is to first define what is meant by innovation. You have to define what you mean as different kinds of innovation might need different approaches. Although there are countless discussions on this, it’s still worth clarification. Is the company looking to add new features or capabilities to an existing product? Is it looking to build on skills and products where it is already successful? Or is it looking to build or create something entirely new, a new product category? People have different skills sets and the group that may be right for one of these tasks is not necessarily right for another one. So first determine what is desired then assign the right people to do it, and have the long term strategy to build an innovation portfolio successfully.
Take four-step method to manage innovation driven by important customer & market needs and value creation: Although there are different driver behind innovation. Tactically, more organizations focus on meeting important customer needs, instead of focusing simply on interesting research topics, helps assure that the results of the work will have positive impact for your clients, partners, end users, and the marketplace. For every initiative, you work closely with clients to articulate their important needs; define the most compelling and unique approach to address their needs; analyze the benefits per costs of that approach; and quantify why the chosen approach is better than the competition and alternatives. This four-step method—Needs, Approach, Benefit per Costs, helps organizations manage innovation in more systematic way to improve innovation success rate.
The challenge is to provide the most desirable environment, or to build the culture of innovation: Some innovative organizations provide “play time” to encourage creative thinking and experimenting. Surely it doesn't mean creativity is all about free thinking or wild thought without boundary, it’s more about giving free space to unleash talent potential via trust and self-discipline. People need some time to just fiddle around with ideas or new technologies. From our own personal experience that some of best ideas occur when we are "playing" the problem, of course, you need to show results as well. So, employees should present what they are playing with to their peers for feedback. This not only makes the play more goal directed, but the presentations can stimulate the creativity of others as well.
Recognize innovation champions and shape high-performing innovation teams: Each project is driven by a passionate advocate to advance the value creation process. Having a champion for each initiative is critical to success. For some highly innovative companies, there’s no champion, there’s no project. Champions build productive teams. The multidisciplinary, team-based approach they take taps into the collective genius of your organizations, your customers, your partners and the ecosystem, to bring the best collaborators and ideas together to delight customers. Measuring innovation is a challenging task as well, but it’s critical to ensure it is focused on delivering the highest business value.
Like many of other important business initiatives, innovation has to be managed via well-aligning talent people, robust, but not rigid processes, and the latest technology tools. However, you cannot push forward innovation, but have to pull the resources together for building a culture of innovation, and you should not just hunt for the breakthrough or radical innovation only, but also have to manage those incremental and evolutionary innovation skillfully.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Wikipedia Introduction
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Book URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun Quiz
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
A Doubtful Mind: Is it a Positive or Negative state of Mind?
Carpenters have a pretty good working balance: "Measure twice. Cut once."
Doubt, is a natural instinct provided to all the creatures in life. By nature, doubt, is a highly protective instinct, to be used in moderation. When used in excess, it can work against progress. Like many other characters we are born with, it has to be used in moderation and subjected to examination. And like many other things, it's sort of paradoxical.
Doubt like conscience is a regulator of our mind: A doubtful mind has its positive side, it is our natural endowment to create, to invent and to change. All inventions in the world, all creative processes including free thinking stem from our ability to doubt the concepts, ideologies, doctrines imposed upon us by society, religion, culture etc. Without doubts, free thinking is not possible. And without free thinking, the progress of knowledge and desired changes required with changing epochs, changing environmental and technical challenges would not be possible. The growth of mankind will be stagnant, all inventions and creative process that take us forward in evolutionary scale will come to a standstill. But doubt in a disproportionate magnitude turns into suspicion and pathological condition.
Doubtful mind seems paradoxical, with both bright and shadow side: If doubt is a brief precursor that stimulates questioning and learning then it is a healthy, positive state of mind. When doubt becomes internalized as self-doubt and begins to erode one's self confidence, then it is a negative state of mind. If doubt leading to strive for knowledge and action for betterment is the only way to grow. If doubt leading to further doubt may still be good if ultimately leads to knowledge and action. But doubt leading to inaction and closed mindedness is killer. So it depends on what we do with that doubt - how we respond to it. Doubt may encourage us to gain more understanding - that would be positive. But remaining always in doubt is negative state of mind! Doubt may be from ignorance and a reason to simply deny what we do not understand - that would be negative as well.
The wise says, "if you doubt at first, doubt again." which means that any doubtful situation or thought should not be left unattended especially when the impact of that situation is possibly big. You can not leave anything unaddressed which may put your activities/plans in jeopardy. Having said that, if you have doubt, you can take next baby step to see the reaction. If reaction is big, take back the step and reanalyze, redetermine and restrategize. Doubts about a possible impediment, devising ways to overcome the impediment, being prepared for some enroute 'surprises' (either pleasant or otherwise), in the journey, courage, confidence to face unpleasant surprises are the aspects we have to look for. With all the efforts, the end results may not exactly be the way we foresaw, but would definitely be one that would benefit many.
Some say doubt has no specific state of mind. it is attributed to it by 'us.' A doubt is a doubt. It has no state of mind. A state of mind is attributed to it by 'us' - at times, even without knowing what the doubt is, without considering its relevance or otherwise to the objective. If only we make an effort on these lines before attributing a status to it, things would be much better. Maybe doubt is just our interpretation of, or label for, some external stimulus?
Balance is the key. doubt in its reasonable proportion is a positive force of mind: creative, innovative and more often than not is path-breaking, thereby effecting bifurcation point in human history. Societies across the world put emphasis on conventional wisdom as the quintessential value for life. This is because; societies obstinately discourage change and conserve ideas and doctrines for maintaining social order and functionality. Free thinkers normally do not fall in line with the dogmatic and obsolete social systems. They pose threat and menace to the complacency of the common man’s perception of life and living values. Hence, balance is needed. Unbalanced thinking causes for motion. Balance causes for stability and status.
Therefore, the right dose of doubt stimulates critical thinking and human progress, but too much doubt causes conflict and close mindedness.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Doubt, is a natural instinct provided to all the creatures in life. By nature, doubt, is a highly protective instinct, to be used in moderation. When used in excess, it can work against progress. Like many other characters we are born with, it has to be used in moderation and subjected to examination. And like many other things, it's sort of paradoxical.
Doubt like conscience is a regulator of our mind: A doubtful mind has its positive side, it is our natural endowment to create, to invent and to change. All inventions in the world, all creative processes including free thinking stem from our ability to doubt the concepts, ideologies, doctrines imposed upon us by society, religion, culture etc. Without doubts, free thinking is not possible. And without free thinking, the progress of knowledge and desired changes required with changing epochs, changing environmental and technical challenges would not be possible. The growth of mankind will be stagnant, all inventions and creative process that take us forward in evolutionary scale will come to a standstill. But doubt in a disproportionate magnitude turns into suspicion and pathological condition.
Doubtful mind seems paradoxical, with both bright and shadow side: If doubt is a brief precursor that stimulates questioning and learning then it is a healthy, positive state of mind. When doubt becomes internalized as self-doubt and begins to erode one's self confidence, then it is a negative state of mind. If doubt leading to strive for knowledge and action for betterment is the only way to grow. If doubt leading to further doubt may still be good if ultimately leads to knowledge and action. But doubt leading to inaction and closed mindedness is killer. So it depends on what we do with that doubt - how we respond to it. Doubt may encourage us to gain more understanding - that would be positive. But remaining always in doubt is negative state of mind! Doubt may be from ignorance and a reason to simply deny what we do not understand - that would be negative as well.
The wise says, "if you doubt at first, doubt again." which means that any doubtful situation or thought should not be left unattended especially when the impact of that situation is possibly big. You can not leave anything unaddressed which may put your activities/plans in jeopardy. Having said that, if you have doubt, you can take next baby step to see the reaction. If reaction is big, take back the step and reanalyze, redetermine and restrategize. Doubts about a possible impediment, devising ways to overcome the impediment, being prepared for some enroute 'surprises' (either pleasant or otherwise), in the journey, courage, confidence to face unpleasant surprises are the aspects we have to look for. With all the efforts, the end results may not exactly be the way we foresaw, but would definitely be one that would benefit many.
Some say doubt has no specific state of mind. it is attributed to it by 'us.' A doubt is a doubt. It has no state of mind. A state of mind is attributed to it by 'us' - at times, even without knowing what the doubt is, without considering its relevance or otherwise to the objective. If only we make an effort on these lines before attributing a status to it, things would be much better. Maybe doubt is just our interpretation of, or label for, some external stimulus?
Balance is the key. doubt in its reasonable proportion is a positive force of mind: creative, innovative and more often than not is path-breaking, thereby effecting bifurcation point in human history. Societies across the world put emphasis on conventional wisdom as the quintessential value for life. This is because; societies obstinately discourage change and conserve ideas and doctrines for maintaining social order and functionality. Free thinkers normally do not fall in line with the dogmatic and obsolete social systems. They pose threat and menace to the complacency of the common man’s perception of life and living values. Hence, balance is needed. Unbalanced thinking causes for motion. Balance causes for stability and status. Therefore, the right dose of doubt stimulates critical thinking and human progress, but too much doubt causes conflict and close mindedness.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Talent Management: Change the Name or the Substance
Leaders & managers are human engineers and talent artists, to discover the “raw intelligence,” and to understand the true human nature.
Talent is always the most invaluable asset in organizations since the modern business was born. However, in most of companies, their talent management are still running in silos. Not only the name is a bit out of date - Human Resource (HR)- treat their people as cost and human resource only, but also lack of the overarching strategy and systematic approach in managing people, talent, performance and culture coherently. Some suggested to have people management replacing talent management, others advocated to use human capital replacing human resource; or simply forget about talent management, go directly to the organizational development etc. So, here is the debate: Change the name or change the substance, how to manage your people effectively?
Talent Management vs. People Management vs. Organizational Management: From name perspective, people may be a more inclusive word than "talent," that's really just a name for your employees. The bigger issue is the word "MANAGEMENT." While there is clearly a significant management element to the strategic HR function, the term management leads the organization to think of a person as a fixed capability resource they are moving around and leveraging appropriately. For more than a decade, HR has advocated that they want leaders not managers, yet they continue to contradict themselves and try to say that the organization can manage all aspects of its "talent" practices, but the problem is, must of such best practices are done in silos, lack of the holistic view of their talent potential, the collective & amplified capabilities. By moving away from "talent" to "people," do you think this will really create a difference. Or are you simply confusing the marketplace and industry in a big way? If only making the name change without substantial mind shift, you're likely creating as many problems as you're likely to solve. An analysis on how "people management" differs from "organizational development" may bring forth additional insights. Maybe the shift is from "talent management" to "organizational management." But the point is, toning talent is perhaps more complex than tuning any other part of business, it takes vision from the leadership team and solid strategy following with tailored structure.
There’s shift in power, employees drive a more fluid process: Let's look at performance management. Nobody is happy with their current approach yet you still expect a leader to actually manage the performance of an employee. In reality, you should expect the leader to coach, develop, inspire and engage their employees. The employee is the only one who can manage their performance because they decided how much effort they will apply to delivering results. The issues of the day are around rapidly developing people, helping them connect and communicate effectively, and coach one another to higher performance. This is about harnessing of the change culture. The whole concept of "managing" a person in the same way as other material resources is the flaw that leads to ineffective performance management and flawed organizational processes. Be worth noting the shift in power -knowledge is the power.While the average employee doesn't have more power than leaders per se, we are seeing the employee owning more than they have in the past and also taking ownership in their hands. This may be due to changes in digital technology (information is only clicks away, knowledge is literally in my hand; ). People want to be empowered and we can see they aren't waiting for leaders to dictate or advance this. They are making the shift despite others at times. So the employee ownership drives a more fluid process more than before.
Put more emphasis on building a "healthy"corporate culture: The current and future focus of HR involves hiring for fit & fit for purpose, developing and engaging employees, and creating an inspiring culture. Maybe the shift could be from Talent Management to “People Development.” People Development activities focus on influencing the organization’s people systems that involves mission alignment, culture evolution, developing employees in general as well as identifying employees who are competent and demonstrate growth potential. We know this past decade's economic crisis has driven employee engagement down. Culture has always been important in growth markets, but was pushed off to the side when the financial crisis hit. As a result, people stagnate in roles longer and "should feel lucky to have a job." The software to integrate talent has been deployed in most companies, but not used to its potential. These processes work best in healthy growing company to aid leaders in achieving their growth targets. In a business struggling with stagnant or declining financials, the data collected is not fully utilized by leadership, at least in a positive way. Talent is not rotated or promoted enough, training budgets are cut to bare bones compliance and sales training, and executives step in to micro manage when times are tough. The result is even lower engagement and a culture then has eroded and shifted. Targeting engagement, process improvement, empowerment and respect will restore a semblance of health to the culture. But then they will still need to attract, develop, rotate and promote talent to retain them!.... And so the pendulum swings.
People management shifts to people optimization: People optimization is more holistic than people management as it plays an important role in determining what energizes the individual at the most. As a person, you need to be optimized with a growth mind, which means that you need to measure the innate capacity and develop the strengths to reach the maximum potential which is of much benefit to the organization where you work and to self. With such mindset, you contribute to overall organizational growth by developing big picture view, rather than the job offered, so that the role of the human resource becomes human engineers, to discover the “raw intelligence,” to understand the true human nature, to explore the talent capacity & capability, and to improve the overall "talent utilization."
Digital transformation, either for managing people, or for tuning organization as a whole, takes strategy, resource and technique, with the very goal to empower and enable talent development and people optimization, regardless how you name the next practice, the end is to engage employees, delight customers and achieve high mature business result.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Talent is always the most invaluable asset in organizations since the modern business was born. However, in most of companies, their talent management are still running in silos. Not only the name is a bit out of date - Human Resource (HR)- treat their people as cost and human resource only, but also lack of the overarching strategy and systematic approach in managing people, talent, performance and culture coherently. Some suggested to have people management replacing talent management, others advocated to use human capital replacing human resource; or simply forget about talent management, go directly to the organizational development etc. So, here is the debate: Change the name or change the substance, how to manage your people effectively?
Talent Management vs. People Management vs. Organizational Management: From name perspective, people may be a more inclusive word than "talent," that's really just a name for your employees. The bigger issue is the word "MANAGEMENT." While there is clearly a significant management element to the strategic HR function, the term management leads the organization to think of a person as a fixed capability resource they are moving around and leveraging appropriately. For more than a decade, HR has advocated that they want leaders not managers, yet they continue to contradict themselves and try to say that the organization can manage all aspects of its "talent" practices, but the problem is, must of such best practices are done in silos, lack of the holistic view of their talent potential, the collective & amplified capabilities. By moving away from "talent" to "people," do you think this will really create a difference. Or are you simply confusing the marketplace and industry in a big way? If only making the name change without substantial mind shift, you're likely creating as many problems as you're likely to solve. An analysis on how "people management" differs from "organizational development" may bring forth additional insights. Maybe the shift is from "talent management" to "organizational management." But the point is, toning talent is perhaps more complex than tuning any other part of business, it takes vision from the leadership team and solid strategy following with tailored structure.
There’s shift in power, employees drive a more fluid process: Let's look at performance management. Nobody is happy with their current approach yet you still expect a leader to actually manage the performance of an employee. In reality, you should expect the leader to coach, develop, inspire and engage their employees. The employee is the only one who can manage their performance because they decided how much effort they will apply to delivering results. The issues of the day are around rapidly developing people, helping them connect and communicate effectively, and coach one another to higher performance. This is about harnessing of the change culture. The whole concept of "managing" a person in the same way as other material resources is the flaw that leads to ineffective performance management and flawed organizational processes. Be worth noting the shift in power -knowledge is the power.While the average employee doesn't have more power than leaders per se, we are seeing the employee owning more than they have in the past and also taking ownership in their hands. This may be due to changes in digital technology (information is only clicks away, knowledge is literally in my hand; ). People want to be empowered and we can see they aren't waiting for leaders to dictate or advance this. They are making the shift despite others at times. So the employee ownership drives a more fluid process more than before.
Put more emphasis on building a "healthy"corporate culture: The current and future focus of HR involves hiring for fit & fit for purpose, developing and engaging employees, and creating an inspiring culture. Maybe the shift could be from Talent Management to “People Development.” People Development activities focus on influencing the organization’s people systems that involves mission alignment, culture evolution, developing employees in general as well as identifying employees who are competent and demonstrate growth potential. We know this past decade's economic crisis has driven employee engagement down. Culture has always been important in growth markets, but was pushed off to the side when the financial crisis hit. As a result, people stagnate in roles longer and "should feel lucky to have a job." The software to integrate talent has been deployed in most companies, but not used to its potential. These processes work best in healthy growing company to aid leaders in achieving their growth targets. In a business struggling with stagnant or declining financials, the data collected is not fully utilized by leadership, at least in a positive way. Talent is not rotated or promoted enough, training budgets are cut to bare bones compliance and sales training, and executives step in to micro manage when times are tough. The result is even lower engagement and a culture then has eroded and shifted. Targeting engagement, process improvement, empowerment and respect will restore a semblance of health to the culture. But then they will still need to attract, develop, rotate and promote talent to retain them!.... And so the pendulum swings.
People management shifts to people optimization: People optimization is more holistic than people management as it plays an important role in determining what energizes the individual at the most. As a person, you need to be optimized with a growth mind, which means that you need to measure the innate capacity and develop the strengths to reach the maximum potential which is of much benefit to the organization where you work and to self. With such mindset, you contribute to overall organizational growth by developing big picture view, rather than the job offered, so that the role of the human resource becomes human engineers, to discover the “raw intelligence,” to understand the true human nature, to explore the talent capacity & capability, and to improve the overall "talent utilization."
Digital transformation, either for managing people, or for tuning organization as a whole, takes strategy, resource and technique, with the very goal to empower and enable talent development and people optimization, regardless how you name the next practice, the end is to engage employees, delight customers and achieve high mature business result.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
March 11, 2015
The Brain, the Mind and the Gut
Human needs to be humbled. Not only do we only know a tip of iceberg about what’s going on in our environment, but also we know so little about ourselves: Who are you? Are you more than just body and brain? If so, what's behind the wheel? is it your brain that's doing the thinking, or is it you? The brain, the mind or the gut, where does your intelligence come from?
The mind is a brain in action. The brain itself is just a bunch of connections, but the mind is a result of those connections in actions interacting/relaying information almost simultaneously throughout different parts of the brain. The brain is the physical, tangible organ in the physical body. It orchestrates the operations of that body. The mind, on the other hand, is not physical -- it has no form. What we call "the mind" is actually referring to the conglomeration of little energy impulses we call "thoughts." Because we experience something called "thoughts," the thoughts pile up the thought, and forms what’s being called MIND: 1) Brain: Is the biological organ representing the center of the nervous system 2) Mind: The brain sum of cognitive faculties: thinking, judgment, memory etc…
To look for the mind within the brain, seems then as silly as looking for the music between the strings of a piano. If we realize that the brain consists mostly out of “wires” guiding electrical impulses in feedforward- and feedback-controlled loops, that cannot even tell our senses apart, it is difficult to imagine where to find the mind. It might start getting far easier if we assume the mind as an emergent property, created, millisecond by millisecond, partially by the brain and partially by its environment.Mind - or 'consciousness' - is proposed as a 'quantum mind' by some physicists. Others - also reputed scientists - dispute this but invoke a more fundamental structure. According to social constructionism, the mind would more be *between* people, in their interaction. If the mind is a characteristic of living creatures, then it is highly related (how?) to what makes a living creature.
There are three centres of intelligence, head, heart and gut: all aligned as a system that brings clarity, openness wisdom and an ability to speak from the heart without judgement to receive information. The brain, the gut, and the entire body is a receiving and transmitting miracle machine.From a eastern medical and philosophical perspective, the gut is the battery that stores the nutrients to feed the brain. one’s gut is the power centre and the 'truthplane. It is probably a synergistic association in that the gut flora play a pivotal role in breaking down ingested material to extract the micro nutrients which pass into the bloodstream the peptides among them. So the miracle of the body is its ability to shunt what is needed to where it is needed and discard what is not.
The brain reacts to mind as a CPU to software applications. Brain has to do with matter, like a hardware. Mind has to do with the flow of energy, like a software, thinking is only a small aspect of consciousness. The veins, vessels and synapses of the brain are like a computer, able to download everything. Technologists routinely refer to the natural division of technology as hardware and software. in reality human beings are actually 'largely driven by "wetware." This is why the mind body connection is so interconnected. Some argue, theoretically, a brain could survive on its own without a body if it was fed the nutrients, so the brain is more like a complete system - in other words, we need the brain more than the brain needs us.
The mind is the output as ideas, opinions, feelings, emotions, attitude, attributes of one’s behaviors. You are just these four things; body, mind, emotion and energy. Right now, the combination of these four is what you call “self.” The best of your body can reach is health and pleasure. The best your mind can achieve is sharpness and peace. The peak of your emotions is love and joyfulness. The "mind" represents our consciousness and awareness - even though there is a large part of our mind that operates below our level of awareness - the subconscious. This is what "thinking" is all about." Every thought takes place in the "mind" and because thoughts are holistic, there is not one place in the brain from where they emanate. When we make a commitment, it has to be a conscious one - one that we have thought through and decided that it is exactly what we want to do. Though the science of consciousness is a philosophical one.
From conscious to knowledge development: It seems that development of implicit knowledge rely on four distinct areas of consciousness, which are:1). Present consciousness -- development of implicit knowledge depends upon practice -- 2). Active subconsciousness -- developing new knowledge through synthesis of ideas and concepts drawn from differing experiences.3). Latent subconsciousness -- developing new knowledge through application of concepts or principles learned long back but have become fragile and weak through disuse.4). Unknown consciousness -- completely new idea or concept that suddenly jumps out from nowhere. It simply happens.So the brain is the engine of our mind. Our brains are beautifully made and necessary to sentient life. How about considering mind as true you who connects and controls your body through your brain using wireless connectivity. You can not find mind inside the body, it’s outside (at least partially.) The brain has a simple role: make sure the body is functioning so the mind can explore. “Thinking and consciousness are not synonymous. Thinking is only a small aspect of consciousness. Thought cannot exist without consciousness, but consciousness does not need thought.” -TolleFollow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Three-Step Change Management Scenario
Organizations large or small are on the journey for digital transformation, however, there’s always cultural frictions to changes. Usually there is a failure to have a discussion at all levels of the organization on the following three questions before getting into the details: 1) Are we willing to change? 2) At what rate are we willing to change? 3) What is the reward for embarking on a process of change? Too often top management says we need to change or selects a set of numbers relative to goals and then unleashes a fancy name program on the organization and says "Charge”! What are the logical steps for managing the change process and sustaining the change outcome?
Step 1: Make sure there is dissatisfaction with the current situation. The people that make up the organization must see a compelling need to change from risky practices, obsolete ideas, processes and do so proactively before issues materialize. It also helps when people believe things will improve by changing, innovating, upgrading, etc. Unless there is a realization that the status quo does not work, it makes any shift unlikely and challenging. One aspect is that this is making the dissatisfaction relevant to them, or at the very least a chain from the principle driver to them. There are so many instances where the change was 'the people at the top want everyone to use X piece of software to provide greater shareholder value.' For the vast majority of people this is going to mean get and keep people engaged: Start with "why" the change (why we need to change, why now, etc?), then get into the "what" (what or who is driving the change), "how", "when", "where", etc. very little and quite a leap to see where this links into their own dissatisfaction with the current situation. The problem is that without the organization understanding why change is necessary and identifying those willing to champion the effort, the results may appear in the numbers but not in the attitude of employees who can actually make the process work to meet and exceed the goals. A camel is a horse designed by a committee. The larger the organization embarking on the process of change, the uglier the camel will be.
Step 2: Buy-in - The successful change requires buy-in. Make everyone aware that there is a better way and explain it smoothly. Buy-in means giving people a chance to understand why the change is necessary and getting them to participate in defining the better process and then ensuring they are actively involved in monitoring of that process to ensure they have a voice in improving it, should it require some adjustments after being deployed. To ensure process change lasts, the key is engagement with the impacted staff who will use the process, you can create some great processes but unless the staff buy-in, it won't be fully adopted or old habits will creep back in. Coach people to shift from the belief that change is "loss" to a belief that change leads to "growth" and growth leads to organizational viability, relevance and stability. Life changes. Nothing stays the same. When your people grow, the organization grows. Create a culture of growth. Communicate the need for agility so that you'll all enjoy a growing and healthy organization. Ultimately, it is the people throughout your organization who will be executing the process change once implemented. You want a process to last where it is still valid and effective, but more often than not, it is the people who use it day-to-day; who can see ways to improve, so you need a two-way dialogue and you don't hit the same point where you have to re-engineer processes. Process change then becomes part of continuous improvement. It's also wise to have change champions who lead change on the company's terms and timelines so the organization can stay relevant and healthy in a rapidly changing world.
Step 3: Get it right - Prepare - Implement - Automate. Make sure everyone believes they can implement and sustain the better way. To be successful you need a streamlined management to deal with ideas, discussion, funding and empowering at low levels the implementation and rewarding for achieving results. Proper preparation, implementation and automation make change more likely to succeed and be more sustainable.-Prepare: Even if you get the first two steps right, you can fail because you have not prepared the organization for the change to come. Preparing will make or break implementation. -Implement: With strong preparation, implementation success is not guaranteed unless you have a well thought out implementation and deployment plan. Sharing this plan will also help prepare your teams. This also aligns with enterprise risk management in that the organization could be a risk of real harm if the company does not assess and manage risk. This usually involves making proactive changes to how business is done. -Automate: Once you have a very well defined process and it is understood by all, you should move to automating as much as you can. Automation ensures less divergence in the execution and often allows for much better data gathering on the KPIs that matter most.People (50%) + Process (25%) + Tools (25%) (in that order) = Results. Sustainable results are much more achievable when people willingly drive processes and processes drive the tools, techniques, or actions that people employ.
It is important to get the change right. Trying to get an entire organization to change quickly, or to change reluctantly in many cases, is not likely to happen. To keep up with today's change and market disruption requires agility, speed and resourcefulness. That requires the right people-the change champions, the effective process and productive tools well aligned to make it happen.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
