Pawel Brodzinski on Leadership in Technology

Whatever it takes to lead a team, build a product, and run a business

Tag: leadership

  • Choosing Partners: Make or Break

    There’s been an interesting long-term study on graduates. Those who prioritized wealth and financial success in survey responses were significantly more likely to achieve it 20 years later. It seems almost intuitive, doesn’t it? Their choices, actions, and focus were likely geared toward accumulating wealth and maximizing financial gains.

    This phenomenon isn’t confined to individual career paths. I’ve observed a similar pattern across organizations within our industry. It’s quite telling to look at the trajectory of companies over a decade or more.

    Some organizations have had a laser focus on growth, and subsequently, they’ve experienced remarkable expansion. Others have chased public recognition and local fame, their representatives becoming well-known figures in relevant communities. Still others have invested heavily in technological excellence, attracting top-tier engineers.

    The intriguing part is this: often, you could predict these outcomes simply by understanding the priorities of the company’s leadership.

    Why? Because leadership’s influence on an organization is immense. Their personal aspirations become the organization’s goals. Their decisions, consciously or subconsciously, are often optimized to serve their own individual objectives. It’s no surprise, then, that an organization’s achievements frequently mirror the priorities of its leadership – much like the undergraduates in the study.

    This observation, by the way, also translates to the prevalent issue of short-term thinking in the corporate world. After all, the top leaders are typically manipulated to “increase value for their shareholders” with hefty rewards. But that’s a discussion for another time.

    Acknowledging the above, here’s a valuable tip: before partnering with any company, try to understand what truly motivates its top leaders. Not what they say officially on their website or in the materials they send you.

    Find who’s on the very top of the organization and do a little bit of research. Heck, ask AI to do it for you if you can’t get a report from someone working directly with them. And if you can get them to talk to you, it’s a home run.

    Ideally, get them to articulate their priorities, values, and beliefs. That should be easy, especially when dealing with a smaller organization. This insight will be a telltale of how your collaboration will look like.

    You’ll gain a picture of how you, your company, your product, and your goals fit into their agenda. That fit should be a critical factor when choosing a technical partner, business collaborator, or, really, anyone in whom you want to invest loads of money.

    Looking back on my 13 years at Lunar Logic, every long-term collaboration we’ve forged serves as a testament to this principle. Our (often unspoken) priorities were consistently aligned with those of our clients and partners.

    And if there’s one reason to explain our record 17-year-long (and counting) collaboration with one client, it’s precisely this match. By the way, not only is it the longest gig in the history of Lunar, but also, hands down, the best client we could have dreamt of.

    Coming back to Lunar’s focus, it’s never been on rapid growth, widespread fame, or even undisputed technical superiority.

    We’ve been this crazy company that decided to experiment with radical organizational culture. We have no managers. Anyone can make any decision (in a structured way, of course). By many accounts, we are rebels.

    Does it work, though?

    I bet Michael, who has collaborated with us for 17 years, would confirm. And he’d be far from the lone example on this account.

    People stay at Lunar for over twice as long as the norm in our niche suggests. So, it’s another voice that we do something right.

    But walking the talk, if you want to get an accurate picture of whether there’s a match, let me know. In the spirit of transparency, which is one of our values, I’m happy to share a lot about Lunar.

    Then, it’s anyone’s choice whether we are a good match or not.

  • Autonomy and Transparency: Both or Neither

    How does transparency feel? Early in my career, I had an occasion to experience that. I was working in a typical organization where lots of things, payroll included, were secrets. Then the salary list leaked out. It wasn’t a huge leak, i.e. it didn’t go public, but I was close enough to the source that I could take a look.

    When I was about to open the spreadsheet with the data, I was thinking about my expectations. I hoped that information about salaries would help me to make sense of how people in the company are perceived by the leaders. I thought that it might provide me with role models to look up to. I was ultimately looking forward to transforming new knowledge into some inspiration and motivation for myself.

    That was totally not what happened.

    What I saw on the payroll was a lot of unfairness. I saw numbers I couldn’t possibly justify. I couldn’t make sense of the system that produced these numbers. Most of all, I was painfully aware that there was literally nothing I could do to change that. After all, I shouldn’t have seen the data in the first place.

    Ultimately, I got frustrated.

    Transparency without Autonomy

    With the benefit of hindsight, I see a broader picture of that experience. On one hand, I am aware that back then I couldn’t have had the whole perspective on what was valued in the organization and thus my sense of unfairness might have been exaggerated. I didn’t have insight on systems thinking to be able to rationalize the shape of the payroll as a pragmatically predictable outcome. Should I understand that my outrage and my frustration wouldn’t be that big.

    The bottom line remains the same. I should have been expecting frustration as the only logical outcome of such an experiment. I put myself in a situation when I was about to get access to data that was important to me on an emotional level and yet I knew I had no influence whatsoever on shaping the future state of that data.

    I got transparency with no autonomy to act. Heck, I couldn’t even ask all my “whys” to better understand what was going on. I put myself in a position where my frustration was guaranteed.

    Transparency without autonomy is a recipe for frustration.

    It’s like telling people stuff that they don’t like, or agree with, and then telling them to live with it. You don’t like who gets a raise? Live with it. You don’t agree with who gets promoted? Live with it. You don’t agree with disparities on the payroll? Live with it. You get the idea.

    A side note: I refer to autonomy and not authority. There’s a significant difference between the two. For the sake of this discussion, the crucial part is autonomy defined as the actual use of decision-making power, not just the availability of decision-making power.

    Autonomy without Transparency

    What about the opposite situation? Can we let people act while keeping them from accessing sensitive data? The answer to this case is rather obvious, I think. Acting in an organizational context means making decisions. Can we then make decisions with limited access to relevant information?

    Yes, we can. The question is: would that be good decision-making? Even though a common perception that more information available to a decision maker would result in a better decision is a myth, it is still crucial to have access to a few most important bits of data.

    In our context most important often translates to most sensitive and thus available to few. If we let people decide without making such information accessible we’d set them up to fail. Their decisions simply won’t be informed and thus random and low quality.

    Decentralizing control requires decentralizing both the authority to make decisions and the information required to make these decisions correctly.

    Don Reinertsen

    To stick with the original example, just try to imagine people deciding on raises without knowing what salaries are.

    Transparency and Autonomy

    OK, so neither autonomy nor transparency alone does make sense. What does, then? If we aim to improve either one we need to think about both at the same time.

    Each time we loosen transparency constraints we should answer: how can people act on newly accessible data? What will they be able to do if they aren’t satisfied with what they see? The answer doesn’t have to be full control over changing the part of reality that we’ve just made transparent. They do need to have influence, though.

    When we were making salaries transparent at Lunar Logic we didn’t give people the power to set the salaries. Well, not initially. We gave them as much as, and as little as, influence: an option to start a discussion about a salary and space to share their opinions about any raise under discussion. Even if the final decisions were still being made by the same person as before the change there were clear options anyone could exploit if they were dissatisfied with any number on the payroll.

    While eventually influence has transformed into full control over decisions, the key move was the initial one. The one that gave people influence.

    The guidance is much more straightforward if we start with the intention of extending autonomy. We simply need to answer what information we consider when making this kind of decision and then make that information available.

    Most often the hard part is realizing what range of information we really consider. When we started experimenting with the decision-making process at Lunar Logic, the first step was to let people spend company money without asking permission. The part of the process was, and still is, what we call the advisory process.

    As a part of advisory processes, I was often consulted about planned expenses. The most important lesson for me from the advisory processes was how unaware I was of all the data, experience and mental models I was using when I was making decisions myself. This, in turn, made me realize how much more transparent with all these we need to become to get autonomy working. A simple example: if we want people to spend company money wisely they should know what’s the financial health of the company and how specific expenses may affect it, i.e. regular financial reports should be available to everyone.

    Moving the Bar

    The bottom line is this: when we raise the bar of transparency we need to raise the bar of autonomy as well. And vice versa.

    It is not as obvious as it sounds. Each change fuels and influences another. It is more of a balancing act than a prescribed set of moves one could repeat in every situation.

    There is a caveat too. Transparency is a one-way street. You simply can’t undo making salaries transparent. You can’t make people unsee the payroll. Then again, transparency doesn’t go alone. It must be followed by autonomy. This means that changes on both accounts are almost impossible to reverse.

    In fact, rolling autonomy back is a bad idea not only because it is connected to transparency. Even if we looked at autonomy in isolation there’s a painful penalty to pay for removing autonomy that has already been granted. It is an equivalent of saying “we weren’t serious in the first place about giving you that power”. Not only we are back to the square one but also people would be discouraged to embrace autonomy in the future because they got burned.

    The obvious advice in this context would be to tread carefully and to take one’s time. We will find ourselves in a place where we feel like we took a step to far. What we can do is to take a break until we learn how to embrace the new situation.

    At Lunar Logic it happened sometime after we made salaries transparent and gave people influence over raise decisions. Suddenly we found ourselves in the middle of what we now call the raise spree–a lot of raises were happening simultaneously with little consideration of their ripple effects. Instead of removing autonomy or double guessing individual decisions, which would end up the same, we focused on educating ourselves. How individual raises would influence other decisions about salaries and the overall financial condition of the company. Only as soon as we felt comfortable with the autonomy we had we moved the needle again.

    Neither or Both?

    If we stick to the assumption that increasing autonomy and transparency should go together, the question we should ask is: should we even bother? If it’s the choice between both and none, why not to choose none and stick with the status quo?

    The younger version of me would say that more transparency is always better than less. Well, now I would argue with my younger self. There are edge cases, like the one that I started with. However, in general, I believe that it is easier to lead a company when more information is available to everyone. At least in a part, it comes from a fact that not only is it more transparency, but also more autonomy. The latter releases a part of the burden of people in leadership roles.

    I do have a better answer when it comes to autonomy. Dan Pink points autonomy as one of the crucial factors that our motivation depends on. Little autonomy, little motivation, he says. Given how discouraged autonomy is the modern workplace we can only do good if we pursue it more. It won’t happen unless we care about autonomy and transparency together.

    For me the answer is obvious. It’s both; not neither. As difficult as the evolution can be, it’s worth it.

  • Decision Making Process

    I’m a strong proponent of participatory leadership model where everyone takes part in leading a team or even an organization. A part of leading is making decisions. After all if all decisions still have to be made, or at least approved, by a manager it isn’t much of participatory leadership.

    (Benevolent) Dictatorship

    The most typical starting point is that someone with power makes all decisions. As a result commonly seen hierarchies are just complicated structures of dictatorships. As a manager within my small kingdom I can do what I want as long as I don’t cross the line drawn by my overlord.

    Of course there are managers who invite the whole team to share their input or even distribute particular decisions to team members. There are leaders who use their power for the good of their people. It may be benevolent dictatorship. It is still dictatorship though.

    This model works fairly well as long as we have good leaders. Indecisiveness isn’t a super-common issue and if it is there’s at least one person who clearly is responsible. Often leaders have fair experience in their roles thus they are well-suited to make the calls they make.

    The model isn’t ideal form a perspective of promoting participatory leadership. If we want more people to be more involved in leading a team or an organization we want them to make decisions. And I mean truly make decisions. Not as in “I propose to do this but I ask you, dear manager, to approve this so that responsibility is, in fact, on you.” I mean situations when team members make their calls and feel accountable for them.

    I’d go even further and propose that in truly participatory leadership model team members acting as leaders would make calls that their managers wouldn’t.

    This isn’t going to happen with a classic decision making process.

    Consensus

    A natural alternative is a consensus-driven decision making process. A situation where we look for a solution that everyone agrees on.

    This one definitely allows escaping dictatorship model caveats. It doesn’t come for free though.

    Looking for consensus doesn’t mean looking for the best option, but rather looking for the least controversial option. These two are very rarely synonymous. Another issue is the tiredness effect. After a long discussion people switch to “I don’t care anymore, let someone make that decision finally and move on.”

    Not to mention that the whole decision making process suddenly gets really time-consuming for many people.

    While in theory consensus solves accountability problem – everyone agreed to a decision – in practice the picture isn’t that rosy. If I didn’t take active part in the discussion or my objections were ignored I don’t feel like it’s my decision. Also if the decision was made by a group I will likely feel that responsibility is distributed and thus diluted.

    One interesting flavor of consensus-driven decision making is when people really care about the decision even though it is controversial. It’s not that they want to avoid participation or even responsibility. It’s just consensus is unlikely, if even possible.

    Such a discussion may turn into an unproductive shit storm, which doesn’t help in reaching any common solution and yet it is emotionally taxing.

    Advisory Process

    There is a very interesting middle ground.

    My pursuit of participatory leadership decision making became a major obstacle. I declined to use my dictatorship power on many occasions encouraging people to make their own calls. The answer for a question starting with “Can I…” would simply be “Well, can you?” That worked up to some point.

    It builds the right attitude, it helps to participate in leading and it makes people feel accountable. The problem starts when such a decision would affect many people. In such a case we tend to retreat back to one of the previous models: we either seek consensus or look for a dictator to make that call for us.

    Not a particularly good choice.

    I found the solution while looking at how no management companies deal with that challenge. Basically, everyone acts as they had dictatorship power (within constraints). However, before anyone makes their call they are obliged to consult with people who have expert knowledge on the subject as well as with those who will be affected by the

    This is called advisory process. We look for an advice from those who can provide us valuable insight either because they know more about the subject or because their stakes are in play. Ultimately, a decision is made by a single person though. Interestingly enough, a decision-maker doesn’t have to take all the insight from advisory process into account. Sometimes it is not even possible.

    Accountability is clearly there. Healthy level of discussion about the decisions is there as well.

    Constraints

    The key part of going with such decision making scheme is a clear definition of constraints. Basically, a dictator, whoever that is in a given context, gives up power for specific types of decisions.

    The moment a team member makes a call that is vetoed the whole mechanism is pretty much rendered irrelevant. It suggests that people can make the decisions only as long as a manager likes them. This isn’t just a form of dictatorship but a malicious one.

    These constraints may be defined in any sort of way, e.g. just a set of specific decisions or decisions that don’t incur cost beyond some limit, etc. Clarity is important as misunderstanding on that account can have exactly the same outcomes as ignoring the rules. After all if I believe I could have made a decision and it turns are not to be true I will be disappointed and disengaged. It doesn’t matter what exactly was the root cause.

    Setting constraints is also a mechanism that allows smooth transition from benevolent dictatorship to a participatory model. One super difficult challenge is to learn that I, as a manager, lost control and some decisions will be made differently than I’d make them. It’s better to test how it works with safe to fail experiments before applying the new model to serious stuff.

    It also addresses a potential threat of someone willing to exploit the system for their own gain.

    Learning the ropes is surprisingly simple. It doesn’t force people to go too far out of their comfort zones and yet it builds a sense of leadership across the board. Finally it provides a nice option for transition from the old decision making scheme.

    And the best thing of all – it is applicable on any level of organization. It can be at the very top of the company, which is what no management organizations do, but it can be done just within a team by its manager.

  • Two Rules of Autonomy

    One thing that we are doing at Lunar Logic is we evolve toward no management model of leadership. This means a lot of small changes that all happen with the same attitude at heart: to distribute more and more decision-making power across the whole company. This by the way also means systematically stripping down the management from that power.

    The latter is easy in our case as the management is limited to me and I kind of launched the whole process. I would have to be either a hypocrite or a schizophrenic to resist the changes. Luckily enough I believe I’m neither. (Unless that other me has something else to say, that is.)

    I don’t say it’s easy. One challenge in each step toward participatory leadership is that we, humans, don’t like to give up on power. I’m no different. I like that warm feeling that I can make a call and it shall be as I say. It’s not only that. Sometimes I simply know which option is good and the temptation to intervene and tell people what’s the best choice is strong. It would mean, however, taking a step back on a path toward democratizing leadership. So I keep my mouth shut.

    On other occasions I just feel like we are going too far from my comfort zone and I slow down the process.

    Giving up on power is a prerequisite to go further. While I don’t say it will go as easy in every case it isn’t enough to get that part working. In fact, despite being vocal how much I don’t want to make all sorts of decisions and how much I appreciate autonomy I still get loads of the questions that start with “Can I…”

    If I’m lucky enough to suppress my System 1 reaction that would be either of: yes, yes but, no, no but answers I’d reply with “Can you?” The ball is back in your court and as long as you take responsibility for the call you make I’m OK with that.

    The interesting thing is why these questions are popping up over and over again though. Despite the fact that on a conscious level we promote autonomy our natural behaviors means retreating back to the old pattern of asking for permission.

    We simply don’t claim autonomy even if it slaps us in the face.

    Besides years of programming our brains by education and work system that make it hard to act differently there’s another reason for that. Most of us want to be good citizens and we don’t want to use our autonomy to do stuff other wouldn’t like or even would be against. So we back up to the ultimate decision-making authority who is supposed to know what everyone in an organization likes or approves or more likely who doesn’t give a damn what anyone thinks – a manager.

    The interesting thing is that the fear sometimes is well-grounded. We have different sensitivity toward different things. Behaviors that we consider positive or neutral may have negative connotation for others. If I’m a manager and I use my ultimate decision-making power and I don’t give a damn then, well, I don’t give a damn. But what if I’m just a team member who cares?

    The idea we came up with is a set of two very simple rules.

    1. The Nike Way
    If you want to do something just do it.

    2. Speak Up
    If you don’t like what someone else is doing speak up.

    Yes, that’s it. There’s one underlying principle, which is mutual respect. We don’t need to love each other. We need to respect our autonomy and our right to have different views on stuff.

    The nice thing about this setup is that it is a self-balancing mechanism. It takes only one person try something new. It doesn’t require permission or even extensive up-front discussion. Pretty much the opposite, as a default we assume that every initiative would be awesome and everyone would love it or at least have nothing against.

    The Nike Way is verbalizing the attitude described by famous Grace Hopper’s words: It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.

    What we do know is that despite best intentions it won’t be true all the time. Occasionally, OK more often than occasionally, someone would do something that somebody else is not OK with. Then we have Speak Up rule that triggers a conscious and meaningful discussion (sometimes dubbed a shit storm) that provides additional insight for both sides and most likely some sort of consensus.

    Speak Up rule was designed with a positive scenario in mind, i.e. someone unintentionally stepped on someone else’s toe. It works however in malicious cases as well. When someone intentionally crosses the line or pulls an organization in an unwanted direction someone else will speak up too.

    The best part is that the same way it takes only one person to just do it, you need only one person to speak up.

    One might point that there’s a risk that it would end up in indecisiveness. So far I don’t see that happening. First, speaking up doesn’t mean the ultimate veto power. It simply triggers a discussion. Second, the respect bit that is a hard prerequisite keeps the discussion civilized.

    There’s a little more sophistication to balance that. Naturally extroverts would have an upper hand in unstructured discussion. That’s where empathy plays its role as helps to facilitate these weaker signals. On a basic level there are just these two simple rules: The Nike Way and Speak Up rule.

  • Lean Kanban Central Europe Leadership Track

    There’s a question I get asked pretty frequently: which conference I would recommend to attend. Of course the answer is always contextual but surprisingly often after some further inquiry I recommend Lean Kanban Central Europe.

    On one hand it’s the content. Even today I remember all the keynotes from the first LKCE three years ago. That’s how much that stuck. Since then the program was only getting better. Then, there is exposure to new ideas. Lean Kanban series of conferences are surprisingly consistent when it comes to bringing to the mix new concepts, models and methods. One can bet that that thing which sounds so fresh on one of big Agile events was covered in extent a few years ago at Lean Kanban tour.

    Then of course there is networking. With three hundred people networking is of very different quality than at the events that attract a thousand people or more. Everyone is more accessible and it’s not an ultimate challenge to track down someone who you really want to chat with.

    The post wasn’t meant as a just an infomercial of LKCE. The conference, as every good event, evolves. One change that we introduced this year are consistent tracks and track chairs. This means that there’s always someone who made final decisions for the part of the program. This also means that there’s even more space for radical ideas as we as the program board aren’t driven by the consensus that much.

    The track I’m honored to lead is the leadership track. One thing I didn’t want to do with it was just to throw a bunch of great speakers and just let them do their magic. What we’ll have instead is a theme and different ideas on leadership evolving around the same theme. Of course we still have a bunch of awesome speakers in the first place.

    This approach means that everyone who will choose to stay throughout the whole track will get a consistent experience, while being exposed to different ideas. In fact, when working on the track I was thinking of it as of a mini-conference on its own.

    The underlying theme for the track is broadening understanding of what leadership is and what approaches and tools we may use to let it emerge in our organizations. Esther Derby will kick off the track explaining that leadership at all levels isn’t just a nice theoretical concept or wishful thinking. At the same time the challenge is that there are no recipes that allow us to easily build such an environment. If there was such a thing as a track keynote it would be this one and I can hardly think of a better candidate than Esther to deliver it.

    With no recipes we aren’t left alone in the wild though. We do have models and methods that, if understood correctly and used mindfully, can help us to shape the organization to steer emergence of leadership. When I think about people who easily mix different models and methods applying them contextually to provide most value Liz Keogh is on the top of my list. That’s why I asked her to cover that part. At least a bit of exposure to systems thinking and complex adaptive systems seems inevitable.

    By that point the balance of the track will have swung toward more systemic approach to leadership. In that context however we can’t forget that at the end of the day it all boils down to people dynamics. That’s where Marc Burgauer will kick in with his message about how trust, connections, blame and fear of shame play pivotal role in building leadership across organization. Marc does an awesome job bringing people perspective into discussion.

    The only missing bit in that mix is a practical story that shows how one may use all these building blocks to create a culture where leadership emerges and thrives. I tasked myself with that. On one hand at that point my job will be super easy as Esther, Liz and Marc will have covered the important parts and I’ll just build the connection between my story and earlier sessions. On the other, matching such a lineup of speakers is a challenge by itself. I guess my inner speaker now hates my inner track chair.

    Of course leadership track will be competing for attendees attention with other awesome tracks. It was never our goal for LKCE to make choice between sessions even remotely close to easy. I do hope though that there will be some people who will choose to stay with us through all the leadership sessions. Especially that it is the shortest track of the event. As you can see though there was a lot thought invested to provide additional value for those who would be at all sessions.

    The track is more than a sum of its sessions, it’s a product of interactions between its parts.

    Have I just brought systems thinking again to the discussion? Oh well…

    I hope this is one more argument to join LKCE this year. I’d love to see you there and I’d love to get feedback about the final outcome.

  • There Is No Shortage of Leaders

    I like the way Jerry Weinberg defines leadership.

    Leadership is a process of creating an environment where people become empowered.

    Empowerment

    I don’t really like the word empowerment as it is frequently used in the context of making people empowered. The way I understand empowerment such thing can’t even be done. You can’t empower me to do something.

    What you can do is give me enough positional power and possibly encourage me to do something. I can still cease to do it because of a number of reasons. I may not see value or sense in doing that. It may move me too far outside of my comfort zone. I may be afraid of peer reaction. Finally, potential consequences of failure may drive my decision.

    The way I think of empowerment is that it is intrinsic. I can feel empowered to do something. What others can do is they can create conditions that would enable that. It means anything from creating experiments that are safe to fail to shaping the environment so it supports and not discourages me to act.

    Only such way of interpreting empowerment makes Jerry Weinberg’s definition of leadership reasonable.

    Process

    What Jerry Weinberg talks about is a process. That’s unusual as typically when we think about leadership we think about individual context. How to become a leader or how to become a better leader.

    What “a process of creating an environment” communicates is that a discussion about leadership should happen in a different context. Instead of wondering how to help an individual to become a better leader we should discuss how to build an environment, or a system if you will, that supports emergence of new leaders and further development of existing ones.

    This inevitably brings to a context of system thinking.

    If we consider an organization a system there are many of its properties that influence whether, how and when people can lead.

    One of the most obvious ones would be a formal hierarchy. How rigid it is and how many levels it is built of. A hierarchy is important as it often linearly translates to power distribution. Most often it would be managers who make most decisions and influence environment around in extent.

    Then we have all the rules that people are supposed to follow. What is allowed and what is not. What stuff I have to comply to before I can do things I want. And most importantly whether everything is allowed unless rules state otherwise or the opposite: nothing is allowed unless rules state otherwise.

    Thinking of an organization as of a system from a perspective of enabling leadership is important because the system defines constraints. Normally, one can’t go beyond these constraints without risking dire consequences.

    In other words structures and rules define how much potentially is possible in terms of catalyzing leadership. It doesn’t automatically mean that fairly flat hierarchy and few rules is enough to see emergence of leadership throughout a company.

    Environment

    The bit that enables fulfilling potential created by rules and structures is organizational culture. We define organizational culture as a sum of behaviors of people being part of an organization. It’s not only abut behaviors though. It’s also about what drives them: values, principles, norms, beliefs, etc.

    Organizational culture constitutes what is an environment we work in. This is what steers how far we would go within existing structures and rules. In fact, it may even let us break the rules. It may be perfectly acceptable to for an organization to go against the existing constraints as long as it means doing the right things and is aligned with organization’s values and principles.

    What’s more, for companies that aim for good leadership distribution across the board will likely encourage such behaviors as it is a crucial condition for evolving the system and the culture.

    The hard part about organization culture is that we can’t mandate its change the same way as we can mandate for example rules change. We can’t do it as the culture is a derivative of behaviors of many people.

    What’s more we can’t mandate the change of behaviors in a sustainable manner either. We can introduce a policeman who would make sure people behave the way we want them to, but the moment the policeman is gone people would retreat back to the old status quo.

    So what can we do with the culture? We can work on constraints. This is in fact aligned with a system thinking view of an organization.

    A Process of Creating an Environment

    The bottom line of this is that most of the time when I hear complaints about not enough good leaders it is because environment is designed in a way that doesn’t let them emerge, let alone thrive.

    A litmus test that I use to quickly asses what climate there is for potential leaders would be bringing up famous Grace Hopper’s words:

    It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.

    The question to ask is how much of that attitude is present in an organization. An interesting observation is that the more people exercise that attitude the less they actually need to ask forgiveness.

    The core of it though is empowerment. On one hand it translates to taking the rules into account and then doing the right thing even it means going beyond the rules occasionally. On the other it means that an organization accepts and supports such behaviors. It requires involvement of both parties.

    It requires continuous effort to adjust rules and structures and evolve an organizational culture to reach such stage. It requires a lot of discipline across management on all levels not to break such attitude once it is present as it is fragile.

    That’s why it’s a process and not a thing. Good news is that the better you do that the more leaders would get involved and the more self-sustaining the process will become.

    At the end of the day, there’s no shortage of leaders, only a shortage of companies that let leadership emerge.

  • Why Your Change Program Will Fail

    Most change initiatives fail. How many of them? Well, let’s see.

    In 1995, John Kotter published research that revealed only 30 percent of change programs are successful. Fast forward to 2008. A recent McKinsey & Company survey of business executives indicates that the percent of change programs that are a success today is… still 30%

    This is from a McKinsey report. How about different sources?

    According to international management consultants Bain & Co, 70 to 90 per cent of organizational change initiatives fail.

    Now, obviously these statistics receive some criticism. After all, what is a change initiative? What is a success? My point is that what we see is that in different context we suck big time at improving how we work.

    What’s more we are not improving really. Over the course of past 15 years we’ve seen a huge rise of the methods and approaches that are specifically aimed toward driving the change management.

    Agile proposed a neat value container quickly filled with specific methods that should change and improve the way we work. Lean offered a thinking pattern focused on continuous improvements. Both are more and more frequently considered table stakes than game changers. Why nothing is changing then?

    First, let me make a bold observation: neither Agile nor Lean seem to be making a difference. In fact, that’s not only my observation. Daniel Mezick points that:

    If current approaches actually worked well, then by now, thousands of organizations would have reached a state of self-sustaining, “freestanding” agility.

    We have to be doing something wrong. Dave Nicolette offers some ideas what that might be. Anyway with such a wild popularity of Agile and Lean we should expect to do better than that. The problem is that most of the time we don’t even try to understand what made them work in the first place.

    That’s a sad observation, but most of the time when I hear an Agile or Lean experience report it simply covers methods, practices and tools. The problem is that neither of these is pivotal in any change initiative. Basically, adopting practices and tools is simply a cargo cult. That’s not going to work unless there’s something more, the same way as it didn’t work for the Pacific tribes after the World War II.

    In agile context we often mention values as the missing bit. I sort of agree with that. Sort of because the way Agile Manifesto is formulated it creates false dichotomies, yet it points us the right direction.

    There’s a problem with values though. You don’t introduce values simply stating that you have them. You don’t incept them through mission statements and stuff. By the way, do any of you know value statement of your org by heart? Values are derivative of everyone’s behaviors and attitudes, thus they are a result of organizational culture.

    There’s one more layer to that. Values can’t be inconsistent with the culture. Otherwise authenticity is gone and your claims about values have little to do with reality.

    In other words a company can’t adopt Agile Manifesto simply by stating so. Not a surprise that change initiatives around Agile so frequently boil down to methods and tools. Not a surprise they fail at a high rate.

    We see the same story with Lean as well. The bits that get traction are tools and techniques. It is so often when I see teams acting like limiting work in process, doing Gemba walks and having Kaizen boards was everything there was to improve continuously.

    It’s not going to fly, sorry. We are back to organizational culture and everyone’s everyday behaviors. What do people do when they see an issue? Do they feel empowered to do whatever the hell they believe is the right thing to do to fix that issue? Do they even know what is the ultimate value they produce so they get good guidance on what is an issue in the first place?

    These behaviors tell a lot about the culture. Unfortunately most of the time answers for the questions above suggest that there’s no freaking chance to make the tools work the way we intend them to. Typically we see over-constrained, siloed organizations where one neither knows what is the right thing to do nor has courage to go beyond the constraints.

    I keep getting flak for bringing this up over and over again but I will do it once more.

    It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.

    Grace Hopper

    Grace Hopper’s famous words are, in my opinion, the essence of the bit we are missing when introducing Lean or Agile to our organizations. That very bit is responsible for the appalling rate of success of change initiatives.

    You can have all the hot tools and practices in place but when your people are driven by fear of consequences of their actions nothing will change. “Fear” may sound harsh but that’s what it is. It doesn’t mean that changing status quo by a tiny bit scares the crap out of me. It’s enough that I start thinking about potential consequences, what my bosses would think about that and whether they would even be happy. This is fear too.

    When I think about the situation from a perspective of my experience as a manager I’m not surprised. I mean, really, promoting this whole “don’t ask permission” attitude is going to backfire on you on occasions. What’s more it means giving up control. Even worse, it assumes trust. It assumes trust to everyone, not only to few trusted people. Now, this is a huge leap of faith management has to take.

    If you are thinking about continuous improvement or making your change initiatives work start with this leap of faith. If you can’t make it work don’t bother with all the tools, methods, practices and stuff. It’ll be just a waste of time. And the best part is that to make this work leaders have to start with themselves.

    Only then you can dream of influencing culture so that it supports the everyday acts of leadership on all levels. If you got it right you may actually start thinking about all the helpful stuff you can introduce to keep the changes running. In fact, it’s pretty likely that you won’t need so much guidance as lots of them will emerge.

    Oh, and if you wonder whether that change among leaders and managers is easy, well, it involves lots of pain and suffering. It is against of what we’ve been (wrongfully) taught for years. Sorry.

  • Closing Leadership Gap

    A theme that pops up every now and then is a leadership gap. An organization or its part finds itself in a situation where they need more leaders that there potentially are available. They might outgrow the old model and the existing leaders just don’t scale up. They might be facing challenges when someone had left the organization. It might be a simple consequence of evolving how the organization works. A list of potential reasons is long.

    A list of potential solutions is surprisingly short though. Typically it’s either hiring some people or promoting a bunch of folks to leadership positions. The former often means a lot of uncertainty. We don’t know whether a candidate would fit existing culture and pretty frequently we don’t even know how to verify that they have the right traits and skills.

    The latter, while it seems safer, is commonly a root cause of having the wrong people in leadership or management positions.

    What is a leader anyway?

    The problem of a leadership gap is actually deeper than we think. A part of it is how we constrain our understanding of leadership. In vast majority of situations when I hear about leadership debt a story is about leadership positions.

    You know, it’s about a position of a technical leader, line manager or something along these lines. This will never scale well.

    Even if scaling wasn’t an issue a situation when a team relies on a single leader is a huge risk itself. I would simply question that any single person is competent to make all the leadership calls you can think of. For example, on any given team I’m likely one of the last folks you want to enlist to lead with a technical issue.

    My answer to leadership gap starts with defining leadership as a contextual role and not position. This means that depending on circumstances anyone can act as a leader. It doesn’t matter what position they are in, what their tenure is or how much formal power they have. The only thing that matters is that within a given context they are the right ones to lead a team.

    Suddenly leadership gap doesn’t exist anymore as basically everyone is a leader and acts as one in appropriate moments.

    Where Leaders Thrive

    Obviously it’s not that easy. The magic won’t happen without a right environment. There are two critical bits to make it happen.

    The first is empowerment. Everyone has to know that they are supposed to be leaders whenever they feel like it. It starts with formal leaders, people in leadership positions, ceasing to execute their power. It’s not dodging the responsibility. Pretty much the opposite. It’s taking responsibility for decisions made by someone else. That’s quite a challenge for most of us.

    The best summary of such attitude are Grace Hopper’s famous words:

    “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.”

    If your people believe in that and act accordingly, they truly are empowered. It also means that from time to time they will make you willing to yell at them: “Why the hell hadn’t you asked before you did something so utterly dumb?” What you should do instead is shut up. Don’t ruin that.

    The second bit is trust. If you don’t trust your team you will always be struggling with a leadership gap. Without trust the empowerment part would be meaningless empty words. No one would attempt to play a role of a leader and even if they do it once there wouldn’t be a second attempt.

    This is difficult because it means giving up control. But wait, we want more leaders so we are talking exactly about this – giving up control. How is anyone supposed to lead if their every action is double-checked by someone else?

    Closing Leadership Gap

    I have an idea for you. Instead of asking how to close a leadership gap think whether your people feel empowered or rather carefully managed. Ask yourself how you react when they screw something up and how it affects their future actions. Finally, be brutally honest with yourself: do you trust your people?

    The leadership gap problem is never solved by getting more leaders. The solution is creating an environment where leadership thrives.

    In other words the key to this puzzle is not outside the system but within it – in a way existing leaders act. And obviously the more senior the leaders the more they influence the situation. If you are complaining that you lack leaders in your team it’s likely your fault.

  • Manager-Free Organization

    One of frequently mentioned management ideas these days is that we don’t need management. If I got a free beer every time I’ve heard the examples of W.L. Gore, Valve or GitHub and how we should act as they do I could stay drunk for weeks without needing to buy any alcohol. A common message is that if they can everyone can.

    I don’t subscribe to that idea.

    Well, being a manager myself that’s not really a surprise, isn’t it?

    I mean I’m really impressed with what these companies do, especially W.L. Gore given its size. It doesn’t mean that I automatically think that it is the new management model that masses should adopt. I simply don’t treat is as the true north of management or leadership if you will.

    First, such an approach is very contextual. You have to have a lot of right bits and pieces in place before it works. For the start it will fail miserably unless you have the right people on board and, let’s face it, most companies have way too many bad apples to make it work.

    Second, scaling up a manager-free organization is a huge pain in the neck. This is why I respect so much W.L. Gore work.

    Being a fan of evolution I also try to imagine how to become such an organization evolutionary. I guess I must be too dumb but in vast majority of companies it is beyond my imagination. Revolutions, on the other hand, have surprisingly crappy success rate so that’s not a feasible solution either.

    So far you might have considered me as a skeptic.

    Well, not really.

    While I don’t think that the managerless approach is, or will be, for everyone there is a specific context where it is surprisingly easy to implement. If you run a small company, let’s say smaller than 30 people, there’s not that much of managerial work anyway. Unless you introduce tons of that crap, that is.

    It just so happens that Lunar Logic is such a small company. When you think about small and stable size you can forget about scaling issue. It is much easier to find the right people too because you simply need fewer of them. While Valve needs few hundreds of them we’re perfectly fine with twenty-something. Besides, smaller teams generally tend to have fewer bad apples as everything, naturally, is more transparent. Everyone knows everyone else, sees others’ work, etc. There’s no place to hide.

    Suddenly, the manager-free approach doesn’t seem so scary, does it?

    It may be a hit for managers’ ego though.

    I can hardly remember when I wasn’t a manager. Obviously there were countless occasions when I used my formal power to do what I believed was right. So yes, it took courage to intentionally strip myself off of power and just put myself in a row with everyone else. Not that I’m already done with that; it’s a gradual process. A nice thing is that it can be done in evolutionary fashion though.

    While I still make salary and some other financial decisions, that’s basically it. The good part is that I’m forced to wear my manager’s hat very, very rarely. I spend the rest of my time fulfilling all the other roles I have which hopefully can be summarized as me helping others.

    You know, all the fun stuff, like setting up daily conference calls with the clients, writing longish boring emails, keeping task boards up to date, solving mundane problems, etc. Typically, just being there and looking for ways to help the rest of the team doing their best. An interesting thing is it does feel damn good even if the tasks sound less-than-exciting. I help people to do their awesome job. What else could you ask for as a leader?

    That’s why I can’t be happier when I witness others treating me just as a regular team member. It means we are closer to being a manager-free organization.

    So while you shouldn’t expect me proposing the managerless office to everyone I definitely thing that this is something small, knowledge-based companies could try.

    Would it work that easily if we were twice as big? I have no freaking idea. I mean we definitely aren’t yet where GitHub or Valve is. I don’t even know if we want to be there. If the company’s growth is a threat for the culture we grow and cultivate here, so much the worse for the growth.

    And this basically summarizes why I think that the manager-free approach isn’t for majority. I think pretty few businesses would prefer to sacrifice growth just for the sake of preserving the culture.

    By the way, do expect more on the subject soon.

  • No Authenticity, No Leadership

    There’s one thing about me that virtually every boss I’ve had so far has tried to correct. If you look at me all my emotions are painted on my face. You just can’t fail guessing whether I’m happy, worried, tired, excited, etc. I’ve heard so many times that I should do something about that since having people see my negative emotions definitely isn’t a good thing.

    You know, they see you worried so they instantly start worrying too and you don’t want to have worried people.

    I think I’ve even tried to change that. Fortunately, I’ve failed. Not that I don’t see how leader’s emotions can influence team’s behaviors. I do. And I know that sometimes I’m not helping, sorry for that.

    On the other hand, I’m honest and transparent this way. I’m all for honesty. I believe that transparency is a crucial ingredient for building a healthy team or a strong organization. In the worst case this attitude is a mixed blessing.

    But that’s not why I won’t try to change the behavior any more. I won’t do it because it’s who I am.

    One doesn’t have to like it. Such attitude doesn’t fit every organizational culture (and I learned it the hard way). But you aren’t a leader if you aren’t authentic.

    I was reminded that recently by Gwyn Teatro with her story about what leadership is. One bit I really loved:

    The man was successful because he did not pretend to be anyone else. His communication style included fun, laughter and humility. It worked for him simply because it is who he is.

    More than about anything else it’s about authenticity. People catch false tones sooner than you think. Then, they start guessing what really happens under the mask. It’s likely that their guesses are worse than the truth that one tries to hide. After all we are a creative bunch, aren’t we? It soon becomes worse: they don’t listen to the truth, even when it bites their butts. They just know better thanks to the gossips and far-fetched hunches. Their “leader” hasn’t been authentic so what’s the point of trusting him?

    So no, I’m not trading my authenticity for anything. Not worth it.