The Execution Trap is fairly easy to escape from, but it does require some intentional effort.

The key to escaping from the trap is to deliberately shift conversations or meetings about the detail of work towards a focus on improving the system the work takes place within, or a focus on whether the work is aligned to the organisation’s goals and strategies. We do this by asking the right questions. 

All leaders have three main areas of focus. Setting strategy and direction, leading efforts to improve the way the organisation operates, and dealing with the day to day operations in their area. Whether you are the CEO dealing with organisational strategy, transformation programs and strategic initiatives, or a team lead looking at your strategy for implementing the next project, improved processes and managing a backlog of user stories, all leaders have these three areas of concern.  

One of the most common problems I see facing leaders today is what I call the Execution Trap - leaders who are trapped in a system that diverts all their attention towards operational matters and leaves them no time or mental capacity to deal with their other areas of responsibility.

We all have a collection of things in our lives that we would like to change. When it comes to change, we often find that it's a lot harder than we expect it to be. Even small things turn out to be much more difficult that we think they should be. The problem comes down to control.

In order to change something to be exactly the way you want it, you need to control it. If you try to change something you have no control over, you will fail. A lot of coaches and consultants will get you to draw diagrams showing the things you control vs the things you don't. The message is that you can change the things you control and can only influence the things you don’t. If you want to change something the way to do that is to expand your sphere of control - try to gain control of the thing you want to change. Unfortunately, 99% of those diagrams are completely wrong. We generally have control over far less than we think we do.

Last time I talked about the 3 C's required for people to feel empowered - Clarity, Competence and Care. We need all 3 for people to feel empowered. They need the skills to do the job right (competence), they need the information to make the right decision (clarity) and they need to feel that the organisation and its leadership are asking them to step up and take responsibility because it's the right thing for them, not the thing that will make the most profit or allow more downsizing (care). It should make their jobs better and more fulfilling, it should help them grow and advance their careers. If all 3 C's are present, people will feel empowered.

So care is essential for empowerment, but that's not all. My view is that care is the single most important quality that sets great leaders apart from everyone else. These days, care is not something we talk about a lot in a business context. There might be an "Employee care" section of the HR website which lists the services you can call when the stress of your job gets too much, but there is very little actual care involved in modern business. You are more likely to hear words like "data driven" than "care driven". I mean, most organisations call people "resources" without even cringing a little (and treat them like resources as well). Actual, real care and compassion for people is missing in modern organisations and I strongly feel that it needs to be brought back. Not just because it's good for people, but because it's good for business as well.

Hi folks, first post back after the break. I hope you all had a great holiday season and that the new year is treating you kindly (at least kinder than last year). I thought today that I would go back to a topic that I have covered before, because I think I left something important out when I covered it the first time. I have written before about empowerment and what conditions need to exist before people will accept that empowerment (here) . Empowerment isn't something you can just give to someone and expect it to work, they need to accept the responsibility and authority that they are given. If they don't accept it, they will be empowered on paper but will still turn to the hierarchy to make decisions for them.

I said before that there are two key things that need to exist in order for people to accept empowerment - clarity and competence. Clarity is the organisational clarity around why the decision needs to be made and what the operational constraints and limits are on the options that can be considered. Competence is the skills and other knowledge that someone needs in order to operate in that space. Without those two, no matter how much you tell people they are empowered to act, they will not do it. Unless they feel competent and have the right clarity, empowerment will not happen. All that still holds from when I originally wrote it, but I left something out. There is a third C - Care.

Think back to the last time you joined a new organisation. What was your onboarding like? “Hi, here's your laptop. Here's where the toilets are. Here is the printer. Here is the cupboard with the pens. Here are a whole bunch of people whose names you won't remember for weeks. Here's a technical introduction to the work. Here are your logins to the tools you will need. Off you go.” There might be a welcome lunch to help you get to know the people you will be working with, or some sort of ritual embarrassment at the next all hands meeting so they can "get to know you" a bit better (what's one thing about you that no one knows...). There will probably be some mandatory, cover-our-legal-butts "training" in health and safety and various HR policies that will leave you feeling dumber than when you started.

I suspect most people around the world have similar onboarding experiences in just about every organisation. It's the way things are done. And it's wrong. Not so much for what it includes, but for what it leaves out. The traditional onboarding experience misses some crucial things that help new people get settled into a new role in a new organisation. While it might give you the basic mechanics of your job, it doesn't help you integrate into the new organisation. You are left to discover all the hidden little things all by yourself. The fact that we can't raise that topic in meetings because of last time. The fact that while the process says this, what we actually do is something else because of history. Or the fact that, given a choice between this and that, we always chose this because that's what is important to the organisation. In short, what traditional onboarding doesn't do is introduce you to the culture of the organisation you have just joined.

I'm sure we have all been in this position - you are in a meeting where ideas are being shared. Someone puts forward an idea and someone raises an objection. The raiser of the idea reacts as if they have just been punched in the face - angry, defensive, aggressive. Or sullen, withdrawn, silent. Fight or flight. And all because someone raised an objection to their idea. People tend to hold their ideas very tightly. They identify with them. They are their idea. So an attack on their idea is very literally an attack on them.

Or what about this one - you were just in a meeting and someone says to you "that was a pretty bad idea they raised.. what a fool they must be". In this case we are associating the idea with the character of the person who raised it. The idea was bad so therefore, by extension, they must be bad. We see both of these situations all the time. Both associating strongly with your own ideas, and conflating the quality of an idea with the attributes or character of the person who raised it, are things most of us do all the time, and they are both extremely unhelpful.

One of the most effective things any person or team can do to improve the way they work is to make their work visible. Unless you work in a factory building physical things, chances are most of your work is invisible. It lives in emails and in documents and in conversations. It's not physical stuff that you can easily see in front of you. It's hard to get an overall picture of where all your work is in your process and where things are getting stuck. On a factory floor you can see a pile of parts build up in front of a bottleneck. It's really hard to do that with invisible work. Invisible work generally only becomes visible when there is a problem.

So if you want to understand your work, you need some way to make it visible. Make a big board somewhere and put cards on it representing all the work that is in flight and where it is in your process. By visualising work that is usually invisible, you can start to see patterns and make changes to improve the flow. If is invisible you can't control it. You only become aware of it when it jumps out at you and causes you a problem. By making the invisible visible you gain control over something. That works great for things like invisible work, but what about other invisible things? Things like our own internal states - our thoughts and emotions.

Last time I wrote about the drive for change being caused by a tension between the way we want the world to be and the way the world is. We looked at the two ways in which to release that tension - change reality to match your vision, or lower your vision to match reality. We explored the sad fact that most of the time it’s much easier to lower your expectations and what happens when you do that. We also looked at how you can keep your dreams alive in the face of difficulty - by not fixating on reaching the goal but focusing on the progress made along the journey. That post generated a bunch of questions from readers so I thought I'd write a follow-up to address them.

There were three main questions raised - does the goal have to be an external goal (change the world) and not an internal goal (change me); is any changing of your goal a bad thing; and what to do if you are a really goal oriented person and keep focusing on reaching that goal.