admin

A friend recently asked me: “What does a typical day/week look like for you? How do you organize your time? Have you developed a writing routine, or does it just fit into “flex time?”

Important context:  I am still working full-time, albeit from home during this pandemic.  Our children are grown and gone, so it is just me, my beloved wife, and our dog.  Therefore, I have some time and energy privileges that others do not.  My specific gifts are teaching and encouraging.  I have strengths in absorbing and synthesizing diverse information, and communicating. 

I usually wake up about 4:00am without an alarm.  Early morning is my most productive time.  I use the time before starting my “job” to read 10 chapters from the Bible, sit quietly with my journal and listen, deep reading on a book, write, stretch out, shower and get dressed.  This is also the time window when I’m getting ready to teach at church – usually a focused Bible time and meditative prayer asking what specifically this group of people needs to hear from the Word this Sunday.

These days I start work about 6:30am.  I get a few things done until about 7am when it is time to walk with Watson, our dog – usually at least 20-30 minutes, often 40 minutes.  About half the time I’ll listen to a podcast (I like long-form interviews and discussions) and the rest of the time I’m intentionally praying and listening and working out problems in my head. 

My “job” hours are roughly 6:30 am to 5ish PM most days.  I’m frequently on Zoom calls and do a considerable amount of writing in my role as a manager.  I work hard to be efficient and manage my energy rather than my time. The key to success for my rhythms “at work” are taking many mini-breaks during the day.  Two minutes for a few pushups and sit-ups or walk out outside to get a few breaths of fresh air.  Ten minutes for reading breaks.  Five minutes to jot a few notes about future writing projects or doodle an idea. Five minutes for intercession for people on my prayer list.  Look up industry articles while I eat lunch.  Alternate use of my standing desk and sitting down.  I will check news headlines during the day, rather than letting that dominate my morning or evening rituals. I designate parts of my schedule to be for deep work, and parts for administrative work which takes less original thinking (which I prefer to do in the early afternoon). I haven’t been able to make the Pomodoro method work consistently well, but the concept of rhythm changes and breaks is essential, so I don’t burn out.

At the end of my “job day” I run through my “I’m leaving work now” ritual.  This helps me create the right mental framework, especially when working from home.

Then it’s time for the second walk with Watson.  I usually use this walking time for reflection and intercession for others. My beloved and I catch up over dinner.  A few nights a week we do a CrossFit workout together with our coach over Zoom.  

I wind down by responding to emails and more book reading.  I’m usually in bed about 8pm.  I have a “thankful” ritual and ask God to teach me what I need to better glorify him. The only benefit of serious apnea is that I can fall asleep in seconds nearly every night. 

Last year I decided that I’d read enough contemporary books and no longer need to read “everything” to “be informed.”  I have a 10-year project to reread the Great Books of the Western World (I went through them all when I was 18-19 years old; weird, I know) and about 40 other classic books which have been valuable for long periods of time.  These give me perspective and many new ideas. I’m usually reading 2 or 3 books at once, dipping in as I have breaks.  I have learned to read with great concentration and speed. I find that I need to feed myself good input in order to be a productive writer. 

Finally, a bit about my writing… I’m usually working on multiple short blog posts and sections of my weekly newsletter every day, and on my book writing projects probably 3 days out of 7.  Writing is rewriting; I edit almost everything before sharing.  I correspond with multiple people, both deep friends and people who contact me with questions.  Most of the time I’m pushing myself to generate at least 500 publishable or shareable words a day.  Probably 10-30% of my writing work is really for me as I try to sort through ideas and issues. 

What’s different on weekends:  More time for writing projects and reading, a delightful rhythm change for house cleaning and around the house chores, times for naps and conversations, more dedicated time for journaling, and regular times talking with family members and friends.

My biggest vulnerabilities:  I love movies and good TV series and can easily get sucked into them rather than doing the better things.  I am not nearly well-disciplined enough about eating.

I realize this schedule is not for everyone, and in many ways is quite selfish.  I expect the days will change somewhat when I’m no longer working at a “job,” but I do expect to continue my practices for extensive input and productive writing. 

I am committed to reading harder books, and I want you to read harder books, because it’s good for us and for the people in our sphere of influence.

I define “harder book” in relative terms for you – a book which stretches you, requires sustained focus and commitment, and strengthens you.  Strive also for books which are worthy of multiple re-reads to extract more from them over time.  

Here I will focus on the why, rather than how, or which books to read.  If you don’t have a powerful why the mechanics don’t matter.  (Though I will recommend Mortimer Adler’s How to Read a Book and my own recommended book list from Bold and Gentle.)

Read harder books in order to:

• Gain new insights. 
• Gain perspective that cannot come from “trendy” books of the day.
• Develop a stronger mind. 
• Add richness to your imagination and ability to find creative solutions.
• Be recognizably different from your peers and your competition.
• Because you know you should.

Ah, yes, the excuses that are bubbling up in your mind…

Be honest, now – how many of these excuses are just lies you are telling yourself? 

The whole challenge of prioritizing work – both at individual and group levels – has been on my mind lately.  There are no formulas and fixed rules will fail, but there are guidelines.

A critical skill is to say No or at least Not Now.  There’s room for dialogue about project value from the “bottom up” perspective, but my observation is that making the clear call of This and Not That require authoritative (which is different than authoritarian) leadership.  There is only so much energy available, so where to focus it, and why?  What is true at the racetrack is true in real life:  If you bet on every horse in the race you will have bet on the winner, but the odds are constructed so you lose money.

Most organizations have a broad portfolio of projects and objectives.  The nature of operations work — execute a process to create a product or deliver a service — will take every bit of energy you can give it;  there are always opportunities to do more, including process improvements.  We must intentionally grant and protect energy going into discovery and creating innovative solutions.  The principle is two-fold: set a cap on operations and existing product support (looking for efficiencies), and carve out enough for creating the next new things.

A big mistake I’ve seen (and made) over and over in my career: Believing you can optimize for more than 1 thing.  Determine the #1 criterion for optimization, and make sure everyone knows it.  You can pick a secondary optimization criterion after that.  I’ve never seen a 3^rd optimization criterion be effective.  Choose which problems you prefer to have.  A painfully-learned lesson – be wary of situations where two key stakeholders want to prioritize a portfolio on different criteria.  That guarantees a no-win and a surplus of irritation.

Concentration and focus produce valuable results sooner.  We generally try to execute too many projects in parallel.

An under-appreciated aspect of managing a portfolio (yours, or a group’s) is leaving margin.  Not everything works perfectly.  No one can run past their red-line for long without consequences.  New opportunities will surface and if there is no intentional margin then those opportunities are nearly impossible to exploit.  I find it fascinating that in enzyme pathways and healthy ecosystems most processes operate at about 80% of theoretical maximum – and things go badly awry when those same processes operate above 90% for long. 

[Important to hold in tension with this last paragraph:  Laziness and sloth is unacceptable.  We must be self-disciplined.  Exercise physiologists in the US Army teach that your first sensations of pain come at the 50% mark, most likely as a self-protection mechanism to limit actual damage.  When you start thinking you can’t do more, you probably have 30-40% left in the tank.  The mind wants to quit long before the body. The mind-body relationship is deep and complex.  We can and should push ourselves for excellence and achievement, so long as we are also getting appropriate recovery time.]

There is also the importance of making adjustments as new information becomes available.  You can drive hundreds of miles in the dark even though your headlights only go 200 feet if you are watching and steering as you go forward.   Drowsy drivers hit ditches; same for drowsy project managers. 

I suspect we need to step our ability to be integrative thinkers, not accepting simplistic either/or scenarios.  “If you can define the problem differently than everybody else in the industry, you can generate alternatives that others aren’t thinking about.” (Roger Martin)

What have I missed?

People managers in large corporations must assign performance ratings to individuals in their group. Further, you must conform to an expected distribution of “Superior,” “Meets Expectations,” and “Does Not Meet Expectations” ratings.  You may or may not have some latitude about pay increases related to performance.

Lessons learned the hard way:

Pre-decide that your responsibility is to distinguish performance levels in this reporting period.  Pre-decide you will do this professionally and without grumbling. You want a “tough but fair” reputation.

Ignore the “soft” language you hear about the ratings distribution; take it as a rule not a “if it’s convenient for you” guideline.   These distributions fit some budget decision somewhere, and even when they say it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.

Start everyone in your group at “Meets Expectations” level.  Next, identify anyone who did not perform at the agreed-upon level.  You expected more deliverables, more consistent behavior, and you must be able to articulate exactly what the gap is. Then select the people who performed over and above their goals, if anyone – meaning, you would have been perfectly content with fewer deliverables or lower performance.  Keep that a high bar.  Finally, force yourself to rank the remaining people inside the “meets expectation” category. 

Make notes about your decisions to prepare for any large-group calibration discussions, and meeting with each direct report when you convey the final rating.

Calibration meetings favor the prepared.  In really difficult situations it may feel like a steel cage death match. You are likely a manager among managers, part of the larger management organization.  Resist every temptation to blame HR, upper management, and whoever “them” is this time.  You represent the business leadership to your direct reports. 

Be prepared to tell people in the “Meets Expectations” category about their relative position in that category.  This is particularly important for the people in the bottom quartile. It could sound something like this: “You met expectations this year, but frankly, you should know most of your peers performed better.  Let’s work together on setting some stretch goals for next year, and what I need to do to help you achieve those.”

Expect that word will get out quickly about who got what rating and pay raise.  (I’m old school, and we never talked about these things freely, but it is often different today.)  Operate with this mindset: Respect the privacy of individual performance conversations and avoid fueling the gossip engine.

Also, if you are mentoring a successor or someone with high potential, give them insights about how you thought through this process.  You can share insights without violating confidentiality.   This is crucial information for difficult decisions in their future.  This kind of mentoring is how we strengthen the culture of the organization.

We frequently use the phrase “outside the box.” Perhaps we should clarify what’s inside the box, so we know how to step outside it.  My list:

• Everything that has made us successful in the past
• Our self-determined borders about what is possible, and what’s not
• Our right to point fingers and blame “them”
• Our right to justifiable complaints without having to take responsibility for anything less than perfect
• Our preferred levels of stress
• Our views of what’s important
• Our views of what’s interesting
• Our status quo expertise (or at least what we think we’re expert at doing)
• Our favorite narratives about ourselves, and others. This includes our revisionist histories.
• Our fears about change, loss, displacement, insignificance

This is subtly different than our comfort zone. Our comfort zone is a sub-space inside “the box”; the box contains things we’re not comfortable with, but are willing to accept.

The problem with living in the box is the illusion that it’s safe. 

There’s a growing industry of de-cluttering and neatness. The primary strategy is take everything out of a closet or room, and then only put back the items which are most useful or bring you joy. 

I suggest we take a modified form of that strategy:

1. Take the inventory of the box.
2. Identify everything which is meaningful and useful – even some of the painfully gained stuff.
3. Imagine that all the rest goes into the trashcan, fit only for burning.
4. Don’t put it back in the same box. Instead, use them to build a foundation and a walking path to the future. 

Every water molecule in a river behaves according to the same basic rule: Obey gravity, taking the path of least resistance, towards the sea.

All the water in a river is moving, but not moving identically:

• The fastest flow is in the “middle” or the center of the primary channel.
• The slowest forward flow is along the edges, because of the drag of the bottom and shoreline.
• Hydrology measurements demonstrate that at any point in time about 20% of the water is moving upstream. (Think about eddies and water bouncing backwards against rocks, logs, etc.)

Consider the parallels to organization dynamics. Even where there is an aligned purpose (“We’re all going to the sea!”) there are variations in flow that have nothing to do with the character of the water. The flow rate is a function of friction from the environment.

Some individuals are wired for moving fast. Even the “fast” members of your team will occasionally be pulled into an eddy, or bounce again rocks and trees.  Be mindful of the external situation before you make summary judgments about individual performance.

What’s true for individuals is also true for sub-parts of organizations: You can move faster where these is less friction. There are fewer legacy processes and systems. There much less “what got us here won’t get us there” to overcome. There is more intrinsic trust and experienced teams who have more confidence.

It’s not surprising that startup businesses can be nimble and move fast. There’s relatively little internal friction for them to overcome.

Aside from the smooth speed of the central channel of a river, much of what makes a river fascinating and distinctive is the interaction with the rocks, trees, and shoreline. You have dramatic whitewater, falls, swirling water, calmer pools where moss and insects and fish abound.  We know “still waters run deep” yet almost always prefer dramatic rush and spray.

Organizations are mostly valuable for interactions with suppliers, customers, partners, and employees. There are absolutely places where your leadership is needed to streamline and accelerate processes by removing friction elements. Don’t miss some of the “friction” to perfect speed is your real business model at work. 

Key points:

·      Work on unifying narratives so that everyone in your organization “moves” in a consistent direction.

·      Appreciate that internal history and external factors create friction, so that not all parts of your organization are moving at the same speed.

·      Decide carefully what friction elements need to be streamlined, and which are valuable parts of your business model.

(This article was originally published on asmithblog.com)

The people who hold romantic ideas about domestic sheep – fluffy soft white pacifist creatures, vegetarians, communal, speaking in soft tones of “baaaa…” –have never actually been around sheep. Maybe they saw lambs at a petting zoo for a few minutes.

Real-world shepherds have realistic ideas about sheep.  

Sheep are dirty. Their wool acts like a magnet for dirt, twigs, leaves, and poop. They can’t and don’t clean themselves. 

Sheep are dumb. They rarely can extricate themselves from awkward situations. They will play follow-the-leader to their demise. They wander off and can’t find their way back. They need to be moved from field to field because they usually can’t find their way to a new food source without help. 

Sheep are defenseless. A crow can land on their heads and peck at their eyes. They will bite you if they get mad, but otherwise their teeth and hooves don’t frighten predators. If a predator doesn’t move, the sheep forget it’s there. Sheep can’t swim, so they stay away from moving water.  

The Bible describes people as the sheep of God’s pasture. It sounds nice but it is not meant as a compliment.  

I’m certain that your organization is not filled with people as dirty, dumb, or defenseless as actual sheep. 

Yet shepherding is a good model for leadership:  

·      The shepherd must be with the sheep. He must be alert to their needs, and put their needs above his own.  

·      The shepherd is the first forager, mindful of what the sheep need to eat and drink, and guiding them to safe sources.

·      Shepherds are more aware of the weather, the time of day, and lay of the land than the sheep.

·      The shepherd defends the sheep from predators and enemies – and the sheep from other folds which might be unhealthy competition or spread diseases. 

·      Yelling is not effective with sheep, but they are remarkably responsive to firmly worded guidance. 

·      Shepherds work primarily with the leaders in the flock, and leverage their influence.

·      Shepherds “eat last and sleep the least.”  

·      Shepherds will carry weak sheep to help them on their journey. They’ll make sure no sheep are left behind or wander off. 

·      Shepherds don’t expect affection or praise from the herd.  

·      Shepherds are mindful of the bigger picture of why we raise sheep.  

What can you do today to improve your shepherding? 

(This article was originally published on asmithblog.com)

A personal story from the mid-1990’s…

My boss and I were sitting in a briefing about the program to implement SAP at our company, code name “Quest.”  Massive.  First software project we ever capitalized on the financial books.  External consultants. Big $$$ commitments with no ROI for several years.

The presenter laid out the plan:

•             12 months to document the business requirements

•             12 months to create specs for the necessary customization

•             18-20 months for the implementation work

I turned to my boss and said, “This is doomed to fail.  The business requirements will change before they can implement!”

He responded: “The people in charge of Quest get to define success. Therefore, no matter what happens, it will be a success.”

There are two ways you can put this insight into your leadership toolbox:

1.   Watch for this “they get to define success” paradigm being used against you (or the best outcomes for the organization).  You probably can’t change it, but at least be consciously aware of the reality.

2.  Respect the power of being able to define success for an initiative. Use this super-power for good, not to manipulate or cover your butt.

I’m done with Twitter and will no longer post regularly on Facebook.

For many years now I’ve used Facebook and Twitter to share what I hope are useful and encouraging quotes, verses, links to articles, and birthday congratulations. It’s been nice to learn things about others, too, especially old friends and contacts who I no longer see in person. I’ve been grateful for the tools.

What’s changed in my view?

These are private companies who can set their own rules. I understand that they aren’t charging me directly for the tools, which means “I am the product” they are selling. Both companies have blocked friends for opaque reasons. There’s abundant evidence that their algorithms highly favor and amplify some content. These are not unbiased platforms for communication. The reality is that a subset of what I publish will not reach my followers.

I also find I’m overly attracted to checking these sites. I have been guilty of fixating too much attention on what gets liked, and what doesn’t. Stepping back will help me.

I will continue to produce content designed to encourage and edify. But I’m going to do this on platforms I control, for people who opt-in to say “I want to read what Glenn shares,” without algorithmic bias in the middle. I’m going to add much more content into my free weekly newsletter. (Sign up in the right side-bar.)

I will continue to use LinkedIn for professional reasons. I’ll still participate in some of the Facebook groups where I’m an active member.

I will miss seeing all the personal news and good commentary, but accept the tradeoff for the larger personal benefit.