Five-star education and the end of college rankings

How many colleges out there wish they had the #1 spot on U.S. News' Best Colleges rankings? Or at least a higher spot within their respective tier or category? I don't have a scientific answer to this question, but I suspect that the answer is "a vast majority". Ultimately, for me, the more critical question is: Why do those in higher education look to these rankings as a validation for the work that they do? Or as support for their marketing narratives?

At a quick glance (I'm trusting you on this one, Wikipedia), U.S. News published its first rankings in a 1983 report titled, "America's Best Colleges". Back then, people were still living in the age of the printing press where information was disseminated through official bodies without a broad social medium for validation. The public Internet was still under development, and Web 2.0 wasn't even on anyone's roadmap, much less Facebook, Twitter or Yelp. So the best that consumers could manage was to put their faith into a reputable organization that could help them sift through the myriad choices for higher education in order to find the best fit given various constraints.

But does what seemed like a great tool nearly 30 years ago still hold significant meaning in the Social Age? Maybe. Maybe not. But if the Best Colleges rankings are used as a way to establish an institution's reputation, I believe there is a better way in today's world: the five-star rating system.

I'm sure you've seen this. For years, whether it's on Yelp, Redbox, Amazon.com, the five-star rating system has helped people with needs and means to make purchasing decisions. means "Excellent, I highly recommend this!" means "Terrible! Don't touch it with a 100-foot pole." Have those reviews and stars influenced your purchasing decisions, at work or at home? They certainly have for me.

But how can such a simple scale measure such a complex service like education? Well... why not? The idea itself is not novel. Net Promoter Score (NPS) has been around the block and back, employed now by many industries including higher education. NPS uses a scale from 0 to 10. The star rating system uses a range from 1 to 5. So, the net difference is effectively just the number of notches on the line, which is why I think of the star rating system as "NPS lite".

But the real reason why a star rating system like that embedded in many social media outlets is important to higher education is that the scale helps an institution measure the perceived value from all of its constituents. And those constituents are going to be the most effective promoters or detractors of the organization. Yes, there are numerous, intricately linked and complex factors that influence any given rating. And yes, NPS and the star rating system omit other metrics that can help pin-point specific problem areas. But all of the good and the bad, both in and out of the classroom must roll up into something in the minds of students, parents and everyone else. And I believe the what is captured neatly in the number of stars every individual has the power to give to an organization.

Simply translated for higher education:

• , "I had a great experience! If you're looking for a graduate program, I highly recommend this college!"
• , "What the hell? What do you mean I spent 4 years and $100k just to end up with no job and a ticking clock on my student loans? Don't come here if you're serious about your education needs."

The five-star rating system. Simple. Measurable. Scalable. Inevitable.

In the future, I imagine people will stop caring about a "top 100" list published by a major corporation. Instead, they will head over to their favorite social media site and look for 5-star colleges as rated by parents, students, alumni, staff, partners and beyond.

And when the time comes, that will be the end of today's college rankings.

idea, noun: a proposed solution to an identified problem

What is an idea in the context of selecting projects to execute within a business? The closest definition given by Merriam-Webster is "a plan for action". But perhaps a better applied definition for leaders in an organization is "a proposed solution to an identified problem" where the problem identification comes first.

At a Technology staff retreat I held this past Tuesday, subtly charged conversation in the room revolved around the sequencing and meanings of a few simple words: problem, solution and idea. The backdrop to the conversation was a topic from project portfolio management: how a proposed initiative becomes part of a portfolio. Ultimately, the goal of portfolio management is to ensure that the organization is "doing the right work."

I had originally started the dialogue by stating the first step in the process is that an idea is conceived. A colleague then added that a problem should also be identified. This sounded reasonable. So, I agreed and proceeded to add this step below the idea conceived step on the flip chart. I was feeling good about how this addition tightened the gap between the first step and the goal step of project selected for execution. Off to a good start, I thought.

"The order is wrong. You can't conceive an idea or solution before identifying a problem." This comment gave me pause, as I looked at the large sheet of paper on which I left too little room at the top to switch the order of the first two steps.

"Is the order of those steps really significant," I began in an impatient reply, "if the person performing each one is the same?" In my mind, I was thinking about how we don't want barely baked ideas to bounce around the office, eating up staff's valuable work time. What's the big deal about the order, I thought, if the same person considers both the problem and the solution before sharing the idea with someone else? Isn't the result the same?  After a few more stubborn (on my part) exchanges back and forth with no changes in opinion or on the chart, my colleague gave a final comment, "I feel extremely concerned about the order being wrong, and this is the last time I'm going to raise this concern."

Worried about the negative direction the conversation was taking, I abandoned the page on which I was drawing and redrew the chart, starting with problem identified at the top then leading to idea conceived (with a solution). I verbally acknowledged that the new sequence would be better than the previous one, and I got a brief nod from the concerned colleague as a result. But mostly, I was just relieved to be moving on to talking about the criteria for weighing and comparing different ideas.

Reflecting on this experience a few days later, it clicked for me why my colleague was so concerned about the order of first identifying a problem and then devising a solution. The way I first drew the chart showed a shallow focus on what was "cool", "novel" or "trendy" about a product or service, whereas the rearranged chart demonstrated a clear focus on understanding and considering real business needs which need to be addressed.

What should leaders be concerned about? Should we put our attention on what's shiny and new that everyone else is pursuing and trying to find a way to apply them to our business? Or should we focus on learning our business needs first and then look for a solution, shiny or not? The answer I think is obvious, and I personally learned a valuable lesson about what lens to wear when surveying the work environment.

It's funny how blind we are to our own hypocrisy sometimes. When I first heard about "manufactured demand" in industries like big pharma, where products are created without an identified need, I wagged my finger and condemned the practice. It seems that I have fallen into the same rut as those I've criticized, and it's time to start pulling myself out and into better company.

A Football Lesson for Higher Ed

Shiny uniforms. Full-body contact with the risk of serious concussions. A pigskin ball flying like a bullet into a tiny, moving target. Touchdown! Yes, we're talking football. And... wait, we're also talking higher ed?

I've been marveling at Greg Bedard's account of the New England Patriots' stellar no-huddle offense against the  Denver Broncos on October 7. Sure, the execution was awesome. But what struck me more about the no-huddle strategy was a lesson to be applied to higher education, the industry first and foremost on my mind. If you put aside the content (sports vs. education) and focus on the form (teamwork and competition), the Patriots have a lot more to teach than simply how to run 89 offensive plays in 60 minutes.

Bedard writes, "Just one word can be powerful." One shared word makes efficient communication. Communication is integral to coordination. Coordination maximizes organizational productivity. Productivity begets business results. Now, rinse and repeat.

Often times I catch myself using GMAT vocabulary to convey simple ideas that end up in a mental wastebasket. In football, the quarterback could replace "Flip right, double-X jet, 36 counter, naked waggle, X-7, X-quarter" with "Bama left" to signal the same play. At work, instead of "please gather the members of the steering committee for a brief meeting to efficiently discuss the latest responses from the second-choice vendor", I could say "please convene the steering committee to review __'s responses". Wow, I bet I can cut most of my emails in half!

Furthermore, businesses all talk about being nimble, agile, responsive, resilient. But how do we actually achieve that speed? Keeping things simple certainly helps. To explain how Chip Kelly sped up his Oregon Ducks, Bedard quotes Ed Dickson, "[Kelly] wants to make it easier to where you’re not thinking about anything, you’re just going fast. Make it as simple as guys can learn it so you can go really fast. That’s the key, making it simple for your players so they can play at top speed." Translated to business: Streamline processes, remove barriers and keep people focused on what's important.

So, instead of fancy quotes or clever memes, maybe one word can be used to guide my work and that of others. In my current environment, I'd say good candidates for that one word are "learn" and "teach".

Delegating for success, not setting up for failure

Harvey Mackay said it well, "For the sake of your company (and your sanity), at some point, you're going to need to let go."  As a rational manager, I agree with Harvey wholeheartedly.  As a leader, I worry about Harvey's instruction to "focus on teaching skills."  The reason is that ultimately I want to delegate for success, not to set everyone up for failure.

On the surface, "letting your employees stretch their skills and judgment" sounds great.  Just reading it twice gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside!  But the school of hard knocks isn't so kind.  I learned of some critical questions to ask, when faced with the choice to delegate a task to an employee who has never encountered the challenge.

Does the employee need training?

If you ask a systems analyst who is well versed in JavaScript to create a new, custom alert for a webpage, most likely the analyst will figure it out autonomously without needing additional guidance.  But if you ask the same systems analyst to launch a new marketing campaign for baby formula sold to first-time mothers in Oklahoma City, some training is probably warranted (along with a job re-classification in this case).

There are many factors that go into deciding whether to train the employee: how adaptive (s)he is, how receptive (s)he is to change, how difficult the new task is, amount of widely available documentation, support network, etc.  In the end, deciding whether or not to train an employee is a judgement call based on decidedly imperfect information.

A C# analyst asked to write simple code in Java may flounder, and on the flip side a marketing guru may turn out to be an excellent R&D engineer!  In the ideal world, I believe we can groom individual contributors who are capable of searching and learning for themselves with minimal supervision.

If training is needed, how should it be delivered?

Okay, so we end up deciding that training is necessary.  How do we actually deliver the training?  The options are endless: shadowing, reading, simulation, in-house training modules, external training modules...  Obviously, some are more expensive, while others are much more limited in its use and appeal.

How much on-the-job training is justified?

And most importantly, the question of "how much training" must be addressed.  I would love to literally be a lifelong learner and never leave the student role, but then I would never become a contributing member of society.  The same is true of workers int he workplace.  If one spends all of his or her time in training, when is the contributor actually contributing or producing something of value to the organization?

For a full-time employee working 40 hrs/wk with 13 holidays and 24 vacation days per year, 5% of that person's time only comes out to ~1.6 hours per week.  How much can you learn in that period of time?  And who in their time-strapped days has the time to create such training?

Closing thoughts

I've succeeded in applying the philosopher's strategy to question deflection: Answer a question with more questions that are even more complex than the original.  But seriously, the art of delegation is a skill that needs to be honed, and for me part that I really need to learn is when and how to train and develop my staff.

Do you think about all this and/or more when deciding to delegate work?

Align email rules with Chatter to maximize ROI

At work, I face many regular communication challenges: some daunting, others frustrating, and still more that are just annoying.  In broad categories, some general pain points are:

• "Who has knowledge about __?"
• "Who can answer this question, __?"
• "How do I communicate this news: __?"
• "How can I tap into the collective intelligence of the organization for __?"
• "How do I work remotely with __ to accomplish __?"
• "Why am I answering the same question a second (or third, or fourth, ...) time?"

If you look at Salesforce's pitch for "Why Chatter?" you will see answers and solutions to many of these questions and problems.  And Chatter's promise of higher productivity is clearly communicated, with fewer meetings and email reduction presented as the first two benefits.  These are the promised ROI's from using Chatter.

But after reading about topics such as, "Is Email Dead?" and the ambitious Zero Email plan from visionary CEO Thierry Breton, I am beginning to believe that I can do more to lead the way toward email reduction and, if I dare to dream like Thierry Breton, internal email elimination.  If Chatter can take the place of internal email, then I believe we will be close to maximizing ROI from institutional adoption of this new communication tool.

To that end, I suddenly realized a way to align my own technology with the adoption of Chatter and elimination of email:  Create an email rule that will "hide" all non-Chatter emails by moving them into somewhere, anywhere, that's not my inbox.  As a result, the "move non-Chatter to email folder" rule was created.

The idea is simple.  In the short term, I anticipate that internal emails will be reduced and that Chatter will become the preferred method of internal communications.  So, raising visibility of Chatter activity and lowering visibility of non-Chatter are natural ways of not only preparing for the future but also accelerating our transition toward it.  If I always see Chatter first when I open Outlook, then I would be subconsciously cued and trained to use Chatter as my primary communication tool, right?

Some of my colleagues have already formed an ambitious group to tackle the challenge of defining communication protocols for Chatter.  Should the "move non-Chatter" rule be included as part of the protocol for handling Chatter?  I think it's time to convene the jury.

What do you think?  Will this rule help an organization achieve the promised ROI from adopting a social communication platform?

Custom setting values in Salesforce email templates

Yesterday, as I was playing with a simple CRM idea in Salesforce, I came across an unexpected roadblock:  There didn't seem to be a way to merge custom setting values into an email template. A search on Google seemed to confirm this suspicion, as another admin asked the same question and arrived at the conclusion, "No, it's not possible." But, trusting Salesforce's immense power and flexibility, and hoping at all costs to avoid Apex code, I pursued my gut feeling that there must be a way.

And without disappointment, I discovered through some quick experiments that Salesforce does indeed make it possible to merge custom setting values into email templates.

The idea is simple: Put the custom setting value into a formula field on the desired object, and then merge the formula field value into the email template.

Below is an example of how it could work for you. Let's say that you want there to be a default level of optimism associated with every contact in your org. Imagine that you intend to merge this optimism into your automated emails. How would you do it?

1. Create a new custom setting labeled "Optimism Setting" with Setting Type set to "Hierarchy". The object name (a.k.a. API name) should be set to Optimism_Setting.
2. Within Optimism Setting, create a new text field labeled "Default Forecast". The field name (a.k.a. API name) should default to Default_Forecast.
3. Looking at the Optimism Setting page, click Manage and then set the default organizational level value for Default Forecast to "blue skies and sunshine".
4. On the Contact object, create a new formula field labeled "Optimism Forecast". The field name should default to Optimism_Forecast.
5. Insert the custom setting value for Default Forecast into this field. Your formula should look like this: $Setup.Optimism_Setting__c.Default_Forecast__c
6. Save the field, and now you're ready for email merge!

At this point, you should be able to inject the custom setting value for Default Forecast into any email template simply by including the {!Contact.Optimism_Forecast__c} merge field.

Note:  If you do complete this exercise, I highly recommend keeping the Default Forecast at "blue skies and sunshine" in your org.

It's never too late to change or to affect change

As my first 90 days in this new leadership position draws to a close, I find myself sitting blankly in front of my luxurious company laptop, dissatisfied and disappointed with myself.  90 days or __ hours later since I started, what do I have to show for myself?  Too little, by my own judgement.

Sure, I've kicked off a few projects with high visibility: launching a new portal for students and faculty, and migrating to Salesforce from Intelliworks.  And I'm working with fortuitous support from great colleagues to roll out a transformational communication tool, Chatter.  Also, I'm setting performance goals with my direct reports that I plan to reinforce in order to focus our efforts.

But I can't shake the feeling that I'm starting to run faster and faster on a shaky foundation that I have less and less time to solidify.  With one staff member gone just before I arrived, and with another one on his way out right now, have I really established the right rapport with the right people to continue advancing the organization's mission?  Am I really running the department?  Or am I just riding my staff's previous momentum?

At this critical milestone, 90 days since day 1, I find myself in an uncomfortable position of my own creation.  Fortunately, I believe that if I have the power to dig a hole for myself, I also have the power to elevate myself to better heights.

In short, it's never too late to stop, hit the reset button, and put yourself back on the right path.

In managerial accounting, there's a concept that's supposed to help us move forward without the baggage of the past.  If you guessed "sunk costs" for the concept, then you're on the same wavelength as me.  I look at my previous work, good and bad, as sunk costs.  The experience and knowledge should be treated as objective data for consideration in future decisions.  What was good can be sustained.  What was bad can be stopped.  And what I should have done but didn't do can be started.  As long as I remember that the past does not determine the future, I wield ultimate control of my performance and contribution to the organization.

So, I am mentally hitting the reset button, picking up a copy of Michael Watkins' The First 90 Days and  taking charge of the next 90 days.  In the words of a favorite song on my playlist:  "... we'll turn it all around 'cause it's not too late.  It's never too late."

Worktime expectations: giving and receiving feedback

It's hard for me to decide which is more difficult: giving or receiving feedback.  But since there are numerous benefits to doing both in the workplace, I believe we should reasonably expect an employee to participate on both sides of this activity.  The reason is simple.  An organization needs feedback at the organizational level, just as humans need feedback on an individual level.

Just think:  How well would you function if your stomach doesn't tell you when you're full?  Or if your ears don't relay the sound of a fast-approaching vehicle?  Or if your eyes don't show you where your hands are as you're threading a needle?

An organization is much the same.  We know in our minds that it's important to stay coordinated with our colleagues, and everyone seems to lament the fact that often the left hand knows not what the right hand is doing.  So, let's do something to connect our organizational senses.

Giving feedback is pretty straightforward:  After each significant engagement with another individual within the organization, provide some feedback to explain the good, the bad and the ugly.  The other individual can be anyone: a peer in your department, your manager, your direct report, a colleague in another part of the organization.

The challenges to meeting this straightforward expectation are mostly cultural.  Do you feel that your feedback is valued?  Are you afraid of giving feedback?  Do you know how to give feedback in a professional manner that gets the point across while avoiding personal attacks?  I believe it's a leader's job to remove these barriers to facilitate the critical flow of communications up, down and across an organization.

Receiving feedback is a bit more complicated, as two steps are involved.  First, you have to create a channel through which feedback is created.  Then, once feedback is received, you need to confirm receipt of the feedback and then act on it.

The appropriate action on feedback depends on whether the comment was positive or negative.  If feedback was positive, then continue doing whatever it was that merited the support.  If the feedback was negative, then adjust your behavior, explain your behavior or ask for further discussion of the comment.

The primary challenge to meeting this expectation is also cultural.  How much feedback are you able to take?  Positive feedback is always pleasant on the senses, but it's the negative feedback to which we need to pay the most attention.

After all, it's easier to adjust the oven temperature while baking than to salvage burnt cupcakes.

Worktime expectation: self-reflection

In trying to set performance goals with my staff, based on my worktime expectations of an ideal employee and our organization's mission and objectives, I received good feedback that the broad categories of my expectations are currently unclear at best.  So, I aim to explain each of them in a series of posts, starting with what I hope is the simplest category: self-reflection.

To me, self-reflection in the workplace is the solo act of reviewing and adjusting one's own behavior to better serve the organization's needs.  The process can be outlined in three simple steps:

1. Review your recent activities, assessing how productive and well-aligned they were.  Consider your own personal goals and the organization's goals in your assessment.
2. Make a short-term action plan, noting which activities to start doing, to stop doing and to still continue to do.
3. Execute your short-term action plan.

The length of the "short term" is up to the individual to decide, based on that person's individual capabilities and the time constraint set by leadership.  For example, take an employee with a short attention span who is expected to spend 2.5% of his time on self-reflection.  This employee may decide that "short term" equates to one week, which is just enough time for him to start losing focus on the action plan.

As implied, self-reflection is not a one-time process, but rather a habit that should be developed over time.  I searched on Google for "why is it important to self-reflect" and found a few useful resources that explain how the process helps in many situations:

• Real Talk blog: "Why Self Reflection Is Important"
• College of the Canyons: "Self-Awareness"
• DJUS Online: "Cognitive Effects of Self-Awareness on Thought"

And when would be good to start this process?  Well, how about today?

How to stop lying and start working on priorities

A quote from Mahatma Ghandi explains it well, "Action expresses priorities."  The "it" being how we regularly lie to everyone at work, including ourselves.

You may be thinking, what the __ are you talking about?  I always practice integrity in the workplace, and I would never lie to my colleagues.  Well, I happen to think the same!  But if you're like me, and you look back at a week's worth of work (facts) compared to everything you communicated (words), are you sure you haven't lied?  Do the facts really reflect your words?

Okay, okay.  Maybe saying "we" is too much.  Let's step back for a second, and let me explain how I lie.

Within the past week, I've frequently said to a colleague working on a project with me, "This project is a high priority."  Yet, when I sat down with the same colleague for our weekly check-in yesterday, I was forced to admit how little time I had actually devoted to the project.  And because I contributed very little to the "high priority", I questioned myself on whether it really was a high priority.  I would expect anyone else to ask me the same question.  And the sad truth is:  No, the project was apparently not a high priority to me.

When I looked back at my week, it turns out my real priorities were the following, in roughly this order: addressing real emergencies, addressing perceived emergencies, meeting to discuss non-priorities, reading and sending emails about non-priorities, talking to people about non-priorities.  Oh, and I almost forgot this one:  Telling people what my priorities and the organization's priorities are.

Does this sound familiar at all to you?  Regardless, the lying has to stop.  And for that, I'd like to share three ways to do this, which I will implement today for myself.

Write down your priorities and post them where you can see them.  If you care to listen, our director of IT will tell you about the list of personal goals on his refrigerator at home for him and his wife.  "Every day, we'd come home and ask each other, 'What did you do to advance one of your goals?'"  The question is asked with the best of intentions, to gently help each other remember what is truly important.  As the late Stephen R. Covey observed, "Most of us spend too much time on what is urgent and not enough time on what is important."

Block time on your calendar to work on your priorities.  Blocking time off is easy:  Create an appointment on your calendar, and mark it as busy time.  Almost like magic, most non-priority meetings requests will be automatically deflected.

Work on your priorities in a place where distractions are minimized.  How can you be productive when you're being distracted every 5 minutes?  Shut the door to your office.  Or go setup a workspace in a remote corner of the office where only the cleaners visit.  Or work from a conference room (that you can reserve), from home or from a coffee shop.  And no matter what, always remember to turn off your office phone and close Outlook, Gmail or whatever email client you use.

What do you think?  What are your tips for getting the right work done?

All hands on deck: Maximizing productivity with a strengths-based approach

Today, three of us gathered in the ITS department to discuss vision and goals for the coming years.  My colleague Kristin Mullaney proposed the idea of taking a strengths-based approach to staff's professional development and, by extension, to organizational development.  What exactly is a "strengths-based approach", I wondered.  I had previously never heard of the term, and I was suspicious that it was just another managerial buzzword that only sounded good.

But as she explained the concept, I noticed myself nodding silently in effortless agreement.  Why not?  Without taking undue credit from her proposition, here are the main points I recall about the approach:

• Recognize that an individual's skills may (and likely do) extend beyond his or her assigned functional area.
• Throughout the business cycle of an organization, there will be peaks and lulls in the demand for any one skill.
• As an organization evolves in step with the global environment, the profile of appropriate skills (and functional areas) for the organization will change.
• By enabling an individual staff member to exercise skills that are not explicitly required for his or her "assigned duties", the organization actually facilitates professional development of its human capital.  And as a result, the organization better positions itself to meet future demands in the marketplace.

Her points seemed so sensical that I found it difficult to explain why we are not already operating that way, although I know realistically that there are significant challenges to the idea's implementation.  I can already think of some possible challenges: accepting complacency, seeking comfort in repetition, setting narrow performance goals, protecting traditional departmental "turf" or boundaries, witholding access on a "need to __" basis.  While there are still valid arguments for each of those actions, I question the balance of costs and benefits for each of them in the modern world.

As I watch the rise in demand for agile, responsive organizations, I believe we have to leave behind many of the stiff policies and cultural legacies from yesteryear.  Even if we don't do it for the advancement of humanity, we must change our behaviors and expectations for our own survival in an increasingly competitive global economy.  How many big-name companies can you name that fell into decline or disappeared altogether?  HP, Xerox, Kodak, Circuit City, Borders, ...

But if we in an organization can learn from history, embrace current best practices and keep an eye on the future, then together we can grow smartly and sustainably.  And I believe part of the change involves setting new organizational expectations that break down silos and erase arbitrary boundaries which prevent business teams from reaching their full potential.

I'd like to close with a quote from Rebecca Seibert in her contribution to Harvey Levine's Project Portfolio Management (which I am reading for Granite State College's excellent PM 806 course, "Managing Project Portfolios"):

“All hands on deck” means that very few handoffs occur in our team settings. The expression “that’s not my job” is not in the mind-set of the business team. If we need marketing information for a specific program and the marketing manager is occupied with other duties, it is not uncommon for the technology team member, for example, to gather that information and communicate it to the team. The lines of functionality are often blurred, allowing people with the appropriate skills to be empowered to get the work done.

We have a noble mission to advance that requires us to maximize the very limited resources we have.  For us, "all hands on deck" should be our call to action.

Worktime Expectations of an Ideal Employee

How does an ideal employee spend his or her time?  This is a question that I have to think about more deeply as I'm contemplating my own job responsibilities and those of others around me.

I suppose it helps to first define what "ideal" is, and of course, as with the definition of many buzzword terms, the answer is:  It depends.  Specifically, "ideal" depends on the mission and values of an organization.  What's more interesting is when you throw in another buzzword value that every organization wants: innovation.  How often have you heard that an organization wants to be innovative?  Most of us have heard leaders say, "We must innovate, because the alternative is to be left in the dust."

Coincidentally (and fortunately for me), innovation is being championed at Granite State College.  But just saying that we value innovation is not going to make it happen.  We have to first know ourselves what it means to be innovative and then to be able to teach others how to do the same.

In order for continuous innovation to occur, it must be built into our culture.  And in order for it to be built into our culture, we have to recognize that innovation and the continuous improvement driven by innovation needs to be adopted as every individual's responsibility.  To that end, I propose the following distribution of time for an ideal employee.

During normal work hours over the course a fiscal year, the ideal employee spends his or her time on the following activities:

• Running the trains: 60%
• Self-reflection: 2.5%
• Directed learning; structured training: 5%
• Innovation; self-directed with approval from manager: 20%
• Giving and receiving feedback up, down and across: 5%
• Engage larger external community of professionals: 5%
• Engage customers: 2.5%

In addition, I believe that a truly engaged and happy employee will spend further time above and beyond the scheduled work hours (perhaps during breakfast, lunch, dinner, nights and/or weekends) to:

• Connect more personally with colleagues
• Take advantage of employee benefits such as tuition waivers

I feel fairly strongly that this worktime configuration will work for individual contributors, but I am not sure how well it applies to managers and leaders.  However, one thing is certain to me:  Innovation is the key to sustainable growth.

No Conference Room, No Problem

When I first settled into my new office, I was a bit taken aback by the fact that there was no easy way to reserve conference rooms in Outlook.  I was accustomed to being able to open my calendar and easily pull in people and rooms to determine the right combination of time and place to hold a meeting.  Instead, I was told that if I want to reserve a room I have to go through a person who is responsible for booking all of the conference rooms.  This is crazy, I thought at the time.

But all of a sudden, I reflected on this "ridiculous complication"and realized that the "problem" may actually be a blessing in disguise.  No conference room?  Great!  Let's avoid the abrupt interruption to people's days, the requirement to drop everything that people are doing just to get together and "talk it through" when a few emails (or Chatter, or Google docs with comments) would've worked as well if not better.

Part of the reflection came from a great video that a friend shared with me:  Jason Fried's convincing explanation for why work doesn't happen at work.

I remember that at my previous organization there was constant talk about "too many meetings" and "meeting management" and "getting things done", but I felt that the organization was never able to change the cultural practice of calling meetings.  In retrospect, perhaps the culture was enabled by the fact that it was so easy to get a room and setup a meeting in Outlook.  Technology could have very well been the culprit, ironically hurting productivity in the organization instead of improving it.

So... No conference room?  No problem!  In fact, we may all be better off this way.

Ideal Enterprise Platform

Before I officially started at Granite State College, one of my new colleagues in the Ed Tech department asked me a question along the lines of, "What is your ideal platform?"  The question was asked in the context of information technology, and at the time I interpreted the question as, "Which enterprise information system would you implement if you had your choice?"

In my head, I immediately started listing products such as Google Enterprise, Microsoft SharePoint, salesforce.com Chatter, MediaWiki... but I think I lost sight of the more important question:  "Why would platform x, or any platform for that matter, be ideal?"  What do I hope to accomplish?  What kind of culture do I want to cultivate?  Technology is but a means to an end.  So, what does that end look like?

With the question having shifted away from technology and into culture and people, I started painting a mental picture of the ideal organization, where all staff...

• work toward a common goal;
• consider the best interest of the organization in making decisions;
• consider the impact on others when making decisions;
• trust one another to do what's right;
• are empowered to do what's right;
• are human and will make honest mistakes from time to time.

I want to create an environment where people are not only highly productive but also happy in doing great work that matters.

Is there a single product that can facilitate the creation of such an organization?  I don't think so.  I also don't think there ever will be a single product as an all-encompassing solution.  So, as an organization, the next best thing is to develop critical competencies in identifying best-in-class solutions and integrating the snot out of everything.

"Hello, do you have a minute?"

"Hello, do you have a minute?" asked a blonde-haired girl wearing worn jeans and an oversized blue T-shirt that read "Planned Parenthood".  She was standing underneath an awning to avoid the persistent drizzle that accented the depressing tone of an overcast day, and judging by the time and a guess at her age, I figured she had probably been standing there for a few hours since she out of her daytime summer activity.  The clipboard under her arm and a weary but determined smile made it clear what her mission was for the day.

Me?  I was just trying to get away from a long day at the office to the subway train that would ship me back to my comfortable suburban home, where a delicious leftover dinner was only a few microwave minutes away.  Stopping to listen to a fundraising pitch for a charity I've seen around since middle school was far from the top of my priorities.  I could tell from the uninterrupted, preoccupied footsteps of the people in front of me that they felt the same way.  Poor girl.  I hope someone else will give her some attention.

But something gave me pause as my eyes connected with hers, negotiating whether I would at least stop and hear her out before making up a meager excuse to leave my wallet safely untouched in the back of my pants.  Maybe, it was the fact that I just saw a Berklee student toss a cigarette stump into a roadside puddle, and I felt guilty for doing nothing to rectify that situation.  Maybe it was the fact that "leadership" and "public good" have been swirling inside my brain since I agreed to start my first managerial position.  Whatever the cause, I stopped and turned to face her directly.

"Hello," I opened, "What brings you out here today?"

A glimmer of hope lit up in the girl's eyes.  "I'm fundraising and trying to spread some awareness.  Have you heard of Planned Parenthood?"

"Yes," I replied easily, "I'm familiar with the organization.  And unfortunately I can't help you with your goal tonight."

Abruptly, and without another word, I turned back toward the MBTA station and continued my commute home, puzzled by my own decision to engage in a conversation that I knew would go nowhere.

So... why did you stop?  I don't know.


Well, if you stopped, why didn't you at least give her something?  How much was I supposed give her?  $5?  $10?  And what if I saw one of her cohorts a block apart and am solicited again?  Where does it end?


...  Is that really a valid excuse?  Why is it an excuse?  Why do I have to give away my money in the first place?  To a charity that I have no use for?  To a person who could just be wearing a charity's shirt just to scam people, much like the man and woman who camp outside the Hynes Convention Center station and tell the same sob story to passerby about "needing to get home on the T" or "my home burned down", begging for money?

What about that comment you made today about giving aid and sympathy to those who are less fortunate? ... But still, can I afford to give money to every single charity fundraiser I come across?  Even if it's just $5?  Or even $1?  And what would that even do or accomplish?

At this point, I realized that I was blocking traffic inside Hynes station, standing just a few steps away from the gate I had passed through with a swipe of my Charlie Card.  I hurried down the stairs, hoping that I would just forget the nagging feeling that I should go back up to street-level and give something to the girl.

As the train door closed behind me, shutting off any chance of contributing something to Planned Parenthood through the young fundraiser, I mentally projected the effect of a small donation by a large group of people.  If everyone in the top 10% of U.S. income earners donated just $5 to a single charity, that charity would receive $75 million instantly, a substantial amount for any nonprofit organization.  How many lives would that impact?  It's hard to say, but I imagined the impact would be greater than the top 10% each donating nothing.

Still, there was nothing novel about the call for a small effort from each member of a large group.  I'd heard the argument, the plea many times before.

What did strike me, as I reflected on what I told myself I want to accomplish later in life, is that Planned Parenthood exists today because there are people behind it who work to push society toward a better world for women, parents and their family and friends.  A better world.  Isn't that what I want?  Isn't "a better world" what I dream of building?  And if so, will I ever be in a position where I need to ask strangers to spare a few dollars on their way home from work, to support the mission I champion?

I'd had enough of my own rationalizations, which I realized were futile and ultimately empty.  Even if I'm not in the 10%, giving $10 today to support a worthwhile cause would not force me into bankruptcy.  So I followed through with that small effort by logging on to plannedparenthood.org and supplying my billing information, hoping in the back of my mind that one day someone will do the same for me.

So, to the blond-haired girl who stood near the corner of Boylston & Mass Ave at 6:45 PM this dreary Wednesday evening, thank you for reminding me of both Golden Rules and for clarifying my path forward.  Perhaps together in spirit, we can make the Pareto improvements that I try and want to associate with myself.

Customer-focused? Prove It

One of the major points that The New Leader's 100-Day Action Plan continuously makes is that everything a leader does and doesn't do is communicating to those around him or her.  The order in which the leader completes his tasks and schedules his meetings also speaks volumes about priorities and interests.  With that in mind, I started thinking more about one of the phrases that stick out in my mind as an important philosophy from GSC's president: "student-focused" (a.k.a. "customer-focused").

Bradt, Check and Pedraza give a very thoughtful and poignant example of how easy it is to say what sounds good and then act in a completely different manner.  Basically, the story focuses on a new CEO's plan to show up on day 1 and then immediately launch internal committees to tackle priorities.  When the CEO was asked how his actions would speak to his espoused goal of becoming more customer-focused, the CEO realized that his actions were giving the wrong message.  After reconsidering, the CEO decided to meet with key customers to understand their delights and disappointments with the company.

While it may seem like a cop-out to emulate this tactic, I think it holds a lot of water in my entry into a technology leadership role that has responsibility for providing technology services that directly impact customers, or students as the case is at GSC.  Having no direct experience as an online learner or instructional designer in the higher education industry, I have a lot of catching up to do.

So, for me personally, I plan to register for one of GSC's online leadership classes at the earliest opportunity when I start my new job, and I will take time to speak with students who are served at every single one of GSC's campuses.  I will also plan to talk to students studying at competing institutions in NH, such as UNH, KSC PSU and SNHU.

I'll close this post with a slightly modified quote (borrowed with thanks to Railsfactory) from Mahatma Gandhi that I feel helps align me with the president's goal of becoming more student-focused.

A [student] is the most important visitor on our premises. He is not dependent on us. We are dependent on him. He is not an interruption in our work - he is the purpose of it. We are not doing him a favor by serving him. He is doing us a favor by giving us the opportunity to serve him.

What's an Appropriate Opening Address?

In a few days I will have the opportunity to address all of my staff for the very first time.  None of them have any significant history with me, and many (if not all) of them have significantly more years of work experience than me.  So, what am I supposed to say, without knowing any of them and without having a good understanding of the situation at my new organization?

The opportunity to make a first impression led me down the road of taking a deeper look at why I was brought on board.  How am I expected to add value to the organization?  Fortunately, my new boss was kind enough to remind me of my key areas of responsibility, which includes educational technology, information technology and business intelligence (a.k.a. institutional research).  For each area, my job is to understand, develop and communicate my boss's (and his boss's) vision to my staff and then help them take steps to realize that vision together.  The understanding, developing and communicating of a vision will be pretty easy, since I can do that mostly on my own.  The real challenge will be how to collaborate with my staff to actually execute a plan to achieve that vision.

In order to collaborate, I feel like I must have the respect of my staff.  And herein lies the real problem on my mind:  What can I say that will not make me look like an arrogant, self-absorbed ass?  What can I say that will still be believable and exciting to people I've never worked with before?

I could talk about my past experience, but that would seem self-absorbed.  I could talk about the vision, but I don't really know what that is yet.  I guess all I'm left with is talking about my philosophy and expectations, with an emphasis on my own eagerness to learn from everyone and a concession that I am not and will never be perfect.  As for adding value to the organization and my staff, the proof will be in my actions, not in my words.

100-Day Plan: Communication

Leaders communicate. I get that... I think. The book actually makes a very sharp point: A leader communicates continuously without interruption. This means that everything one chooses to do and not do is an act of communication, implying ideas and motives behind a leader's m.o. As my previous boss Tom often told me, true skill lies in knowing what not to do.

The book also makes a point about the order in which proactive communication occurs. The authors state that people contacted first will feel more valued and that people contacted later will feel less valued. Since this is probably true, I need to take extra steps to ensure that everyone I talk to feels as equally valuable as possible. The truth is: Each person should be equally valuable in my eyes until his or her actions lead me to believe otherwise. For example: I originally scheduled the order of meetings with my direct reports based solely on alphabetical order. If this creates a sense of inequality or bias, that consequence is completely unintentional.

But more importantly, the book reminds me to know myself and fully adopt my own mantras so that all that I do and not do automatically reflect and project the values that I hope everyone will adopt. Those values are still a work in progress, but I can start with these three guidelines.

First, see the vision. This really means that we each should understand where the organizational leader is going and know, at a minimum, where our individual places are in that vision. It then becomes the duty of the intermediate leaders (a.k.a. mid-level managers) to propagate the vision accurately to their direct reports.

Second, seek responsibility over accountability. This idea is actually the product of a few key points. One point is that we should avoid blaming others and instead take ownership of resolving issues and problems as they arise, collaborating with others when appropriate. Another point is that we must be painfully honest in order to understand where responsibility needs to be assumed or conceded, especially when it comes to assessing each team member's strengths, weaknesses and goals.

Finally, live for laughs and smiles. I don't know whether this statement is exactly what I want to say, but what I hope to get across with this is that we should maintain our sense of humor as we work to bring smiles to our customers, internally as well as externally. Also, we should strive to generally have fun working together and remember to consume a healthy serving of humor as part of our regular diets. "Great cheese comes from happy cows," as the California Milk Advisory Board promoted.

Now the challenge is working those ideas into the basic fabric of my person so that I truly walk the talk.

Leadership Is Service

I had a thought today about leadership that I believe helps me imagine my work in my new leadership role:  Leadership is serving others, given that you see a viable path to the shared vision.  At the workplace, this service is provided to your boss, to your peers and to your direct reports.

To your boss, the service is simple:  Help your boss build a path toward the shared vision by injecting insights from your particular area of expertise.  When your boss achieves his goal, then you have achieved yours.

To your peers:  Help them perform their functions more efficiently or more effortlessly by using your insights to streamline their processes or suggesting new ways of doing things that will enable them to do more with less.

To your staff:  Help them see, understand and appreciate the vision and then help them fulfill their roles in advancing toward the vision, by giving them the resources and the environment they need to succeed.

So, in summary, by helping others one helps him- or herself.  Why is this leadership?  Because it's all about moving everyone toward a common goal, recognizing that no one person can get there alone.

100-Day Plan: Acronyms to Remember

In the interest of retaining what I'm reading, I'd like to try to remember some of the acronyms used in the New Leader's 100-Day Action Plan.

ADEPT is used as an adjective to describe the kind of people one needs to hire and retain, but the actual components of the adjective are verbs: acquire, develop, encourage (or empower, in my vocabulary), plan and transition. Those are all of the actions that a leader must take in order to surround him- or herself with truly adept or competent people.

BRAVE is also used as an adjective to describe the members of a high-performing team. Without having read the actual chapter where this is discussed, I'm guessing that brave employees are ones who are equipped to make and follow through on major decisions (relative to their roles) without needing myriad levels of approvals or reviews. The acronym itself is composed of nouns (behaviors, relationships, attitudes, values, environment) that must be aligned in order to enable staff to be brave, although not to the extent of being foolishly brave.

The final one I remember is called ACES, an acronym I really like: assimilate, converge and evolve, or shock. I used to play poker and love the word "aces", and it aptly summarizes the two strategies (I think) of a new leader for creating change in an organization. One is smoother, and one is more abrupt. I can't wait to dive into the chapter where this is discussed in more detail!

100-Day Plan: Introduction

So, I picked up the New Leader's 100-Day Action Plan (3rd ed.) to guide me through the transition into a new leadership position at the end of June. Having never been in a position of formal leadership, I figured it would be smart to try starting off on the right foot.

My first day with the book was spent reading the Introduction, which was great. The Intro was concisely written and summarized the content in the book, and most importantly it clued me to the chapters that I should skip to maximize my benefit from the book. As it exists, the book actually contains 4 chapters through the first two parts that deal with getting a new job, which was not apparent in the book's synopsis. But, I guess that means less for me to read over the coming weeks, which doesn't hurt.

The gist of the Intro from what I recall is that a new leader must hit the ground running by knowing in general terms what needs to be done in the first 100 days. The preparatory work begins now, before the new job starts, so I'm glad I found the book thanks to LDRLB's book review.

The other key message I got was that a leader's main responsibilities are to communicate the vision and empower his staff to achieve the larger goals of the organization through their individual efforts. And to do this, the new leader must set milestones and execute in order to meet those milestones.

Thankfully, there's nothing too unexpected in the book so far. But the proof will be in the execution, not in how well I conceptually understand the book's message.