Forward Momentum: Delivering Results

By Rob Zell

It’s soccer season again and I’m reminded how culture and fit impact performance. Your organization depends on both elements to be successful. If you ignore the impact of culture and fit, you are doomed to fail. In this post, I’ll be discussing a bit of both.

I was reminded of fit this evening after speaking to a parent who wants to pull her child from my team of eight year old soccer players. She has some very compelling arguments as to why he should no longer play, the main reason being that he has never played the sport. Imagine being dropped into the design and development space at Valve computer games directed to code the next great game and you have no experience coding! Granted, my boys’ team isn’t World Cup caliber, but they have played for a few years and at least know the basics. In recreational soccer, I don’t have the luxury of “Hiring for Fit”; I play the hand I get dealt and we do the best we can. At the same time, soccer is the beautiful game and a ripe ground for creating a space in which youngsters can learn some basic skills and then should be innovative and creative about using those skills to achieve a common objective, namely, scoring more goals.

In your organization you do have the luxury of hiring for fit. In fact, it should be a priority. There is plenty of research out there that says if you do it, it results in a happier, more productive work force. Your people will have a sense of belonging and that makes them more likely to be successful. If they don’t “fit” they will consistently struggle to perform the basic functions of the organization. Making sure a hire is a fit in the organization means defining the culture.

In a post I wrote some time ago, I reflected on how coaching soccer can be compared to creating a culture of learning and development. It involves a lot of trial and error, awareness of what works and what doesn’t and plenty of positive reinforcement. I started wondering if my team culture was driving that behavior or driving it to extinction. After a hard look in the mirror, I started questioning my performance as a leader of culture.

Culture can be defined a few different ways and has been in plenty of literature. You can start at Wikipedia and continue your research from there. I recently facilitated a workshop in which I presented several elements of culture, namely: Symbols, Stories, Relationships and Rituals. Without exposing too much information, let’s just say that after quick reflection, I don’t think I’m creating the best culture for brand new players to join my team! Luckily, I have the insight (from my recent workshop) to know what my options are. I can either:

1. Change the objectives. Kind of difficult. We do want to win games but I could take some emphasis off that point.
2. Change the culture. That’s a tough one. It means changing my behavior which will require tremendous effort.
3. Prepare to fail. Okay, #2 is looking more realistic. I don’t want to fail as a coach or leader of a team.

You can look at your organization in a similar light. If the culture clashes with the objectives of the organization, then the culture will undermine your efforts. It is usually easier to modify your goals to fit your culture than change the entire culture. I’m not proposing you abandon them. I am saying you tweak them to fit the culture. In my case, my goal might shift from “Win as many games as possible” to “Demonstrate learning the game of soccer every time we play”. I think I can live with this, since we all get trophies regardless of how we perform (that’s a post for another day). Furthermore, I can change the culture of my team by working on my behavior during practice and during games.

You have a choice in your organization – define your culture and leverage it to be successful or be ignorant of the impact on performance and muddle through as you always have. Culture can be defined at the level of the organization all the way down to the business unit or work team. First, take some time to examine your culture and the fit of the team. Second, develop a plan to adapt for maximum success.

I’d love to hear what you think. How is the culture of your organization driving your business results?

By Kathy Martucci, PMP

I have been involved in PeopleSoft implementations for over 10 years – before the product was web-enabled, in fact. Overall, the product is extremely robust and offers literally thousands of functional threads to its customers. Some of the business areas addressed by PeopleSoft applications include: 

• Financials
• Human Capital Management (read Human Resources)
• Payroll
• Customer Relationship Management
• Campus Solutions

Each of these major areas are comprised of several sub-modules (e.g., Financials = General Ledger, Budget, Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, etc.)  that are so complex that sales reps, sales support associates, and implementers generally specialize in one sub-module. Herein lies one of the biggest challenges of selecting this software. It can be so overwhelming as to render mere sales calls and demos practically useless since these discussions barely scrape the surface of what is really happening within the software. Given that fact, it can be difficult to determine the real effort behind an implementation and how your company’s business processes and employees will be impacted.

Having said that, how does an organization know if PeopleSoft is right for their corporation and their culture? What are the key factors and business drivers leading an organization to the purchase and implementation of one of the most powerful software suites in the world?

For simplicity’s sake, let’s go with one suite and say a mid-size company is going to replace its backend financials system. The old system was “home grown” and has evolved over the last 25 years. There are no labor unions and the corporate culture is fairly agile.

Some of the questions to be answered include: 

1. Is there a strategic plan for the company? If so, and if the plan necessitates new systems to support the future initiatives, are the projects prioritized and budgeted? Is there an Enterprise Technical Architecture Plan? How do the two relate? Technology for technology’s sake alone is rarely the right path to follow.
2. What is the maturity level of project resources, especially project management, in the organization? Even if the company is capable of paying substantial sums for an outsourced project team, there is no success factor more critical than having an in-house project manager (and, preferably, team) who know the business and can successfully support the project throughout its life cycle.
3. What technical resources does the organization already have? Is there a robust network, experienced database administrators (preferably familiar with Oracle), programmers, and skilled business analysts?
4. Can the organization afford to allow the most knowledgeable staff (who know the business processes and the current systems) to work on what is sure to be a multi-year project (in spite of what the Oracle sales team is telling you)?
5. What business sector does the organization inhabit…public, private, not-for profit? Once upon a time, PeopleSoft offered a public sector product and a commercial sector product. Over the years, these two products have morphed together. Many public sector organizations conduct their accounting on a cash basis (PeopleSoft doesn’t) and fund accounting (with a lot of attention paid to configuring the General Ledger (GL), this can be done).
6. Does the chart of accounts need to be re-defined? This is a major undertaking even before any technical consideration can be given to the GL. However, even though project team members may understand the business’ accounting and financials, they also need to have a deep understanding of PeopleSoft General Ledger and Commitment Control (budgeting) or most attempts to define a new chart of accounts and properly define budgets takes several months up to years.
7. What is the status of the current data in the financial system? Does it need substantial clean up before conversion can be defined? If so, this is also a parallel, separate project that will absorb project resources.
8. What is the company’s readiness quotient to re-engineer business processes? It surely doesn’t pay to undergo what could be a $20-50M project just to offer a web-enabled version of the existing financial system.

The above represent a tiny fraction of the questions that organizations should be asking themselves as they contemplate a PeopleSoft implementation. Frank, open answers to the questions and a realistic approach can only be advantages going forward. 

In addition to formal due diligence, one of the best ways for an organization to thoroughly understand the road map ahead is to connect with similar organizations that have completed an implementation. Oracle may not be the best place to get candid conversation; however, there are several active user groups and Oracle hosts a convention every fall where users congregate and are only too happy to relate their stories, good and bad. It is absolutely essential to mine these resources for lessons learned. 

How will you assess your organization and connect with other users?

By Vicki Wrona, PMP

We’re all familiar with setbacks or failure. If you don’t have any setbacks, then you’re not stretching yourself, are you? However, rather than putting the negative connotation that we tend to place on failing, let’s change our thoughts about it. There are some productive ways to approach setbacks to make them work for you.

In the book Disciplined Dreaming: A Proven System to Drive Breakthrough Creativity, Josh Linkner says to think about failure as an experiment. Each experiment that fails leads that person or organization to the perfect solution. He refers to this as Failing Forward. His view is that business leaders need to be tolerant of risk-taking and setbacks, and thinking of setbacks as Failing Forward helps to create a more supportive environment.

Another view is offered by Martha Beck, author and life coach. In a television commercial slot, she suggested that we see problems as feedback to find a better way. This allows our problems to be productive rather than destructive. If you look at problems as a foundation of good ideas, they become interesting rather than oppressive. Is something on your project not working? Now that you know one way it doesn’t work, use the feedback to modify the process. If you don’t like your current job, use the feedback to find a better calling or a more appropriate career.

True professionals are always trying to do things better, a little at a time. This philosophy is echoed in an approach called kaizen, which focuses on taking baby steps to continuously improve. Looking at setbacks as feedback in our ongoing adventure at work may help us in our quest for continuous improvement.

What have you done to help your teams see setbacks as feedback? What have you done to help them use that feedback to move on to something better?

by Vicki Wrona, PMP

In the book, The Steve Jobs Way: iLeadership for a New Generation, we gain insights on Steve Jobs’ management style from Jay Elliot, a senior executive who was with Jobs from the beginning. This book provided an interesting history of Apple and of Jobs’ evolution as a leader, including the years he was away from Apple. I will admit that I had not read much about Apple or Jobs before, and I found the book fascinating.

What intrigued me most was the insight into Steve Jobs’ leadership style. Arguably, many people would not be able to work for and with him, given his high expectations, perfectionist style and stubbornness. Yet, there are many admirable qualities we can all learn from. My respect for Jobs has increased from reading this book as well as has provided me with ideas and directions in running my own company and in managing my various teams.

Even in the early days of Apple, Steve Jobs was able to find people who worked hard for the sake of doing good work. These people wanted to develop new, exciting things and be part of something larger than themselves. That is how he convinced several key players to come to Apple before Apple was dominant, including his hand-picked CEO. Before Apple was a large player in the market, Jobs used his influential style to ask the question whether that person wanted to continue doing what they did (selling soda, for example) or whether they wanted to be part of something great. He could paint a clear and compelling picture of the future he saw, one that excited people and convinced them to join his cause. His vision directed the company.

However, that vision did not always hold everyone together, especially in the early years. If he disagreed with the direction or emphasis of Apple and could not convince other senior management (especially the CEO) to see things his way, he would continue to act in what he was convinced was the best interest of the company, thus creating  factions within the work force. He was not always a binding element.

Steve Jobs was also a workaholic. He was passionate about the mission and extremely driven. He worked continuously. As one of his senior staff put it, “If you are not going to come in on Saturday, don’t even bother coming in on Sunday.” Jobs was also very hands-on and involved in the details. He would stop in and check out the work of each team member, constantly pushing and questioning the staff. This constant checking and micromanagement is a difficult style for some employees to accept.

Because he was actively involved in the details and chose to work all the time, Jobs would come up with ideas at all hours of the day and night. He would often call a team member after hours to discuss ideas he had or a solution he was thinking about. He was respectful of the team member’s time and would ask up front, “Is this a good time?” but the impression I got from the book is that your answer didn’t matter; you would make it a good time. Then Jobs would launch into the technical details of what he was thinking about. If he called in the middle of the night, be ready to take notes because this wasn’t going to be a light-hearted discussion.

One interesting aspect of Jobs’ leadership style was his approach to finding, recruiting and then keeping the best talent inside and outside of his organization. As referenced before, there are good descriptions in the book of how he identified talent with the right attitude and on the leading edge of technology, even if, and especially when, they worked for a competitor. The book describes how he would recruit this talent away from their current positions to work for Apple, which was certainly trickier in the early days of Apple. At the same time, he made sure his talent was not lured away by closely guarding the names of those working on new products or development.

I recommend this book. Steve Jobs is impressive, although admittedly not a person that everyone could work for.