by Matt Perman
From the Puritan Richard Sibbes:
Having a well-ordered, uniform life, not consisting of fits and starts, shows a well-ordered heart; as in a clock, when the hammer strikes well, and the hand of the dial points well, it is a sign that the wheel are rightly set.
by Matt Perman
I’ve always found it helpful to remember the four main levels of thinking:
by Matt Perman
Jim Collins: “When you put these two complementary forces together — a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship — you get the magical alchemy of superior performance and sustained results.”
But, realize that you can’t jump straight to disciplined action. You have to first have disciplined people, and then disciplined thought. Then you have the foundation for disciplined action. This is the fundamental point of Good to Great.
“Disciplined action without self-disciplined people is impossible to sustain, and disciplined action without disciplined thought is a recipe for disaster.”
by Matt Perman
Sometimes there is a tendency to think that managers are slow and controlled, and entrepreneurs are exciting and progressive. The manager thus hinders the entrepreneur and makes everything boring.
And this can happen. But that is bad management. And in the same way that bad management makes things too controlled, bad entrepreneurship makes things unsustainable. We need both good management and good entrepreneurship. And entrepreneurship is a key component of the managerial task.
Here’s how Peter Drucker puts it:
One important advance in the discipline and practice of management is that both now embrace entrepreneurship and innovation. A sham fight these days pits “management” against “entrepreneurship” as adversaries, if not as mutually exclusive.
That’s like saying that the fingering hand and the bow hand of the violinist are “adversaries” or “mutually exclusive.” Both are always needed and at the same time.
Any existing organization, whether a business, a church, a labor union, or a hospital, goes down fast if it does not innovate. Conversely, any new organization, whether a business, a church, a labor union, or a hospital, collapses if it does not manage.
Not to innovate is the single largest reason for the decline of existing organizations. Not to know how to manage is the single largest reason for the failure of new ventures. (The Essential Drucker, p 8.)
by Matt Perman
Here’s a good quote from Reagan:
Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don’t interfere as long as the policy you’ve decided on is being carried out.
Note three things.
First, delegate authority–not tasks. I’m not saying there’s no place for delegating tasks, but if that’s your focus it won’t scale. You have to delegate responsibility areas and give people the authority to carry them out. (Responsibility in the final sense, of course, rests with the leader–he or she is the one ultimately accountable for results.)
Second, that means that you consequently need to let your people act–if you keep interfering and micromanaging, you haven’t truly delegated authority.
Third, notice that Reagan didn’t simply say “don’t interfere.” Which is interesting because the one main criticism of his leadership is that he was too hands-off. What he said was don’t interfere as long as the policy you decided on is being carried out.
There are defined outcomes. Let the person find their own way to accomplish them. If the policy that was decided on is not being carried out, then you need help the person make some course corrections.
by Matt Perman
D.A. Carson’s The Cross and Christian Ministry: Leadership Lessons from 1 Corinthians.
This is one of the best books on leadership for those in ministry.
by Matt Perman
A good article over at BNet. They note:
Entrepreneurs worry too much about what they’re going to develop, make, or market. What’s more important is that they make, develop or market something. The odds that they end up making it big doing something different are apparently pretty high.Here are 15 companies that became famous, not for what they started doing, but for something that came later. Sure, they may be related, but the point is still valid: better to get started on something; innovative people find a way.
This jibes with Jim Collins’ research in Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. They argue against “the myth of the single great idea.” In other words, great companies are often not the result of an initial great idea that propels them to success. What makes them great is that the product becomes the vehicle for the company, not the other way around.
by Matt Perman
Lifehacker has a workspace Flickr group where you can post a picture of your workspace and look at what other people have done. It’s a great place to see what other people do.
If you post your own photo, they also add: “Include some details about your setup and why it works for you, and you just might see it featured on the front page of Lifehacker.”
by Matt Perman
Do you think you work well with people because you are able to talk well? Or do you think that you don’t work well with people because you aren’t able to talk well?
Peter Drucker points out that this has it backwards:
Too many think they are wonderful with people because they talk well. They don’t realize that being wonderful with people means listening well.
This is within the grasp of everyone. It is not easy, but everyone can do it.
by Matt Perman
Slate has an excellent article on why corporate IT departments should stop imposing so many restrictions on what people can do online and let them browse any way they want.
I think most people have probably experienced the tyranny of corporate computer control:
I even know one place where my website — this site, on productivity and how to do your job better — is blocked by the corporate filter.
The bottom line is: corporate IT departments tend to be too risk averse, and this is not without consequence. It is killing the productivity of their employees — and, worse, it treats them like children. I was in an environment like this for a short time, and it was utterly suffocating.
The intentions are good, to be sure. We often think it is best to err on the safe side. But “playing it safe” is usually not safe. It often creates a whole host of worse problems that makes people’s lives harder.
Often, the mark of a bad decision that is going to make people’s lives worse is, “let’s take the safe route.” (And, interestingly, the only person in the parable of the talents who was rebuked is the one who played it safe — Matthew 25:24-30).
So it was very refreshing to come across the Slate article that makes these points so clearly. Here are some of the best excerpts:
Millions of workers around the world are in the same straits: They’ve heard about the joys of Firefox, the wonders of Google Docs, or any number of other great programs or Web sites that might improve how they work. Indeed, they use these apps at home all the time, and they love them. But at work they’re stymied by the IT department, that class of interoffice Brahmins that decides, ridiculously and capriciously, how people should work.
….
The secretary of state didn’t know why Firefox was blocked [when asked this question recently by an employee at the State Department]; an aide stepped in to explain that the free program was too expensive—”it has to be administered, the patches have to be loaded.” Isn’t that how it always is? You ask your IT manager to let you use something that seems pretty safe and run-of-the-mill, and you’re given an outlandish stock answer about administrative costs and unseen dangers lurking on the Web. Like TSA guards at the airport, workplace IT wardens are rarely amenable to rational argument. That’s because, in theory, their mission seems reasonable. Computers, like airplanes, can be dangerous things—they can breed viruses and other malware, they can consume enormous resources meant for other tasks, and they’re portals to great expanses of procrastination. So why not lock down workplace computers?
Here’s why: The restrictions infantilize workers—they foster resentment, reduce morale, lock people into inefficient routines, and, worst of all, they kill our incentives to work productively. In the information age, most companies’ success depends entirely on the creativity and drive of their workers. IT restrictions are corrosive to that creativity—they keep everyone under the thumb of people who have no idea which tools we need to do our jobs but who are charged with deciding anyway.
….
You might argue that firms need to make sure that people stay on task—if employees were allowed to do whatever they wanted at work, nobody would get anything done. But in many instances, that claim is ridiculous. My fiancée works at a hospital that blocks all instant-messaging programs. Now, she and her co-workers are doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals—they’ve been through years of training in which they’ve proved that they can stay on task even despite the allure of online chat. Can anyone seriously argue that the hospital would suddenly grind to a halt if they were allowed to use IM at work?
Indeed, there’s no empirical evidence that unfettered access to the Internet turns people into slackers at work. The research shows just the opposite. Brent Corker, a professor of marketing at the University of Melbourne, recently tested how two sets of workers—one group that was blocked from using the Web and another that had free access—perform various tasks. Corker found that those who could use the Web were 9 percent more productive than those who couldn’t. Why? Because we aren’t robots; people with Web access took short breaks to look online while doing their work, and the distractions kept them sharper than the folks who had no choice but to keep on task.
Very well said. And here is perhaps the most important point of all:
As one locked-down worker told me, blocking parts of the Web “systematically makes the company stupider” about the innovation now flooding into our lives. Systematic stupidity is rarely a plan for success.
In other words, I’m not simply make the case for treating employees better — although that is critically important all on its own. But in addition to that, the problem is that companies are hurting themselves by locking down employee’s computers.
Companies would be more productive, innovative, and effective by loosing the chains of corporate computer control and trusting — yes, trusting — their employees to use the web how they see fit — both for personal and work uses (porn and anything illegal obviously excepted).
You can read the whole thing for many other great points.
And: What do you think?
(HT: Cali and Jody)