Author Archives: Tom Foster

About Tom Foster

Tom Foster spends most of his time talking with managers and business owners. The conversations are about business lives and personal lives, goals, objectives and measuring performance. In short, transforming groups of people into teams working together. Sometimes we make great strides understanding this management stuff, other times it’s measured in very short inches. But in all of this conversation, there are things that we learn. This blog is that part of the conversation I can share. Often, the names are changed to protect the guilty, but this is real life inside of real companies.

Traumatic or Planned?

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
You talk about how important it is to match a person’s capability with challenge in the role. You also say that as people grow and mature, so does their Time Span capability. What do you do with talented people when promotional opportunities are limited?

Response:
It’s a dilemma for every organization and why it is important for every company to stay “green and growing.” When personal opportunity stops, it is inevitable that you will lose that person. This can be traumatic, or it can be planned.

Look at any McDonald’s store. Inside you have a team of motley teenagers flipping burgers, sizzling fries and making chocolate shakes (my favorite). While I often joke that any employee who shows up for their shift five days in a row can be the manager, the long term potential for advancement is limited. For most companies, the prospect of short careers and high turnover would not be desirable, for McDonald’s, it’s their business model. Traumatic, or planned?

For McDonald’s, it’s planned, predictable and normal. For most kids behind the counter, it’s their first job and 1-2 years is all that’s expected. Any company with limited opportunity for advancement has to face that fact. Managers-Once-Removed (MORs) should be trained to look for the signs and be prepared for those coaching conversations. As a rule the company should gear its training programs to handle the normal course of turnover and gear it’s systems to accelerate proficiency in performance. That’s why fry baskets have timers and hamburgers are cooked on conveyor chains.

So, if the organization can stay green and growing, perhaps it can create those opportunities internally. But rarely for everyone and rarely forever.

Lost In Translation

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
In your Time Span workshop, you talk about the breakdowns in communication that can occur when a manager skips a layer, for example a Stratum IV manager working with a Stratum II supervisor. How can you tell when you have a lost-in-translation issue?

Response:
Communication breakdowns can occur for many reasons. Elliott Jaques, in his Time Span research often found, that problems we attribute to communication breakdowns or personality issues, turn out to be a misalignment in organizational structure.

A Stratum IV manager and a Stratum II supervisor are typically working on goals with markedly different Time Spans. Even looking at the same problem, their analysis will be different. The Stratum II supervisor may piece some of the elements together while the Stratum IV manager looks to see how this problem impacts other related systems down the road. Indeed, they may describe the problem using different words (terminology).


The S-II supervisor may wonder what the S-IV manager is talking about while the S-IV manager wonders why the S-II supervisor cannot see what is altogether clear. They use different words and see the world in different ways, creating that lost-in-translation syndrome.

But, your question was, how can you tell if this is Lost-in-translation? More importantly, how can we recognize the difficulty and what steps can we take to prevent it or cure it?

Underperformance of any kind indicates a problem. Any time performance does not meet expectation, there are three places to immediately look.

  • Is it a problem with the performance?
  • Is it a defect in the expectation?
  • Is there a problem with the communication of the expectation?

If it’s a problem with the communication, then lost-in-translation could be the culprit. And the accountability lies with the manager. It is (always) the manager who I hold accountable for the output of the team member.

What needs to change? What managerial behavior needs to change? I see two steps.

  1. The manager should recognize the time span framework of the team member. Here is a quick set of diagnostic questions – “What is the task? When should this task be completed?” The response from the team member is a clear indication of the Time Span the team member has in mind. This Time Span is impacting every decision surrounding this project. The adjustment for the manager is to speak in terms of the other person.
  2. The manager should examine the language (words) being used to make sure the meaning of the words is common and clear. During a task assignment, I will often ask the team member to take written notes and feed back to me their understanding of the work instruction. In there is confusion, it can generally identified in this step.

It is the manager I hold accountable. The manager is 100 percent responsible for the communication in this lost-in-translation issue.

It’s Not About Flow and Luck

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
In your workshop, it was clear, the research you presented supports hierarchy in an organization. I am still not sure I buy that. There is so much talk these days about “tribes” as a better, more flexible structure.

Response:
Notwithstanding how great Mel Gibson looked in his Mayan costume in Apocalypto, all the talk of modern tribal systems is misguided.

One reason is the misunderstanding of the purpose for hierarchy. We think, because we watch too many military movies, we think hierarchy exists to create a reporting protocol in the organization. Here’s the bad news, you are NOT a manager so people can report to you.

The fact is, we report to people all over the organization. I contribute to a project for Paul. I am responsible to compile a forecast for a report for Frank. I have to procure some super-special material on a project for Bill. I sit in on a steering committee for Jim. I report to people all over the organization. There is no lack of flexibility. It might even have the appearance of a tribe.

But even in a tribal structure, every once in a while, like every day, I will run up against a problem or a decision where I need some help. I may have a conflict priority between Bill’s project and Frank’s project. Who do I go to for help? If I go to Bill or Frank, I may get the wrong answer. So who is accountable for that decision. In a tribal system, no one is accountable. There is ambiguity. And ambiguity kills accountability.

A tribal system is great, unless we are trying to get some work done.

The purpose of the managerial relationship, the mandate for every manager, is to bring value to the problem solving and decision making of the team member. And that’s the purpose for hierarchy, to fix accountability at the appropriate decision level. The right decision on the conflict between Bill’s project and Frank’s project may require perspective on BOTH projects, as well as capital budgets, multiple customer initiatives and the availability of technical support. If I don’t have that perspective (to make the right decision), then who?

In a tribe, there is no one accountable for that perspective? It’s all about flow and luck.

In a hierarchy, it is my manager who is accountable. I may report to people all over the organization, but there is only one person accountable for my output, and that is my manager.

Production in a Professional Service Firm

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question
In your workshop, you use a manufacturing business model to illustrate the levels of work. How does that translate for a professional service organization?

Response
I use a manufacturing model because most of us can remember that video clip at Ford Motor Company, with automobiles coming down the assembly line. It is a quick picture for production work in a manufacturing environment. With that in mind, here is a typical table describing levels of work. The time frame designates the longest Time Span task associated with the role. In manufacturing, most production work falls easily into Stratum I.

Levels of Work

Levels of Work

In other business models, like professional service firms, production work (direct output to the customer) may be more complex and require a higher level of capability to effectively complete that work. Supervisory work and managerial work remains the same, it is the shift in the complexity of production work that changes.

For example. A patent case in a law firm, production work (direct output to the customer) might necessarily be done at Stratum III, IV or even V, depending on the complexity of the case. We can measure that complexity using Time Span as our calibration. A patent case still unresolved after five years of litigation might necessarily have required Stratum V capability to effectively deal with the uncertainty in the case.

In a CPA firm, tax production work might effectively be performed at Stratum III. Tax code is typically nailed down in 12 month increments. How a company might prepare for the tax/penalty implications of Obamacare might require Stratum IV capability (2-5 year decisions) to effectively make the right choices.

In summary, the levels of work in a professional service firm will hinge on the complexity of its production (direct output to the customer), and most often, that complexity shifts production toward higher Stratum capability.

What’s Your Story for 2012?

Leave a reply

This is the time of year we create resolutions and set goals. It’s valuable thinking.

“What is the most significant thing you wish to accomplish in 2012?”
“What is the major benefit to you, if you are able to accomplish that?”

Two good questions.

What has to change about your story to make that happen?

We all have a story. Our story creates the meaning for our behavior. What has to change about your story? In your story, what do you have to let go of? In your story, who do you have to become?

When your story changes, your ability-to-accomplish changes. And what-you-accomplish, changes you.

What’s your story for 2012?

To All, A Good Night

1 Reply

Done. The work is done. Time to start my Christmas shopping. Planning to take a short break, see you back here on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

I first published this holiday message in 2005, based on a short afternoon meeting on Christmas eve.

As Matthew looked across the manufacturing floor, the machines stood silent, the shipping dock was clear. Outside, the service vans were neatly parked in a row. Though he was the solitary figure, Matthew shouted across the empty space.

“Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a good night.”

He reached for the switch and the mercury vapors went dark. He slid out the door and locked it behind.

Second Step, Looking Outside

Leave a reply

In my previous post, Structure for Strategic Planning, I outlined a concept called the Business Model Canvas, from a project compiled by Alexander Osterwalder. This process contains three steps.

  1. Document the CURRENT Business Model (using the Business Model Canvas)
  2. Identify and document external trends that will impact your Business Model
  3. Create the FUTURE Business Model (using the Business Model Canvas) focusing on those elements you have to change in response to those external trends.

While there are nine elements in the Business Model Canvas, they can be grouped into four categories that are useful for Steps 2 and 3.

1 – Resources

  • Key Partners
  • Key Resources
  • Key Activities

2 – Value Proposition

  • Value Proposition (aka USP, Unique Selling Proposition)

3 – Customer

  • Customer Segments
  • Customer Relationships
  • Customer Channels

4 – Financial

  • Cost Structure
  • Revenue Streams


These groupings are helpful specifically in identifying external trends that will have impact on your Business Model. Here are some questions –

Resources
What is the financial condition of your Key Partners?
What is the flexibility of your Key Partners?
What could disrupt your Value Chain?
What could impact internal teams?
What regulations could change the availability or the way we use our resources?

Value Proposition
What will change about our competitor’s Value Proposition?
How will technology impact our Value Proposition?
What new competitors will enter our market?
What will change about our customers expectations? Demands?

Customer
What could change the financial position of our customers?
What could change the way our customer uses our products or services?
What demographic trends will impact our market?

Finance
What will change about our cost structure? Higher prices? Deflation?
What will change related to personnel costs?
What will change in our regulatory environment?
What will change about our price points related to our cost structure?
What will change about the way our customer purchases our product or service?
Is there a different way to derive revenue from our Value Proposition?

There are a hundred other questions, but this will get you started on this second important step.

Structure for Strategic Planning

Leave a reply

So, how do we talk about the long term future? Most long term (strategic) planning discussions falter. Managers seldom work through long term planning scenarios.

Long Term is a discussion outside the bounds of tangible concrete circumstances. It is a conceptual discussion.

For years, I have used a planning template and approach which I recently found compiled and published by Alexander Osterwalder in an open source project called Business Model Generation. The central piece of the project is a long term planning template called the Business Model Canvas.

In its one page form, it allows a group to deconstruct the elements of its business model into nine elements.

  • Key Partners
  • Key Resources
  • Key Activities
  • Cost Structure
  • Value Proposition
  • Customer Segments
  • Customer Relationship
  • Customer Channels
  • Revenue Streams

This Business Model Canvas provides the structure for an orderly discussion, an orderly conceptual discussion about the way the business is put together. And that’s our Inventory, as of today.

The second step of this process is to examine external forces (trends, competitive pressure, economics, demographics, regulatory pressures) that will impact on each of the nine elements.

The third step is to redefine the nine elements in response to those external forces. This third step is the work product of the long term planning discussion.

A structured conceptual discussion, strategic planning.

An Exercise in Superlatives

2 Replies

“It’s much easier to have a conversation (planning session) about the short term future, but how do we talk about the longer term future?” I asked.

Walter visibly nodded, then shook his head from side to side. “Not sure. I mean, I think we try. The closest thing we have is our company Mission statement, our company Vision statement.”

“There are times,” I chuckled, “when I threaten to steal all the Vision statements off the wall, shuffle them up and replace them in the dead of night. See if anyone notices?”

Walter piled on, “Yes, our Vision statement sounds pretty much like most of the other Vision statements out there. We want to be the premiere provider of high quality products and services, exceeding our customer’s expectations, using innovative solutions to build a brand recognized around the world.”

“A perfect attempt at thinking conceptually, into the future. What was the process you used to come up with your Vision statement (that sounds a lot like every other Vision statement)?”

Walter grinned. “It was ugly. The most disorganized meeting I think we have ever had. The instructions were to create a timeless statement that captures the essence of business, to create a picture, five years into the future. It turned into an exercise of superlatives.”

Not Short Term Tactics

3 Replies

“So, what’s the purpose of planning?” I asked again. “Specifically what’s the purpose of strategic planning. You talk about the uncertainty of the future?”

“You know, I am all for simplicity, but sometimes, the world is complex. There are all kinds of things that can affect our business. Looking ahead 30-60 days is easy. We know what projects we have, who the customers are, what materials we need and which team will do the work. But looking out three years, the conversation changes.”

“I will agree the conversation changes,” I nodded. “In what way?”

“When we look out three years, we don’t know what projects we will be working on, who our customers will be, what materials we will be using or even who will be on our team. All we can assume, is that we will still be in business, solving a customer’s problem.”

“So, what’s changed about the conversation?”

“Obviously, the Time Span. We are looking further out. But what has really changed is that we are no longer talking about concrete, tangible things. We are talking about uncertainty. It’s not easy to describe because it is a discussion about the future.”

“So, we are not talking about short term tactics, we are talking about long term concepts. And that’s why this conversation is unsettling. It is easy to talk about tangible, concrete things, but we are not used to talking conceptually.”