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.

A Little Knot in the Stomach

Leave a reply

“In the heat of the moment,” I started, “you may not have had the words or the stomach for it, so you adjourned the meeting.  But, this team will have to gather again.  When?”

“Wednesday,” Ron replied.  “We meet every Wednesday.”

“And, the team had an entire week to ruminate about the conflict last Wednesday. What do you think their mental state will be when you reconvene the group?”

“Well, I hope things will have settled down between the two managers, we can let bygones be bygones and get on with the agenda,” Ron said.

“Does your team have that short of a memory?” I asked.

Ron was quiet. “No, they will all be thinking about the altercation last week.”

“An altercation which has not been discussed since, at least that is what you hope.” My turn to pause. “But, you can bet there has been plenty of discussion outside of that conference room. They are not unspoken words, they are just unspoken in public, with the group. What are you pretending not to know?”

“I don’t know how the team will respond if we bring it back up. We might get a repeat performance and be right back where we were last week,” Ron grimaced.

“And, how will people’s stomachs be feeling if you bring it back up?” I asked.

“My stomach is in a knot right now, just thinking about it.”

“Then, you know you are dealing with a real issue.”

Kicking the Can

1 Reply

“Things didn’t get nasty,” Ron reported, “but, I think it’s because I put the brakes on the meeting, and simply adjourned it pretty quickly.”

“What happened?” I asked.

“Two of our managers went after each other in the meeting. One complained about the other in front of the rest of the executive team. That immediately turned into defensiveness. I stopped the conversation from escalating and told everyone we would pick this up next Monday.”

“Timeouts are not necessarily bad, especially when the emotions speak so loudly that we cannot even hear the words. But, tell me what impact this had on the rest of the team? What did this exchange teach them about how things work around the company?”

“Well, for one thing, it clearly communicated that I will not tolerate rude or insulting behavior,” Ron explained.

“And, what else did it teach them?”

“That if the behavior persists, I will shut it down. I won’t tolerate it and I will take action.”

“And, what else?” I pressed.

“You have something in mind when you ask the same question three times,” Ron chuckled.

I nodded yes.

“Okay. The team learned that when things get rough in a management meeting, where emotions surface in the conversation, we will avoid the confrontation and kick the can down the road.”

“Now, we are getting somewhere,” I said.

Storming is Stormy

2 Replies

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
Our company is growing. I used to make all the decisions, but I delegated some decisions to my newly formed executive team. I made it clear which decisions I would retain as President, and which decisions I expect them to make. The team knows the guardrails I set and my expectations of discussion that would occur in the team prior to their decisions. But, what I am seeing from them looks more like a land grab with hidden agendas. There is posturing, hints of passive-aggression, smiles and promises without delivery, ass-covering, ass-covering for each other. They are a team of very bright people, who make good decisions within their own departments, but just having difficulty working together.

Response:
First, this is all normal. Organizationally, this is moving from S-III (single serial system, or at least a focus on one or two core systems) to an organization at S-IV (multi-system integration). It’s easy to talk about the content at S-IV, looking at work hand-offs, outputs that become inputs to the next function, optimizing output capacity of each function as it sits next to its neighboring function. That’s the highbrow stuff above the surface. But, underneath the surface is “how” that stuff gets done. Underneath the content is the process.

If we skip the process stuff, because it takes time away from the analytic content stuff, we may never get to the analytic content stuff. Pay me now, or pay me later.

As a team forms, from a group with disconnected goals to a team with a common goal, there is a predictable process that must occur. We can spend a reasonable time up front dealing with the process, or we can spend an unreasonable time on the back end trying to manage dysfunctional behaviors.

That process always starts with trust. Much of the behavior you describe indicates the team has not learned (yet) how to trust each other. When each member of this new team was solely accountable for their function and their function alone, you gave them marching orders to be internally focused, efficient, internally profitable (to their own budgets). You now expect them to lift their eyes and see the other parts of the organization they have to integrate with. It requires a subtle shift from an internal focus to an external focus. Each has to keep their eye on the ball with a peripheral vision on and responding to neighboring systems.

There is risk to each individual on this new team. The risk is, working in this new way, their own department (function) may suffer for the benefit of the organization (total throughput). When managers are first put in this new situation, their first response is to armor up. There is a very real lack of trust and likely evidence to prove that lack of trust.

The first step to create trust among the team members is to create a context in which they allow themselves to trust. This is messy. In the sequence of forming-storming-norming-performing, this is the storming stage. Windstorms, gusts, occasional lightening. As the President, it is your job to convene the team and create a safe space for this to happen, and it cannot be skipped. On the other side of the storm, the team will learn, set its own guardrails, determine what is okay and what is not okay (norming) and then get on with the work.

A Process and a System

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
What’s the difference between a process and a system?

Response:
A process is the way we get something done. A process is a shift from the haphazard, often the backbone of a discipline or a set of instructions. A process can take the form of a checklist, often has an order or sequence to its steps, like do this first, then do that.

A system is more robust than a process. A system has a defined start and a finish. A system also has a series of steps, but there are different relationships between the steps. In a system, some steps can be done at the same time (concurrent steps). Some steps depend on other steps to be completed first, before the current step can begin (dependent steps). Some steps run at different speeds and can bottleneck other steps (constraints). Some steps may only be required under specific conditions (conditional steps). Some steps may loop back to previous steps and repeat (iterative steps). A system looks at specific conditions, finds the similarities and, by treating them the same, produces a consistent outcome. A system looks at specific conditions, finds the differences and, by treating them differently accommodates a range of variables.

Looking at levels of work, a process may more accurately be used at S-II, while a system is more likely required at S-III.

Whose Plan?

Leave a reply

“You have a team meeting,” I describe. “Someone has to talk and it’s not you, because no one listens to you. So, who talks?”

“My team?” Gordon answered slowly.

“Yes,” I nodded. “You describe the essence of the vision and the performance Standards. The team sets out the action plan.”

“But my team may not know what steps to take and besides, it will take too long to get them all to agree,” Gordon protested.

I nodded and smiled. “I didn’t say that your team would get there quickly. Sometimes you have to go slow now, so you can go fast later. You need your team, involved, engaged, thinking, solving problems and making decisions. You are not going to get there by telling them what to do.”

Gordon was skeptical, “But, what if I am not getting what I want?”

“If you are not getting what you want, then you are asking the wrong questions.”

Memo Communication

Leave a reply

“First of all, who’s goal is it?” I asked. Gordon was perplexed. His memo to the team fell flat and he needed their cooperation to complete the project.

“Well, it’s my goal, but it’s their goal. I gave it to them,” he explained.

I sat still. Gordon finally broke the silence. “Okay, it’s my goal.”

“And your job is to get your team engaged to achieve your goal. How can you do that? I gotta tell you. I looked at the project specs and the deliverables and the milestones aren’t that exciting.”

“Well, yes, but when the project is finished, overall, it will be quite an accomplishment. That’s how I described the vision in my memo,” Gordon continued.

“And you think a memo is the best way to engage your team? This is not Mission Impossible. Your memo is not as exciting as a tape that self-destructs.” I stopped and let Gordon stew for a bit. “No one listens to you, no one reads your memos. Yet, you need them to cooperate to achieve your goal. How are you going to do that?”

Who Has the Power?

1 Reply

“Okay, here is what I want to happen,” Gordon explained. His description was thorough. He painted a good picture.

“I can see your vision,” I replied. “How do your people see this?”

“That’s the problem. I think I explained it well, in the memo I sent out, but they don’t seem to get it. For some of my team, I don’t even think they read it, and I get a little heartburn from that.”

“So, you haven’t figured it out, yet?” I asked.

“Figured what out?” Gordon’s head tilted.

“As interesting as I think I am, I finally figured it out. Nobody listens to me. As interesting as you think you are, nobody listens to you.”

“But, I’m the boss! They have to listen to me.”

“Gordon, you have a kid at home, right? Do you, as the parent, have the authority, at dinner, to demand that broccoli be eaten?”

Gordon sat up. “Well, yes I do.”

“But your kid has the power to determine whether broccoli will, in fact, be eaten.”

Where is Engineering?

Leave a reply

“Where is engineering?” Sam repeated.

“They never come to this meeting,” Mary replied. “They said it wasn’t a good use of their time, that all we ever talk about is production schedules and complain about the status of our catch levers. They do send someone to this meeting about once a month, but they never say anything, except that they are working on the catch levers.”

Mark, from marketing spoke up. “I do remember them saying they had just about fixed the problem with the catch levers and wanted to talk to marketing about some new packaging, because the new catch levers are going to require a bigger box.”

Larry, from legal, piped in. Larry was always playing on his iPhone during these meetings. “I think I found the name of the company that is competing with our unit. They are located on the west coast, with a distribution hub about 50 miles from here. The Google map of their distribution hub looks like a warehouse with some trucks in the yard. Big trucks. No wonder we didn’t know about them. But, here’s the thing, they have a patent filing on…it looks like our unit, but without catch levers. Their patent is on a sealed unit that doesn’t open.”

Sam surveyed the room. “Thirty days ago, this company was hitting on all cylinders. Every department was spinning perfect. Our marketing click rates were up, sales were increasing, production throughput was stellar, inventory was moving, returns were normal. Every silo in this company was performing as designed. Except for the catch levers. How did we miss that? Where is engineering?”

The Hidden System Defect

Leave a reply

“So, you all agree on a path forward,” Sam continued. “This is your problem to solve. We have everyone in the room. Marketing, sales, customer service, production and accounting.”

Marketing began. “We are very proud of our pay-per-click ad campaign. We are delivering more leads at a lower cost than last year and total marketing costs are under budget.”

Marketing went on to highlight the improvements made in targeting specific demographics, especially families and adults seeking services like dentistry. By focusing on local searches and refining the clinic’s online presence, they ensured the right patients were seeing the right message at the right time. Conversions from online inquiries to actual appointments saw a notable increase, confirming the effectiveness of this refined strategy.

To bolster their digital footprint further, the team had recently partnered with The Dental SEO Group, a specialist agency in optimizing dental websites for search visibility. With this collaboration, the practice saw better placement on local search results, more traffic to their service pages, and a measurable uptick in organic leads—patients who were actively looking for dental solutions and ready to book.

Sales stepped up. “We have more leads, but our closing ratio is down, way down.”

Production was next. “We know that sales are sluggish. We had finished goods back up on the production floor, so we had to find room to store the excess inventory. Lucky, we found on old warehouse that the real estate group was trying, unsuccessfully, to sell. They were happy we took it off their hands, so that’s where we put the inventory.”

Accounting, always cheery, gave the next report. “Yes, putting that warehouse back in service helped our balance sheet, eliminated a non-performing asset. We saw our holding costs on the inventory were going up, but, that is to be expected if sales are sluggish.”

“There is still a problem,” Sam declared. “Individually, you all, each of you is doing a good job in your respective departments, and I am glad that I didn’t see any finger-pointing. And, we still have a problem. Sales are still sluggish.”

Customer service, Mary, who had been quiet the whole time, finally spoke up. “I was looking over our customer satisfaction surveys yesterday, in preparation for this meeting. We have been getting EXCELLENT responses, especially in our return department. The problem is, we have triple the responses, meaning we have triple the returns. So, in addition to sluggish sales, our product returns are up.”

Sam probed, “And? Why do people say they are returning?”

Mary nodded. “I know this sounds silly, but our customers are saying they found a substitute product with higher quality from another company. And, its a company I never heard of before. We have always had a problem with one of our catch levers, it’s been our biggest customer complaint. This new product doesn’t have any catch levers. It’s designed differently.”

It was Sam’s turn to nod. “So, our sluggish sales and inventory problem looks like it may be a design problem. Why isn’t anyone in here from engineering?”

Team Accountability and Integration

Leave a reply

The conference room was comfortable. New leather chairs and a marble top. Nothing like success to create a little overhead.

Sam had assembled a cast of the brightest minds in the company. Marketing was represented, sales, customer service, production and accounting. Everyone looked armed with official looking reports, charts and graphs, ready to defend the slightest attack.

Sam was good. He wasn’t looking for a scapegoat. He knew the problem wasn’t from someone being lazy, or even a wrong decision. He knew it was more likely that the organization’s system needed some attention.

He began by explaining what he had observed, and asked each member to accurately report the real figures behind the events. Unfortunately, four weeks worth of excess finished goods had translated into an eight-week inventory turn. Something had put the brakes on the market.

“So, take a piece of paper,” Sam began, “and write down your condition of engagement for this meeting? What has to happen in the next two hours that will indicate time well spent?”

It was not Sam’s intention to figure out the solution to this problem. It was Sam’s intention to have the group figure out the solution to this problem.

The responses from the team were positive.

  • We have to agree on the purpose. We have to agree on what we are trying to achieve. We have to agree on the goal.
  • We have to agree on what actions we will take. We have to agree on the coordination and interdependencies of those actions. This has to be a period of cooperation.
  • We have to agree on what results we are looking for. We have to agree on what measures we will collect and analyze. We have to agree to raise the flag when something doesn’t look right, not to bury our statistics in a warehouse.

Most importantly, this was no longer Sam’s problem. This problem now belonged to the group.