You must have heard this from somewhere, that in any change initiatives,  there will always be losers and winners. But this is not as clear-cut as we think this to be. With varying degrees of complexity, everyone can be  in the same page on issues but with different positions approaching solutions.

Problem-centric people try to diagnose the problem and beat it until it's blue in the face. 
Solutions-centric people deny the magnitude of the problem and want to jump straight to solutions.
Radical change leaders want to overthrow the whole organization from bottom to top.
While the incrementalists are taking their sweet time to effect changes.

These are stereotypes and the binary of losers and winners, if you still have that perspective in your organization is very 60s. Champion a win-win approach to any substantial changes in the organization. Yes, there will be groups that will be mostly affected and mitigation should be front-and-centre and not an afterthought. 

I just recently observed a massive transformation in a large organization. When asked, middle managers don't know what's actually going on. The top executives will gladly do a rodeo on each unit/department, taking the most expensive, yet direct route to engagement. What about these middle managers who can act as natural bridge between those at the top and those at the bottom? What about these natural spokespersons and representatives of specific groups, are they engaged in a way that ensures change outcomes are retained in the best way? 

People will believe in the change based on what they see, not on what your Townhall proclaims. 
​

In an imperfect world with stifling budget and ever-expanding mandate, you might be tempted to roll your sleeve more and work harder. Before you do that, check all the value and motivation-destroying activities you engage, see instituted, or passed off as necessary. 

1. Bureaucracy. Too much paper-shifting, oversight, approvals. I saw this in my former life as a municipal staff and very draining. 

2. Failure work. Countless rewriting and re-editing, and asking for countless validation. Let's define what's needed and stop repeating the process. 

3. Overreach. It's good to say you're inclusive and highly participatory, but overdoing it, doesn't add to another inch of impact. 

4. Not communicating well. Setting clear expectations and being mindful of interpretations from different stakeholders matter. It's a preventative measure you can start with. 

Ask these questions now in your organization. Reframe the assumptions and received thinking around them. Provoke new ways of doing things. It's your work, it's your life. 

I heard this comment a few years ago, from a supervisor commenting on an employee having "too much fun" outside work, vacations in Mexico and booking up more in the next few months. The supervisor saw a rejuvenated, well-tanned staff beaming with optimism and joie de vivre. What's wrong with that picture?

What this means I conjure is that too much fun outside work means there is misery in the workplace for the supervisor, the staff, and probably within the department. God knows who else is not having fun there.

On the other hand, this statement should be read backwards. Nobody now wants drudgery in work. If you are miserable in your job and continue to stay on for the paycheck, your wasting your life, which has a limit. Statistically speaking, Canadians live up to only a certain age and then life goes downhill. And if you're a slaving as a supervisor, that's not supervision and not management, either. 

For those who are refugees from working in organizations like me, I do not miss this arrangement. I'd rather be doing something that feeds my soul, puts money in my wallet, and lets me sleep good at night. 

The future of work is all about fun, flexibility, and autonomy in the workplace. There is a high degree of challenge and complexity but also independence and the ability to use one's judgement in the interests of the organization. The reason people quit their job is because of their boss not because of the job itself. 
The staff resigned after a few months. No surprise there. 

If you're having too much fun at work, that is a good sign. How much is too much is up to you!

I was in a conversation a few weeks ago for about 15 minutes, the quickest business call I had on Zoom.

When the conversation started to veer away from the unstated and unspoken main agenda, I tried to put it back to where the 'meat' is so both our needs are met by reframing and reorganizing the discussion. 

After 15 minutes, with bluntness allowed, we got through a common understanding and with some laughter. We didn't get to determining a follow-up, but a positive rapport created a desire to talk again. A stranger became a friendly acquaintance. 

The biggest lesson is to reframe a scenario right where you are, when you know it can quickly deteriorate and leave you thinking what just happened. 

Do you know that we can frame everything based on our perception of value? We talked differently with bosses, our peers, our stakeholders, our partners, and investors. The frame becomes the shape that controls the kind of relationship and transaction that comes after, as in building a house or a ship.

Re-framing is essential for busy executives with enough work but limited time for the mundane. Seize the moment, identify your musts, and never feel that you need to subordinate your need. That way, you don't have to repeat the scene in your mind post-mortem.

A few years ago, when I was jumpstarting my practice again, I attended a local community organization's meeting made up of different providers for networking and to get to know the burning issues of the day. One lady questioned my presence and intimated that I might be in a 'wrong meeting' because am in the consulting business. Presumably, she thought that their group should not be a 'target' of my marketing.

Like in  many of professions,  as a professional and a person, we come with many hats. Because I was seen as the 'consultant' ready to take their monies and hard-earned budget, I got an inquisition. But if you come with an open mind, a consultant can be a guide, an expert, another connector, and could be an ardent supporter just like any other individual. I can also write a cheque if I want to!

How come organizations suffer from myopic perspectives and ill-thought actions? Because they insulate themselves from outside voices and perspectives that can actually enrich their work and challenge their assumptions. Within the confines of the comfortable existence, a few of them dare to venture to reach out or be accessed by people marginal to their operational logics. Innovation is relaxing controls and embracing the creative diversities from resources and talent around you. 

Don't be too quick to say no to people from unlikely origins, with backgrounds different from yours just because of the prejudices and biases against/for these people. There is always a treasure hidden behind a job title or a strange name or a weird hairdo. If you dismiss these people arbitrarily, you're literally leaving money on the table. For a non-profit, this attitude is suicidal. 

Be open to possibilities and be surprised with your findings. 

How many organizations in the on-purpose sector are scrambling to get the best member? 

You want the world to know your impact. 
You want the world to see you've made these dents and about to accomplish more.
You are innovative and leading the way for others. 
You need great members. 

A newly minted organization is asking itself what is the best positioning in a world where competition for belonging, attention, and value is high and unyielding. When talented people are redesigning their lives versus to fit and to belong to just anything. When time outside work and family is precariously limited.

To get the best you need to be the most differentiated or at least try to be. 
Ask yourself, what's the driving force behind your differentiation?  
Don't just be different from the mold, create a new paradigm. 
Ask them, what affiliation would best meet their needs?
Don't just provide the obvious and standard. Raise the bar. 
Educate the public. Educate your network. Educate your team. 

If what you want to be doesn't excite or scare you. Rinse and repeat.

We are all buyers, clients, customers for various goods and services. Recently, I encountered three vendors for the service I would like to get. The three vendors operated in various ways to get the sale.

The first one was the patient type and to a certain extent, the friend of the customer. He was understanding, knew his products very well, and listened intently. He was there at every stage of the process. During the final negotiation, he presented a impossible barrier for the customer to decide to buy from him. He wanted an upfront payment for the preliminary assessment so that he would know what solutions he can offer!

The second one was also helpful in the beginning. When it was time to get serious, he pedaled back, wanting to build a more trusting relationship with the customer. He wanted to prolong this 'trust stage' so he would know that the customer will surely buy from him. Instead of presenting the most credible solution and addressing the need of the buyer, he wanted to 'test' the buyer first!

The third one was a non-nonsense vendor. He stated his methods, prices, and his approach to the solutions. But at the earliest stage, he started criticizing the customer for the state of his affairs. He was also saying that after he was done with him, expect that there will be more work (costs) to be done. His contract was one-sided, all provisions pointed to his risk mitigation. 

All these three vendors were successful in helping the buyer not to buy from them. Their perspectives were self-centered- to protect themselves at all costs. Instead of helping solve a need upfront, they relied on their tactics and methods that backfired. 

Contrast to this one vendor. He didn't care about the trusting process, the 'fit' between customer and vendor,  stated his methods and explained his fees. He was consistent, on-the-ball, and no drama. When the customer talked to him, he was assured, well-versed, and credible. He didn't promise the moon but the way he would approach the project was reassuring. The rest of the process was smooth and unencumbered. 

A trusting relationship is critical to any sale. But forcing the trusting relationship by rigging it do not serve the transaction. Building trust is about serving the needs of the client now (when he/she is talking to yo) and being consistent throughout all the stages of the sale. 

Is your process, communication, and projection pro-customer or pro-self-preservation?