Chapter 2 of L. David Marquet’s book, Leadership is Language: The Hidden Power of What You Say – and What You Don’t continues to make the case for changing how people work. In the knowledge economy, we need a different perspective than in the industrial age. Chapter 2, while drawing on the story of the El Faro, makes the case in a more general sense. The chapter ends by listing the six plays in the new playbook.
There are several tactical ideas that struck me during my reading of this chapter.
The first was the phenomenon of overclaiming. One of the best pieces of advice I received when I got married was from my Aunt Patty. She told me that marriage was not 50/50. Rather, both people had put in 60% of the effort. I am not sure I got it then, but I understand now. The issue is we are aware of our own efforts. Our effort is visible to us, not necessarily to anyone else. The distribution of effort might be 50/50 (or less) but it will never feel that way. This concept translates into teams and organizations. The outcome does not warrant people taking more credit. In workplaces using individual job appraisals, overclaiming is a survival technique. Individual appraisals clash with a team-first perspective. Doesn’t it make sense to play up your own contribution? Hence, individual performance appraisals reinforce overclaiming. This is not a new problem. W Edward Deming’s 14 Points for Management states “Eliminate Management by Objectives”. Deming published Out of the Crisis in 1982. Shifting to organization design and language to a team-first approach is one solution. A team-first approach blunts the friction of overclaiming.
Note: Out of the Crisis is one of the most important books on leadership and process improvement. Buy or find a copy and READ IT. Don’t believe me? Marquet references Deming 21 times in this book.
An aside: Out of the Crisis is still 43 years later one of the most important books on leadership and process improvement. Buy or find a copy and READ IT. Don’t believe me, Marquet references Deming 21 times in this book.
The second, also near the front of the chapter is the problem caused by ‘discuss and vote’ decision making. This type of decision-making is an industrial approach that it makes it easier for people with power to lean in. This ubiquitous form of decision-making is fraught with problems. First, is the Wisdom of the Loud. This is a sticky way of saying that the person who dominates the conversation introduces a bias that lowers the independence of team members. Lower independence means poorer decisions. I recently participated in a facilitated team self-assessment. The ratings the team was working toward in each area used a 1 – 5 rating. When the team leader spoke first everyone immediately agreed with them. The TL introduced a bias in the conversation. Second, immediately jumping to a discussion can freeze out less aggressive people so the team hears fewer options. This occurred on the El Faro and we know how that turned out. Marquet suggested a solution which I call diverge and merge. For example, in the assessment mentioned above, it would be better to have everyone write down their rating first. Then expose them all at once. This is like planning poker. This approach exposes a diversity of opinion rather than surprising it. Reflecting on meetings I have participated in, correcting the simple pattern of “discuss and vote” will reap huge benefits.
The third area in the chapter is the distinction between doing and thinking. One of the fixtures of the industrial age is the separation of labor and management. Marquet uses red work and blue work – in Tom speak, this means doers and thinkers. Managers make decisions and everyone else executes. I have been a Teamster and a rubber worker, both union jobs. I have a neighbor who was an autoworker. When we get together you might hear terms like “rank and file,” foreman, and management. We did the jobs as instructed and we did them by the book. Management frowned upon variability and initiative. If we had an idea, there was a suggestion box.
Most jobs are better thought of as some mixture of thinking and doing. Thinking needs variability and diversity of thought to generate solutions. The interaction of ideas generates innovation and helps to adjust to changing conditions. Doing does better with less variability. Consider how much fun life would be if the tech stack you were coding for was continually changing. In knowledge work, thinking and doing need to be balanced. Shifting between thinking and doing is a skill for maximizing outcomes. The industrial-age company suppresses variability and diversity in thinking and doing. Fixing this problem is a mixture of reeducation and organizational redesign. Organizations design the hierarchical structure for doing, not for thinking. Executives make decisions and middle and front-line managers focus on generating alignment. This issue leads us back to Commander’s Intent (from Turn Your Ship Around). Stating intent allows thinking and decision-making to flow down the hierarchy.
The Agile Manifesto and the frameworks change the relationship between doing and thinking. The distinction between doer and thinker has to change or we will have gained nothing. The central thread in Leadership is Language is the impact of language. The words we use, the questions we ask either enforce this way of thinking or help to break it down. Listen to the words that get used in a retrospective after a tough increment. Are we asking what went wrong or are we asking what can we do better? Too subtle? Are we focused on proving and protecting ourselves or improving?
Chapter Two ends with the list of 6 plays for the New Playbook. We will start on the six in Chapter 3.
An experiment: On pages 40-41 Marquet states, “Thinking about something, even making decisions, without committing to action to test your ideas will not result in learning. Nor will the mindless activity of complying with the instructions of others.”
Part 1
- Pick a meeting and listen to the decisions that are made.
- Is the language used to commit those decisions to be implemented? If not, how can you influence the conversation so they are?
Part 2
- Are you giving instructions with the expectation of rote compliance?
- Can you change the language so that you invite thinking and doing?
Previous installments of our re-read of Language Is Leadership
Week 1: Logistics, Introduction, Foreword – https://bit.ly/3sTqyu3 Week 2: El Faro – https://bit.ly/3RnkUue
