Board of Advisors

December 19, 2006

I started up my Board of Advisors this week. Of the 5 people whom I looked at as potential candidates I talked to all five this week and four agreed to be on my board. Which was a great response rate. I had talked to the 4 prior to my meetings this week so they knew what to expect. The 5th declined on account of begin to busy to be able to help.

So I guess the first lesson is that if you ask someone to be on your board they may say no. Hopefully that person will be able to say ‘no’ in a dignified manner that does not make it look like you were dumb to ask. Incidentally if you are asked to be on a Board, or informal advisor to an Associate and do not have the time please don’t bite the Associate’s head off. It takes some courage on the part of the Associate to ask and a negative reaction from a potential Advisor may sour them on the whole process.

As preparation for each meeting I prepared a set of slides that:

  • Described the expectations of the Advisor
  • Outlined the goals I set for myself for the next 3 years
  • Who the Board members were
  • Strengths and Weaknesses as they related to my job and area(s) to improve

Each meeting was conducted one-on-one with each Advisor and the slides helped to provoke discussion and areas to focus the Advisor and me over the next 6 months. Each meeting lasted between 30-60 minutes.

The 2nd lesson I learned, was that the perspective that others have on what you perceive as a weaknesses was the most interesting part of the first meeting. Sometimes what you think is a weakness can be a hidden strength and listening to others describe why can be invigorating. The goal in addressing a weakness is not to make you into a rock star in that area but to at least be competent or improve your self confidence in that specific area so you can focus on improving in other areas where you can excel and differentiate yourself.

The results of the meetings generated some tasks for me to help address areas that the Advisor and myself could work on. This included some research into classes available as well as looking for specific measurable goals for the Advisor and myself to track.

Also, the 3rd lesson I learned, is that the Advisors will want to know about each other, I did not elect to have a group meeting to start since between myself and the Advisors we live in 5 different states and work for 3 different companies so finding a mutual time would have delayed things. However at the end of all my meetings I did send out a summary email to all of the Advisors that summarized the meetings and gave some background on each Advisor. They agreed to be mentioned on this blog so they may check here for additional info.

Advertisements

McClelland Follow Up

December 4, 2006

Well I finished reading the HBR OnPoint collection on Power: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The first article was written by David McClelland and David Burnham called Power Is the Great Motivator. I skipped the second article as it didn’t apply to my situation ( now or in the next 2-3 years). Skimmed the 3rd article, but really wanted to focus on the McClelland & Burnham article.

Overview

Its based on their research and uses McClelland’s assertion that people are motivated in three ways (as discussed on my last post) 1)Power, 2)Affiliation and 3)Achievement. Using these three archetypes as a basis, McClelland and Burnham breakdown managers into one of three categories 1)Affiliative Managers, 2) Personal Power Managers and 3) Institutional Managers. The two Davids utilized a workshop format using interviews, stories and questionnaires, compared the participants to national norms, interviewed the managers subordinates. The subordinates were asked to rank their managers on 6 areas:

  1. Amount of conformity to the rules their supervisor requires
  2. Amount of responsibility they feel they are given
  3. Emphasis department places on standards of performance
  4. Degree of rewards for good work vs punishment for bad work
  5. Organizational clarity in the office
  6. Team spirit

The Davids were looking for managers that scored highest morale scores based on (5&6). They also point out the stages a manager moves through as he/she matures from 1)Dependant on others, 2) Interested in autonomy, 3) Interested in manipulating others and finally 4) serve others selflessly. The pool was 500 managers from 25 US corporations.

The classification of a manager into one of the three archetypes closely followed McClelland’s work on motivation. The Affiliative manager was deemed the worst type of manager as they would work to have everyone like them at the expense of the corporation and team members. The Personal Power manager, was given higher marks for personal accomplishment and ability to be productive, but did little to inspire those around them and build a team. Lastly the Institutional Managers were those that sought power not just for the sake of imposing their will on others, but to further the corporation’s goals. They also acted in a democratic way when possible and attempted to help those around them first but not at the expense of the corporation’s goals. The Davids also believed that it was possible for a manager to change if they put in the time and effort and tracked their efforts along the way.

My Analysis

So what does this all mean to you an me? I think there are some basic elements you must possess in order to begin to be a good manager.

  1. Want to improve and seek out ways to improve yourself
  2. Want to help others achieve their own goals
  3. Derive gratification from doing good
  4. Willing to listen to others
  5. Understand that it will take time (perhaps on the order of 10 years)

With these elements as a foundation I believe one can then start to apply and incorporate some of the traits and methods that the Davids point out in the Institutional Manager archetype. Specifically:

  • You must seek power, but use it in a non-dictatorial fashion for the purposes of helping those around you achieve their goals and achieve the corporations goals.
  • You must be willing to inhibit your own desires and put others and the corporate goals ahead of your own.
  • Be democratic and try to coach their subordinates to achieve individually and as a team.

So while I have never sought higher management, I think that in order to become a proficient KM practitioner, one must be able to help others achieve their own goals, find out what motivates others and build the environment to respond to these motives. To be successful at KM, it would appear that the same characteristics of an Institutional Manager would apply equally. That means I have a long road ahead of me.


Motivation

December 2, 2006

I recently had a conversation with a colleague at work about personal motivation. What exactly motivated him and in general what motivates others? He mentioned that in his past he had taken a class that broke down motivation into three categories; Power, Affiliation and Achievement. I did some searching on the web, and I think he was refering to David McClelland’s research into motivational thinking. He proposed that human motivation fell into one of these three categories. Specifically:

  • Power Motive: Individuals who are motivated by power, seek out circumstances that provide influence, control and impact over others. They derive a great deal of satisfaction from being perceived as leaders and like to draw attention to themselves.
  • Affiliation Motive: These individuals seek out mutual friendships; they seek to develop and work hard to maintain close, warm relationships. They avoid conflict and will try to build consensus at all times.
  • Achievement Motive: These individuals will seek to differentiate themselves from others by showing that their efforts and results are superior to those of their peers. Such individuals take personal responsibility for their performance and strive to do better than anyone else.

McClelland also wrote a book Human Motivation in 1988 which I have not read but is now on my ever expanding reading list. I’ve also started reading a paper based on McMclelland’s work by Laura Schmidt and Irene Hanson Frieze from the University of Pittsburg. There was also a Harvard Business Review OnTopic series that included an article by Mr. McClelland, which I shall be reading this weekend.

From an initial look, if I were to put myself into a category I think I am motivated by Affliation, at least from a professional point of view. I do find I am motivated to somewhat by the other two motives, but to a much less degree.

What motivates you?

I’ll revisit this topic after my readings.