This article closes the “The 4 Disciplines of Execution” series. The first one focused on presenting the 4 disciplines of execution, the second one was about how to apply the disciplines when you are a leader of leaders and the third one is about applying 4DX as a Leader of a Frontline Team.
This article is the second part of “The 4 Disciplines of Execution” series of posts. In the previous one we focused on presenting the 4 disciplines: focus on the wildly important, act on the lead measures, keep a compelling scorecard and create a cadence of accountability. This one covers how to apply these disciplines by being a leader of leaders.
When you operate using only lag measures it’s like posting the score only at the end of the game. But by then, it’s too late to change how you play your game. One of the most significant jobs as a leader is keeping score.
Activity Trap
Peter Drucker termed the “activity trap”: stressing output is the key to increasing productivity while looking to increase activity can result in just the opposite. On an assembly line, it’s easy enough to distinguish the output from activity. It gets trickier when employees are paid to think. Grove wrestled with two riddles: How can we define and measure output by knowledge workers? And what can be done to increase it?
Continue readingAfter covering Part 1: work on me first and Part 2: create safety, it is time to review how to gain commitment and move to action.
When you create enough safety, you can talk to almost anyone about almost anything. As those who are masters of accountability move from thinking to talking, and in this article you will learn how they create safety.
“Crucial Accountability” dives into the often challenging issue of addressing failed promises and unmet expectations. The book shares tools and steps for holding friends, family, and colleagues accountable for their actions, and enabling them to fulfill commitments and meet future expectations.
The two riskiest times in crucial conversations tend to be at the beginning and at the end. The beginning is risky because you have to find a way to create safety or else things go awry. The end is dicey because if you aren’t careful about how you clarify the conclusion and decisions, you can run into violated expectations later on.
While is true that you can’t force others to dialogue, you can take steps to make it safer for them to do so. After all, that’s why they’ve sought the security of silence or violence in the first place. They’re afraid that dialogue will make them vulnerable. Somehow they believe that if they engage in real conversation with you, bad things will happen to them.
When it comes to sharing touchy information, the worst alternate between bluntly dumping their ideas into the pool of meaning and saying nothing at all. Either they start with, “You’re not going to like this, but, hey, somebody has to be honest…”(a classic Fool’s Choice), or they simply stay mum.
Those who are good at dialogue say some of what’s on their minds, but they understate their views out of fear of hurting others. They talk all right, but they carefully sugarcoat their message.
The best at dialogue speak their minds completely and do it in a way that makes it safe for others to hear what they have to say and respond to it as well. They are both totally frank and completely respectful.
alin miu 