Shipulski On Design

Posts Tagged ‘Fear’

For the past two decades, I’ve actively developed engineering leaders.  A good friend asked me how I do it, so I took some time to write it down.  Here is the curriculum in the form of How Tos:

How to build trust.  This is the first thing.  Always.  Done right, the trust-based informal networks are stronger than the formal organization chart. Done right, the informal networks can protect the company from bad decisions.  Done right, the right information flows among the right engineers at the right time so the right work happens in the right way.

How to decide what to do next. This is a broad one.  We start with a series of questions: What are we doing now?  What’s the problem? How do you know? What should we do more of?  What should we do less of?  What resources are available? When must we be done?

How to map the current state.  We don’t define the idealized future state or the North Star, we start with what’s happening now.  We make one-page maps of the territory.  We use drawings, flow charts, boxes/arrows, and the fewest words. And we take no action before there’s agreement on how things are.  The value of GPS isn’t to define your destination, it’s to establish your location.  That’s why we map the current state.

How to build momentum. It’s easy to jump onto a moving steam train, but a stationary one is difficult to get moving.  We define the active projects and ask – How might we hitch our wagon to a fast-moving train?

How to start something new. We start small and make a thought-provoking demo.  The prototype forces us to think through all the elements, makes things real, and helps others understand the concept. If that doesn’t work, we start smaller.

How to define problems so we can solve them easily. We define problems with blocks and arrows, and limit ourselves to one page.  The problem is defined as a region of contact between two things, and we identify it with the color red.  That helps us know where the problem is and when it occurs. If there are two problems on a page, we break it up into two pages with one problem.  Then we decide to solve the problem before, during, or after it occurs.

How to design products that work better and cost less. We create Pareto charts of the cost of the existing product (cost by subassembly and cost by part) and set a cost reduction goal.  We create Pareto charts of the part count of the existing product (part count by subassembly and part count by individual part number) and define a goal for part count reduction.  We define test protocols that capture the functionality customers care about. We test the existing product and set performance improvement goals for the new one.  We test the new product using the same protocols and show the data in a simple A-B format. We present all this data at formal design reviews.

How to define technology projects. We define how the customer does their work.  We then define the evolutionary history of our products and services, and project that history forward.  For lines of goodness with trajectories that predict improvement, we run projects to improve them.  For lines of goodness with stalled trajectories, we run projects to establish new technologies and jump to the next S-curve.  We assess our offerings for completeness and create technologies to fill the gap.

How to file the right patents.  We ask these questions: How quickly will the customer notice the new functionality or benefit? Once recognized, will they care? Will the patent protect high-volume / high-margin consumables? There are more questions, but these are the ones we start with.  And the patent team is an integral part of the technology reviews and product development process.

How to do the learning.   We start with the leader’s existing goals and deliverables and identify the necessary How Tos to get their work done. There are no special projects or extra work.

If you’re interested in learning more about the curriculum or how to enroll, send me an email mike@shipulski.com.

Image credit — Paul VanDerWerf

To be more effective at a meeting, take the time to dissect the meeting agenda and details.

Who called the meeting?  If the CEO calls the meeting, you know your role. And you know your role if a team member calls the meeting.  Knowledge of the organizer helps you understand your role in the meeting.

Who is invited to the meeting?  If you are the only one invited, it’s a one-on-one meeting.  You know there will be dialogue and back-and-forth discussion.  If there are fifty people invited, you know it will be a listening meeting. And if all the company leaders are invited, maybe you should dress up a bit.

What is the sequence of the invitees? Who is first on the invite list?

Who is not invited to the meeting?  This says a lot, but takes a little thought to figure out what it says.

How long is the meeting? A fifteen-minute daily standup meeting is informal but usually requires a detailed update on yesterday’s progress.  An all-day meeting means you’ve got to pace yourself and bring your coffee.

Is lunch served?  The better the lunch, the more important the meeting.  And it’s the same for snacks.

Is the meeting in-person or remote?  In-person meetings are more important and more impactful.

If pre-read material is sent out two days before the meeting, the organizer is on their game.  If the pre-read material is sent out three minutes before the meeting, it’s a different story.

If there’s no agenda, it means the organizer isn’t all that organized.  Skip these meetings if you can.  But if you can’t, bring your laptop and be ready to present your best stuff.  If no one asks you to talk, keep quiet and listen.  If you’re asked to present, present something if you can.  And if you can’t, say you’re not ready because the topic was not included in the agenda.

The best agendas define the topics, the leader of each topic, and the time blocks.

All these details paint a picture of the upcoming meeting and help you know what to expect.  When you know what to expect will enable you to hear the things that aren’t said and the discussions that don’t happen.

When the group avoids talking about the charged topic or the uncomfortable situation, you’ll recognize it.  And because you know who called the meeting, the attendees, and the meeting context, you’ll help the group discuss what needs to be discussed.  You’ll know when to ask a seemingly innocent question to help the group migrate to the right discussion.  And you’ll know when it’s okay to put your hand up and tell the group they’re avoiding an important topic that should be discussed.

Anyone can follow the agenda, but it takes preparation, insight, awareness, and courage to help the group address the important but uncomfortable things not on the agenda.

Image credit — Joachim Dobler

When your idea is new, it (and you) will be misunderstood.  I urge you to see the misunderstanding as a vote of confidence.  Keep going.

When your position contradicts the mainstream, say it anyway.  They’ll appreciate your honesty and courage if you work at a good company.  If you work at a bad company, they’ll probably try to run you out of town.  Either way, you’ll know what kind of company you’re working for.

Change is difficult when the Status Quo has been successful for a long time.  Success will block your new idea because there’s no need for it.  Working on your new idea pulls resources away from the Status Quo’s initiatives, and the Status Quo will have none of that.  Don’t take its wrath personally.  That’s how the Status Quo goes about its business.

When your new idea is young, it is too fragile to be justified in an ROI sense.  Shelter it from the Accounting Police.

Your new idea isn’t right.  It starts the journey as one thing, and as the journey progresses, it will transform into something better.  This is how it goes with new ideas.

Without a new idea, you’ll do what you did last time. That’s no way to live.

If no one complains, your idea isn’t new.  You missed the mark.

If some complain but none are threatened, it’s not new enough. Try harder.

Image credit – denisben

Anyone can create a presentation with thirty slides, but it takes a rare bird to present for thirty minutes with a single slide.

With thirty slides you can fully describe the system.  With one slide you must know what’s important and leave the rest.  With thirty slides you can hide your lack of knowledge.  With one slide it’s clear to all that you know your stuff, or you don’t.

With one slide you’ve got to know all facets of the topic so you can explain the interactions and subtleties on demand.  With thirty slides you can jump to the slide with the answer to the question. That’s one of the main reasons to have thirty slides.

It’s faster to create a presentation with thirty slides than a one-slide presentation.  The thirty slides might take ten hours to create, but it takes decades of experience and study to create a one-slide presentation.

If you can create a hand sketch of the concept and explain it for thirty minutes, you will deliver a dissertation.  With a one-slide-per-minute presentation, that half hour will be no more than a regurgitation.

Thirty slides are a crutch.  One slide is a masterclass.

Thirty slides – diluted.  One slide – distilled.

Thirty slides – tortuous.  One slide – tight.

Thirty slides – clogged.  One slide – clean.

Thirty slides – convoluted.  One slide – clear.

Thirty slides – sheet music.  One slide – a symphony.

With fewer slides, you get more power points.

With fewer slides, you get more discussion.

With fewer slides, you show your stuff more.

With fewer slides, you get to tell more stories.

With fewer slides, you deliver more understanding.

If you delete half your slides your presentation will be more effective.

If you delete half your slides you’ll stand out.

If you delete half your slides people will remember.

If you delete half your slides the worst outcome is your presentation is shorter and tighter.

Why not reduce your slides by half and see what happens?

And if that goes well, why not try it with a single slide?

I have never met a presentation with too few slides.

Image credit — NASA Goddard

Before you can make improvements, you must identify improvement opportunities.

Before you can identify improvement opportunities, you must look for them.

Before you can look for improvement opportunities, you must believe improvement is possible.

Before believing improvement is possible, you must admit there’s a need for improvement.

Before you can admit the need for improvement, you must recognize the need for improvement.

Before you can recognize the need for improvement, you must feel dissatisfied with how things are.

Before you can feel dissatisfied with how things are, you must compare how things are for you relative to how things are for others (e.g., competitors, coworkers).

Before you can compare things for yourself relative to others, you must be aware of how things are for others and how they are for you.

Before you can be aware of how things are, you must be calm, curious, and mindful.

Before you can be calm, curious, and mindful, you must be well-rested and well-fed.  And you must feel safe.

What choices do you make to be well-rested? How do you feel about that?

What choices do you make to be well-fed? How do you feel about that?

What choices do you make to feel safe? How do you feel about that?

Image credit — Philip McErlean

People try to diminish when they’re threatened.

People are threatened when they think you’re more capable than they are.

When they think less of themselves, they see you as more capable.

There you have it.

When someone doesn’t do what they say and you bring it up to them, there are two general responses. If they forget, they tell you and apologize.  If they don’t have a good reason, they respond defensively.

When someone responds defensively, it means they know what they did.

They respond defensively when they know what they did and don’t like what it says about them.

Defensiveness is an admission of guilt.

Defensiveness is an acknowledgment that the ego was bruised.

Defensiveness is a declaration self-worth is insufficient.

People can either stand down or turn it up when defensiveness is called by name.

When people stand down, they demonstrate they have what it takes to own their behavior.

When they turn it up, they don’t.

When people turn their defensiveness into aggressiveness, they’re unwilling to own their behavior because doing so violates their self-image. And that’s why they’re willing to blame you for their behavior.

When you tell someone they didn’t do what they said and they acknowledge their behavior, praise them.  Tell them they displayed courage. Thank them.

When you call someone on their defensiveness and they own their behavior, compliment them for their truthfulness.  Tell them their truthfulness is a compliment to you. Tell them their truthfulness means you are important to them.

When you call someone on their defensiveness and they respond aggressively, stand tall. Recognize they are threatened and stand tall.  Recognize they don’t like what they did and they don’t have what it takes (in the moment) to own their behavior. And stand tall.  When they try to blame you, tell them you did nothing wrong. Tell them it’s not okay to try to blame you for their behavior. And stand tall.

It’s not your responsibility to teach them or help them change their behavior.  But it is your responsibility to stay in control, to be professional, and to protect yourself.

When you stand tall, it means you know what they’re doing.  When you stand tall, it means it’s not okay to behave that way.  When you stand tall, it means you are comfortable describing their behavior to those who can do something about it.  When you continue to stand tall, you make it clear there is nothing they can do to prevent you from standing tall.

In the future, they may behave defensively and aggressively with others, but they won’t behave that way with you.  And maybe that will help others stand tall.

Image credit — Johan Wieland

If you got what you wanted, what would you do?

Would you be happy or would you want something else?

Wanting doesn’t have a half-life.  Regardless of how much we have, wanting is always right there with us lurking in the background.

Getting what you want has a half-life. After you get what you want, your happiness decays until what you just got becomes what you always had.  I think they call that hedonistic adaptation.

When you have what you always had, you have two options.  You can want more or you can want what you have.  Which will you choose?

When you get what you want, you become afraid to lose what you got.  There’s no free lunch with getting what you want.

When you want more, I can manipulate you. I wouldn’t do that, but I could.

When you want more your mind lives in the future where it tries to get what you want.  And lives in the past where it mourns what you did not get or lost.

It’s easier to live in the present moment when you want what you have. There’s no need to craft a plan to get more and no need to lament what you didn’t have.

You can tell when a person wants what they have.  They are kind because there’s no need to be otherwise.  They are calm because things are good.  And they are themselves because they don’t need anything from anyone.

Wanting what you have is straightforward.  Whatever you have, you decide that’s what you want. It’s much different than having what you want.  Once you have what you want hedonistic adaptation makes you want more, and then it’s time to jump back on the hamster wheel.

Wanting what you have is freeing.  Why not choose to be free and choose to want what you have?

Image credit — Steven Guzzardi

When in doubt, put it out there.  Easy to say, difficult to do.

Why not give it a go?  What’s in the way? A better question: Who is in the way?  I bet that who is you.

I’ve heard the fear of failure blocks people from running full tilt into new territory. Maybe.  But I think the fear of success is the likely culprit.

If you go like hell and it doesn’t work, the consequences of failure are clear, immediate, and short-lived.  It’s like skinning your knee.  Everyone knows you went down hard and it hurts in the moment. And two days after the Band-Aid, you’re better.

If you run into the fire and succeed, the consequences are unknown, and there’s no telling when those consequences will find you. Will you be seen as an imposter? Will soar to new heights only to fail catastrophically and publicly?  Will the hammer drop after this success or the next one? There’s uncertainty at every turn and our internal systems don’t like that.

Whether it’s the fear of success or failure, I think the root cause is the same: our aversion to being judged by others. We tell ourselves stories about what people will think about us if we fail and if we succeed.  In both cases, our internal stories scratch at our self-image and make our souls bleed.  And all this before any failure or success.

I think it’s impossible to stop altogether our inner stories. But, I think it is possible to change our response to our inner stories. You can’t stop someone from calling you a dog.  But when they call a dog, you can turn around and look to see if you have a tail. And if you don’t have a tail, you can tell yourself objectively you’re not a dog.  And I think that’s a good way to dismiss our internal stories.

The next time you have an opportunity put yourself out there, listen to the stories you tell yourself. Acknowledge they’re real and acknowledge they’re not true.  They may call you a dog, but you have no tail. So, no, you’re not a dog.

You may fail or you may fail.  But the only way to find out is to put yourself out there.  Whether you fail or succeed, you don’t have a tail and you’re not a dog. So you might as well put yourself out there.

Image credit — Tambako the Jaguar

Even when there is significant disagreement, there is not 100% disagreement.

Can both sides agree breathing is good for our health?  I think so. And if so, there is less than 100% disagreement.  Now that we know agreement is possible, might we stand together on this small agreement platform and build on it?

Can both sides agree all people are important?  Maybe not.  But what if we break it down into smaller chunks?  Can we agree family is important?  Maybe.  Can we agree my family is important to me and your family is important to you?  I think so.  Now that we have some agreement, won’t other discussions be easier?

Can we agree we want the best for our families?  I think so. And even though we don’t agree on what’s best for our families, we still agree we want the best for them.  What if we focused on our agreement at the expense of our disagreement? Down the road, might this make it easier to talk to each other about what we want for our families?  Wouldn’t we see each other differently?

But might we agree on some things we want for our families?  Do both sides agree we want our families to be healthy? Do we agree we want them to be happy? Do we agree we want them to be well-fed? Do we want them to be warm and dry when the weather isn’t?  With all this agreement, might we be on the same side, at least in this space?

But what about our country?  Is there 100% disagreement here? I think not. Do we agree we want to be safe? Do we agree we want the people we care about to be safe? Do we agree we want good roads? Good bridges? Do we agree we want to earn a good living and provide for our families? It seems to me we agree on some important things about our country. And I think if we acknowledge our agreement, we can build on it.

I think there’s no such thing as 100% disagreement.  I think you and I agree on far more things than we realize.  When we meet, I will look for small nuggets of agreement.  And when I find one, I will acknowledge our agreement.  And I hope you will feel understood.  And I hope that helps us grow our agreement into a friendship built on mutual respect.  And I hope we can teach our friends to seek agreement and build on it.

I think this could be helpful for all of us.  Do you agree?

Image credit — Orin Zebest

At the start, it’s impossible to know the right thing to do, other than the right thing is to start.

If you think you should have started, but have not, the only thing in the way is you.

If you want to start, get out of your own way, and start.

And even if you’re not in the way, there’s no harm in declaring you ARE in the way and starting.

If you’re afraid, be afraid. And start.

If you’re not afraid, don’t be afraid.  And start.

If you can’t choose among the options, all options are equally good.  Choose one, and start.

If you’re worried the first thing won’t work, stop worrying, start starting, and find out.

Before starting, you don’t have to know the second thing to do.  You only have to choose the first thing to do.

The first thing you do will not be perfect, but that’s the only path to the second thing that’s a little less not perfect.

The second thing is defined by the outcome of the first. Start the first to inform the second.

If you don’t have the bandwidth to start a good project, stop a bad one.  Then, start.

If you stop more you can start more.

Starting small is a great way to start.  And if you can’t do that, start smaller.

If you don’t start, you can never finish. That’s why starting is so important.

In the end, starting starts with starting.  This is The Way.

Image credit — Claudio Marinangeli

What do you say when someone in power over you asks you to do something that violates your ethics?  Do you say yes because you know it’s that’s what they want and avoid conflict? Or do you say no because it’s unethical from your perspective?  Seems like a no-brainer, right?  A hard no, 100%.  And maybe with a violation of your ethics, it is a 100% no.  But practically, I can imagine a situation where the consequences would be dire if you lost a steady paycheck, for example, you would not be able to care for your family. Is a no to power also a no to your family?  Can you say no to power and yes to your family?

What do you say when someone with power over you asks you to do something you think is bad for the business? This one is a little tougher.  What does a yes say yes to?  Does it say you are willing to do something you think is bad for business? Does it say the person with power has better judgment? What does a yes say no to?  Does it say no to your judgment?  Does it say no to your self-worth?  What would you say no to?

What do you say when someone with power over you wants to drastically expand your responsibility without a change in compensation, authority, or title?  Is this an offer you cannot refuse?  A yes can be a yes to a desire to climb the ladder, to learn and grow, or to work more for the same pay.  A no can be a no the demotion masquerading as a promotion, to increased stress, to decreased mental and physical health, and to career growth at the company.  What would you say no to?

These contrived scenarios were created to help me talk through this yes-no business.  Any company that used the “power over” approach would drive away its best people.  I created them to make three points. Firstly, a yes to one thing is also a no to other things.  Secondly, it can be difficult to know what you are saying yes to and no to.  Thirdly, saying no can be difficult.

If you want to understand someone, watch what they say no to.

Image credit — Kjetil Rimolsrønning