Endless Knots

TAE Radio: What Are “Virtual Teams” and How Do They Work?

My conversation yesterday on The American Entrepreneur, interviewed by David Iwinsky. We talked a lot about email, communication "lenses," the next generation of leaders, stuff...

Why I didn't (or couldn't) become an academic

Google alert set to "virtual leader" brings us to this abstract:

Without assuming that the interaction diagraph is strongly connected or contains a directed spanning tree, this paper studies the second-order leader-following consensus problem of nonlinear multi-agent systems with general network topologies. Based on graph theory, matrix theory, and LaSalle’s invariance principle, a pinning control algorithm is proposed to achieve leader-following consensus in a network of agents with nonlinear second-order dynamics. Furthermore, a pinning consensus protocol is developed for coupled double-integrators with a constant reference velocity. In particular, this paper addresses what kind of agents and how many agents should be pinned, and establishes some sufficient conditions to guarantee that all agents asymptotically follow the virtual leader. Numerical simulations are given to verify the theoretical analysis.

I think it says that everyone follows the leader, which I believe we learned in first grade. But without the numerical simulations. Here's the citation for what is certainly a brilliant paper (no offense, authors of "Second-order leader-following consensus of nonlinear multi-agent systems via pinning control").

List #358 of virtual team success factors

I don't mean to denigrate these lists -- and this one is pretty good -- but they do tend to be the same, often derived from someone else's research, or, as I've said before, come right off the top of someone's head. This one, from Carl Eidson at Wilson Learning, rests on research published in Sloan Management Review this year that reinforces our findings in our 2004 Harvard Business Review article: virtual teams can outperform their face-to-face counterparts...if they behave like grown-ups. Yes, I added that last bit. Here are Eidson's six points. All good.

1. Keep all team members in close communication.

2. Create a collaborative mindset.

3. Clarify the team’s purpose and goals.

4. Establish clear performance standards.

5. Adapt coaching strategies for distance management.

6. Celebrate milestones and successes.

What's to argue with, whether face-to-face or virtual? Let me try.

1. To stay in close communication requires a slightly different angle than "regular communication." Requires cooperative development of operating agreements, pairing off those who don't know one another, attention to time zones, holidays, cultural differences...and on and on.

2. Yes...and what precisely do you do to establish a collaborative mindset? Big topic that requires design of work that calls for collaboration and rewards it.

3. No argument at all. Clarifying purpose and goals is the first task of any successful work endeavor. How the team has access to its clarity is the key here. Online venues for updating how purpose plays out are critical to success.

4. Performance standards can't be a throwaway line for virtual teams. Because members often come from different organizations, this can become a huge challenge and negotiation among leaders. Huge.

5. Finally the issue of coaching virtual teams is showing up in nearly everything coming out. Very important. Watch for virtual leadership coaching to be developed for executives, the cutting edge of this new coaching market.

6. Celebrations are very important - but the article fails to mention that virtual celebrations may be the only alternative. Execution is the Achilles heel of intent.

GeekDoctor: Leading by clicking around

I'm doing a webcast on virtual leadership in a couple of weeks for eighty people, all situated virtually and all around the world. The link between the executive sponsoring the event and me  will be via Cisco's Telepresence -- though for everyone else, thank heavens, I won't be in high def.

In preparing for the webcast, I asked a few questions of one of my virtual leadership role models (scroll down for some great pics taken the same day this one was), John Halamka, CIO at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, whose answers I thought others would enjoy seeing:

Q: You're on the move constantly. How do you maintain strong relationships with your direct reports?

*I live by Blackberry, laptop and conferencing technologies (Webex, iChat, Telepresence)

Q: What do you find most difficult as a "virtual" leader?

*Managing communications while constantly traveling is challenging.   My goal is to reduce the hours spent in airports through more virtual work

Q. What do you find to be easier when you're virtual?

*I eliminate many hassles - Parking, traffic, airport security lines, delayed flights, and lack of places to recharge my devices

Q. In terms of your reporting to your boss, how has your non-face-to-face presence affected your relationship?

*Paul [Levy, BIDMC's CEO] is just as virtual to me - we live in the world of social networking and web connectivity

Q. What advice on maintaining virtual connections with customers do you have for others who are very tech-savvy but whose customers may be less so?

*It's a journey. Start by eliminating as many face to face meetings as you can and set a goal of less travel/less in person meetings each year.

"Voluntary Simplicity" and "The Living Universe"

By Jeff Stamps, guest blogger for Endless Knots

This is Sunday morning, a time when people in my culture are used to receiving or giving sermons on the greater meaning of life and the practical applicability of the Golden Rule ("do unto others.."). Today's modest effort has been stimulated by a recent book, The Living Universe, by an old friend, Duane Elgin, whose 1981 book, Voluntary Simplicity, still resonates almost 30 years after its publication.

Our first book came out at about the same time as Duane's. In Networking: The First Report and Directory (see our books), Jessica and I recognized networks as a new form of organization in the grassroots movements of the 1970s. In the "report" part of the book, we chronicled the emergence of groups that were to become the centers for today's nonprofit world. So we often crossed paths with Duane and soon became friends.

Duane is a big thinker and a simple liver, and has devoted a lifetime to the notion of human transformation and inspiring positive change. He was a futurist researcher with SRI International in the 1970s, and worked on a number of cutting edge projects including Changing Images of Man, a stunning report with Joseph Campbell, Willis Harmon, and O.W. Markley.

His latest book hinges on a simple question, one you can take a moment to answer yourself before you go on:

Is the universe dead or alive?

Deadness is the prevailing scientific view, a container of inert matter that is the physical layer upon which the miracle of life grows. However, most people answer quickly, intuitively--in a "blink"--that of course the thing-as-a-whole is more alive than dead.

For me, it crystallized another question to pose about human beings, which you might also answer:

Are our organizations dead or alive?

Deadness is the prevailing view. The deadness of inert matter is found in our conventional "machine model" of organizations, particularly Big Ones, and most especially government ones. Many of our friends who promote networks dismiss the physical hierarchy as an antiquated machine relic rather than an evolving human organization that is becoming more networked. Our organizations are our greatest unexploited resource for addressing the confluence of disaster, change, and opportunity that defines our transitional time, so the answer "dead or alive" really matters.

While organizations cannot live without people, they are also different from people, yet still distinctly human--and alive. Two great networks--one social, the other organizational--intersect in the interrelated configuration of jobs, positions, and roles. Together, we get stuff done that as individuals we cannot do alone (see our Working Papers for some deep diving on this theme).

GM was the epitome of the industrial model, the archetype of the impersonal machine organization. 'Nuf said with Chrysler already in bankruptcy and GM headed there shortly.

Our organizations never were machines, but regarding them as such ensures a failure to adapt and learn and grow.

So this is where The Living Universe took me. If you enjoy a mix of religious and scientific views on the how the universe lives and why it matters, you should read Duane's newest book.

Mapping the recovery - "follow the money" - part 1

AIG. Again. Let us add our voices to the outcry over the bonus scam. Outrageous. Worse than outrageous is the damage it does to the Obama agenda, particularly the still critical moves to come on the economic rescue plan, as Tom Friedman pointed out in a March 18 opinion column in the New York Times.

What to do? On the recipient side of bailout funds, it will always be difficult to get real transparency and build trust. However, on the input side, the government itself, there is a lot that can be done.

But there's something even more disturbing than the AIG bonuses themselves.

It has to do with an aspect of transparency that is getting a bit of short shrift, in our opinion. There's a lack of visibility into the clear responsibility within government for overseeing the use of so many billions, this oversight, so to speak, from no less an authority than President Obama. Jennifer Loven and Martin Crutsinger's AP story reported in today's Boston Globe quotes the president: "Nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in. We are responsible, though. The buck stops with me. And my goal is to make sure that we never put ourselves in this kind of position again."

Responsibility is the flip side of accountability, two roles in one relationship. While AIG is accountable, the government is responsible. Clarifying--making transparent--the structure of responsibility, aka the org chart (see our dynamic map of the top levels of the US Government in your browser, which takes a moment to load), is one way the government can directly increase the public's trust and govern more effectively. This is a much more direct route to developing trust, and will apply much more broadly across the multiple complex agendas of this administration.

To this point, we've written "Mapping the Recovery," another NetAge Report, this one on transparency, accountability, and responsibility particularly as they apply to tracking the recovery spending as laid out by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We are posting Part 1 today (after the break below). In this first part, we describe the network of accountability and responsibility, and how the accounting system IS NOT the organizational system, although it sort of looks like it. In the second part, which we'll post tomorrow, we  look specifically at how OMB has set up the data to track the recovery funds, how its multiple elements can be mapped, and, most important, what's missing (hint--responsibility).

-- Jeff Stamps

Transparency and open government - Obama's midnight memos

At the stroke of midnight on January 21, 2009. five "Presidential Actions" went into force (see White House press statement), establishing a clear foundation of organizing values and principles for the new Obama Administration. The "Midnight Five," with their links, are:

Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government

Presidential Memorandum on Freedom of Information Act

Executive Order on Presidential Records

Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel

Presidential Memorandum Regarding Pay Freeze

The capstone action is the one we list first, the memo on "Transparency and Open Government," a remarkable document that lays out the fundamental reason we need openness and how to achieve it. This understanding of the central role of transparency is vital at this extraordinarily critical moment in the still-accelerating economic crisis. Transparency is both necessary and beneficial. To paraphrase Judge Brandeis again, things get better with sunlight.

The president doesn't mince words in his preamble to the memo:

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

How are these open government benefits of efficiency, effectiveness, and a stronger democracy to be achieved? The memo outlines three imperatives ("shoulds"):

• Government should be transparent.
• Government should be participatory.
• Government should be collaborative.

Lest you think transparency and openness apply just to government, listen up all you leaders in organizations of every size in every sector who are feeling and dealing with desperate challenges. We can only get out of this mess by all of us being smarter and contributing to the overall solution.

We are posting the whole transparency memo after the break below, inserting in brackets words that indicate its applicability to all organizations, thus, the revised title and what follows. Please take a read and see if you might be able to endorse the same statement in your organization.

-- Jeff Stamps

Transparency and Open Governments [Organizations]

Transparency at Treasury - The case of the missing org chart

Following yesterday's post on how the Geithner bailout plan did not provide the transparency required to fill the enormous trust gap, I checked out the Treasury page on the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" (EESA) which is where "details" about the TARP program hang out. First thing to notice is that it looks broken, i.e., the entire left hand column is blank. Strange. It's been this way since this section of the Treasury site was launched in October, 2008. Otherwise, since the new administration has come in, nothing has changed. A few press releases have been added. This stands in stark contrast to the White House site, which is, shall we say, nothing like what was there before January 20.

Then I looked for the Treasury org chart. Not to be found. A review of the site map confirmed that none was listed.

Curious, I checked out the other departments. Most have the Bush-administration org charts still posted. Notably, Steven Chu, the Nobelist Secretary of Energy, has already posted an updated DOE chart. And, Arne Duncan's Dept of Education site has the most interesting interactive chart, which, because of its design, is naturallly up to date. The Treasury Department is the only agency that has no org chart at all. Curious.

When I was assembling our OrgScope map of the US Gov, Treasury's org chart was the first one I keyed in, necessary because I was mapping the network of consultants, contracts, and bailout recipients associated with EESA (which you can see in our Rescue Map). I eventually collected and keyed in all the departmental org charts, posting them together here. As a good archivist, I had the url to the (old) Treasury map here. You can click to see for yourself where that takes you now: "We're sorry...file cannot be found..."

Surely an oversight, so as a public service we offer a link from our site to what is in all likelihood exactly the same Treasury org chart today. Moreover, we have added the organizational structure of EESA to the Treasury chart in our US Gov map. (Treasury is at 11 o'clock, then go to the Deputy, then Office of Domestic Finance, from which hangs the Office of Financial Stability.)

Treasury needs to set an example of transparency itself. Remarkably, they have become less transparent than their Bush administration predecessors. Unintentionally, I'm sure. I hope.

-- Jeff Stamps

Bailout plan fails to instill trust

Where is the new thinking?

With all due respect, I (Jeff speaking) don't think Tim Geithner gets it. Nor, apparently does the market think he gets it, as the Dow began to tank (losing almost 400 points) as soon as the new Treasury Secretary started outlining his plan for economic recovery today. 

According to Stephen Labaton and Edmund Andrews's page-one piece in today's NY Times ("Geithner Said to Have Prevailed on the Bailout"), Geithner opposed placing tighter curbs on executive pay, didn't endorse directing how the banks would use the bailout money, and refused to challenge the retention of current management -- the brilliant folks who brought us this mess.

The Times article also said Geithner "expressed concern that too many government controls would discourage private investors from participating." And, the Times piece indicates that not everyone in the President's office agreed with Geithner's approach, specifically David Axelrod, who "did not deny that there were differences of opinion as the policy was being crafted or that he had taken a harder line on issues such as executive pay restrictions, as other participants to the discussions recalled."

Obviously, we are not privy to conversations in the White House but, along with millions of other Americans, we too experience the effect of every decision made regarding the economy--and thus care deeply about the choices Geithner is making.

In announcing the plan today, Geithner said he would restore "lost faith" in the bailout. Instead, he apparently did the opposite. His plan unsettled precisely the group he didn't want to offend, private investors. No thank you, said the market.

In a word, what Geithner doesn't get is trust.

We have been following the TARP (Troubled Assets Recovery Program) saga on our site and here on the blog since the program began in October, 2008. Likewise, we've created an OrgScope overlay of the Act I TARP and related programs on our map of the US Government. From the beginning, we said it was all about "transparency for trust," which we titled our online essay about this subject. We have written numerous posts on the subject.

Trust is not a nice to have. It's a need to have. The Obama plan needs to restore trust for private investors, for the American public, and for a Congress that will be asked to come up with billions and probably trillions more before this is over.

And the only route to trust is transparency. Sunlight. Geithner's plan thus far offers little in this regard.

-- Jeff Stamps

Nodes and links, technically speaking

Like the economy, old mental models of our organizations are bankrupt. We've been developing a new model of organization for many years, one we believe is fit for these times. We're collecting and posting the more technical aspects of this new model, a small book's worth, as NetAge Working Papers, of which we're posting the second today. We'll post several more over the coming weeks.

"Understanding Nodes and Links: Core Concepts of People, Positions, and Relationships," the second working paper, provides the technical background to the idea that all organizations, including hierarchies, are networks. This is a topic we've been beating to death in our writings and on this blog. So for you deep conceptual divers, this one's for you. (Download Understanding Nodes and Links)

A little more formally put, this paper contains the foundation for a management science of networked organizations. Networks are known by their nodes. Key to this approach to nodes is the idea of the position, the central ingredient integrating the ephemeral organization with the flesh-and-blood people who populate it. Connecting the nodes in networks, of course, are links. Here we lay out a taxonomy for these relationships: directed links, both horizontal and vertical, with strong and weak versions. Nodes and links together generate dynamic representations of organizational realities. These ideas contribute the conceptual basis for the design of OrgScope, our tool for mapping, navigating, and analyzing organizations as networks.

Here are the opening paragraphs of "Understanding Nodes and Links:"

What Are We?

A formal organization is an emergent network of positions, a configuration of roles filled by people.

Simple idea, yet significant in consequence. Who or what are we? What is the us that works together as an integrated whole, from families and teams to enterprises and nations. It takes but a small shift in perspective to see individual people working together as an organization that is tangible, knowable, and measurable. An organized us happens when we step into roles and bring a particular configuration of positions to life.

An organization is its people—simple and obvious.

Yes, but…is that all? Is there something more, or different, something that is human in essence but separate from the people who comprise the organization?

Every organization tells a story, is its own play. It has a cast of characters and a plot. To perform their parts, actors step into their roles. Different personalities and capabilities emerge, depending on which actor plays the role. Whether great or poor, an individual’s performance takes place within the same set of formal relationships any actor playing that role must contend with. Thus, the role or position is part of the play’s structure, existing quite independently of the person playing that role. King Lear is William Shakespeare’s play, King Lear is a role in the play, and Sir Lawrence Olivier played the King Lear role to great acclaim. Shakespeare and Olivier are dead. The play—and the King Lear role itself—lives on, and has for four hundred years.

When people step into positions, they take on roles that link into a network of other roles. But that doesn’t prevent them from being the people they are, who come to their jobs with their unique preferences and idiosyncrasies. Organizational life is both:

Formal, with its the network of positions, constituent units, and working groups that stand apart from the people; and

Informal, with its social interactions among particular people, who stand apart from the roles they occupy in and around the organization.

These two kinds of networks--organizational and social--are inextricable (see Figure 1). When we think about all the relationships relevant to organizational life, their entanglement contributes to our sense of chaotic complexity. But we can distinguish these two types of networks. By clearly defining and specifying the organizational network of positions, we can more easily identify relationships that make up social networks of people.

Currently, social scientists and management theorists are trying to understand group life largely by examining the network of relationships among the group’s members. Social relationships are not only highly complex themselves, but they are especially obscured because the formal organizational framework is itself dynamic.

The network of positions moves to its own beat while the entwined people network has its own different rhythms.

The complexity of these two fundamental sorts of human networks is awesome, understandably hindering our ability to develop social and organizational sciences. New insights from network and complexity sciences, however, help us establish a new management science of organizational networks.

(Download Understanding Nodes and Links)

-- Jeff Stamps