The Danger of Teams

May 8, 2015
A lot is said about the power of Teams and about consensus based decision-making. Working with more or less democratically organized teams seems to be the standard mode of operating in most companies.
How much is said about the danger of teams and the disadvantages of seeking consensus?
First of all, usually people talk about The Team, and: you are either in it, or you are not. So although a team suggests cooperation and inclusion, it also excludes a lot of people, who are not on The Team. The notion of having a team, deciding who’s on it, and making sure the team is successful seems over valued. The team should be a means to an end, such as implementing the company strategy, not an end in itself. In my experience teams are kept together for much too long, even when it has become clear that the team dynamics are not advantageous, and far too much energy is spent on fixing the team, rather than on fixing company issues. All energy is spent on off-sides, team meetings, assessments, external help, rather than on customers, the product and on growth.
This would perhaps all be worth it if teams would make better decisions than individuals, but this is arguably not the case. On the contrary.
How decision-making works
Some background on decision-making, from the must-read book by Nobel Prize winning author Kahneman: Thinking Fast and Slow. He won a Nobel Price in Economics, but Mr Kahneman is a psychologist and his research was on Decision-making. He is not optimistic about the quality of decision-making. In fact for most decisions the outcome is better if you have a monkey throw a dart at a dartboard to select an option. In particular he is fearsome of decisions made by experts or by teams.
Gorilla
In thinking in general, and in decision-making in particular we have two systems we can use.
System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control. When system 1 gets into trouble it feeds system 2 with impressions, intuitions, intentions and feelings. System 1 has biases, has limited understanding of logic and statistics, and is lazy. It sometimes replaces difficult questions or choices by simpler ones, and easily jumps to conclusions.
System 2 allocates attention to the effortful and more complex mental activities that demand it. The operations of system 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice and concentration. System 2 is also credited with the continuous monitoring of your own behavior – the control that keeps to polite and alert and it is the source of doubt and judgment.
Why teams lead to bad decisions
Biases are a major reason for bad judgement. And bias is strengthened in teams by Priming effects like Framing (presenting information in a certain way, Halo effects (the one who brings his point across first or most assertive is usually followed). Another form of bias that often causes disturbance in teams and is not easily controlled is “availability bias”: members of a team usually feel they have done more and contributed than their share, and also feel that the others are not adequately grateful of their individual contributions. When individuals are asked what their contribution has been, the total almost always exceeds 100%. Typical System 1 thinking. This system is heuristic (it works with “rules of thumb”). Only when system 2 is engaged with its focus on content and analytics a more realistic picture arises. Unfortunately this seldom happens in discussions. Or, as psychologist Jonathan Haidt said: “The emotional tail wags the rational dog”.
Another problem, where a team could add value, but usually does the opposite is: collecting and analyzing information. Instead of bringing all available information to the table, team members often feel reluctant to do so. Social pressure plays a role here, which leads to people to silence themselves because they fear the disparagement of powerful others. Synergy is usually an illusion. In fact, even when they would speak up, their influence would be limited: information held by all or most group members has a lot more influence than information held by one member. This is called “the common-knowledge effect”.
This is actually quite comforting for decision makers. It is only natural to build the best possible, coherent story with limited information available to you. With little information it is easier to construct a story that makes sense. The reason behind this: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.
So we have bias, we have limited excess to information, and we overestimate what we know. As if that was not enough: we are naturally negative and resistant to change.
Negativity and loss aversion are purely human emotions, and they tend to win from positivity and curiosity. It is an evolutionary survival mechanism, and causes us to be driven more by the aversion of losses than to achieve goals. In a team this gets stronger and is reflected in goal-setting. Therefore goals will be set without much ambition: not achieving a goal is a loss, exceeding the goal is a win, but the aversion to the failure of not reaching the goal is much stronger than the desire to exceed it.
Funny example for golfers: after analyzing 2.5 millions puts by professional golf players it was discovered that putts to avoid a bogey were significantly more successful to putt to achieve a birdie.
In a team, this behavior leads to resistance to change. Plans for change or reform almost always produce many winners and some losers while achieving an overall improvement. However, potential losers will be more active and determined that potential winners. The outcome will be biased in their favor and inevitably more expensive and less effective than initially planned.
The conclusion, as we can also read in Cass Sunstein’s book Wiser: Groups usually do not correct individual mistakes, as is the general consensus, but actually amplify those mistakes.
How to fix it
So is there no hope? Of course there is. The alternative is avoiding teams as a goal, but organizing knowledgeable, committed and responsible individuals in changing teams or  ecosystems with some simple rules and a clear process for collecting and assessing information.
Ecosystem
If people in organizations, as animals in nature acknowledge their interdependency and take responsibility, adaptation to changing environments is enabled. Divergent perspectives will be respected and valued. Conflicting opinions will be seen as options based on data and members’ individual knowledge, to be evaluated and ultimately decisions will be by those who have been authorized to do so. To create such an environment you have to pay attention to several rules:
Rules
Rule 1. Assigning authority and taking responsibility.
The accountable leader will have to surround himself with knowledgeable people, and ask who will take responsibility for what. To the individual who is responsible for something authorization needs to be assigned. It might help to agree that these authorizations are by definition temporary. Individuals should not become attached to them, or feel they own them. Always the starting point should be: what is best for the organization at a certain point in time.Compare this to a national soccer team. Even if you are selected to join the team, you don’t know if you will play. And if you play, you cannot be sure of your position on the field. It all depends on fitness for the job, on the adversary, on the available alternatives and on a lot of other circumstances. But everyone’s goal is to bring the cup home.
Rule 2. Differences
Leaders create a safe space to disagree by his own behavior and by making explicit the expectation that conflicts can be surfaced and resolved. Teams need to commit to listening with respect, debating and deciding. This needs some ground rules that need to be enforced. One of them is to tolerate the discomfort of divergent and passionate viewpoints, despite the tension it may raise for the team. Another one is that ultimately agreement between all is not necessary. The responsible person can, or maybe should say: “Thank you all for your input and for the discussion. I will let you know what I have decided.” After that the whole team must commit to executing the decision as best they can.
Rule 3. Interdependence
A key opportunity for interdependence exists if team members support each other’s goals, and seek each other’s  expertise and perspectives. Feedback, especially on behavior should be given directly to anyone and by anyone. Complaining to others afterwards, creating kongsi’s or lobbying for support in upcoming meetings is undesirable behavior and should not be tolerated.
Rule 4. Engage others
Teams can become insular and self-referential. It might be necessary for the leader to re-assign responsibilities, swap team members, encourage an inward-looking team to ask stakeholders for input and alignment on both operational and strategic matters. This can be done by inviting other stakeholders or subject matter experts to attend meetings, exchange information or just listen in.
Kahneman believes in rule based decision-making. Select the most important variables and come up with a simple algorithm, and score the variables, based on collected data. An example: the apgar score for newborns. Selection of candidates, chosing stocks to pick? Follow the best algorithm you can come up with and refrain from sticking to your first impression or your intuition.
Process
The best way to deal with coming to new ideas and new solutions is to create a two stage process: first collect as much information as you can, preferably anonymous, or brainstorm for new solutions. In the second stage critically select the best solution from those identified in the first stage.
And finally: if there are people with irrational or destructive behavior and personal motives, no ecosystem, no rules and no process will help you. You will have to confront them and ultimately remove them.

How to build a business – Agility and Innovation

March 24, 2013

Recently someone drew my attention to the report NL2030, published by BCG. The authors believe that in the Netherlands, to enable further growth of our prosperity and wellbeing we need to adopt a radically new business model. That raises some interesting questions, such as “Does something like  Dutch business model even exist?”, “what would it be based on?”, and: “why does it need to change?”.

The premise of the argument of the authors seems to be that country specific advantages that we used to have in the past, such as geographical location, infrastructure, and the associated foreign language skills and commercial spirit, no longer give us a any benefits. Thus, we are dependent on business benefits.

The World is flat

Ok. What do companies have to deal with? They are faced with an accelerating speed of change, mostly through technological innovations, with customers who have more and more specific wishes, and with a world that becomes flatter. I assume the authors are referring to Friedman’s idea of a global marketplace and almost realtime access to data, information and ideas from virtually anywhere

At first sight it seems to me that those are circumstances in which good companies could flourish.

The final step in the reasoning of BCG: If changes take place faster and faster we need innovation talent and social adaptability. People that love change and a society that facilitates it. And unfortunately – says BCG – those are not qualities that The Netherlands excels in.

The World Economic Forum, by the way, does not agree. In their “Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013” they rank The Netherlands in the top ten, and they say: ”

The Netherlands continues to progress in the rankings, moving up to 5th place this year. The improvement reflects a continued strengthening of its innovative capacity as well as the heightened efficiency and stability of its financial markets. Overall, Dutch businesses are highly sophisticated (4th) and innovative (9th), and the country is rapidly and aggressively harnessing new technologies for productivity improvements (9th). Its excellent educational system (ranked 5th for health and primary education and 6th for its higher education and training) and efficient markets—especially its goods market (6th)—are highly supportive of business activity. And although the country has registered fiscal deficits in recent years (5.0 percent of GDP in 2011), its macroeconomic environment is more stable than that of a number of other advanced economies. Last but not least, the quality of its infrastructure is among the best in the world, reflecting excellent facilities for maritime, air, and railroad transport, ranked 1st, 4th, and 9th, respectively.”

WEF Framework

For this ranking the WEF not only considers the traditional country-specific conditions such as infrastructure and education, but also markets as well as “Business Sophistication and Innovation”.

True or not, BCG makes a number of recommendations that are valuable, such as: Find opportunities in international niches, instead of catering with a broad portfolio of products or services, exclusively for the domestic market. And another one that makes sense: Based on expertise, focus on process orchestration (from design to production to sales and distribution) and not on performing all the activities yourself.

Finally they sketch the agenda for the Dutch government, and frankly I got a little confused here. Of course, good education is important, and of course we must educate scientists to conduct fundamental research. And naturally talent should be encouraged, and for some students we need to accommodate more generic international courses such as those offered by University Colleges. But how is that different from what our education system offers already and why not leave those choices up to young people? They will choose what they want, and what the market needs.

The labor market will become more flexible much faster than the government can take measures to stimulate this. Professionals trade historic rights for autonomy, relevance and networks of peers. Unions are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The government should just step back. Buy-in from society, changing laws and regulating the labor market? No idea how that would help anyone. De-regulation would help, but if making laws is core business, what can we expect from a government.

Companies can orchestrate processes, but the government cannot orchestrate businesses. Entrepreneurs will.

The most useful recommendation is perhaps: to use more English as business language. The size of our own market is the limiting factor, but now the world becomes easily accessible; many markets are global, technologies enable shorter go-to-market times, and there is no reason why we should address these opportunities as a country, or why companies should be chauvinistic. And we don’t. In our company we have been communicating in English from day one. We have employed people from the US, South Africa, Australia and other countries.  Starting a business in The Netherlands is not difficult, and many of the best-educated and most innovative people are independent, or are willing to accept positions in those companies where their talents are appreciated and developed.

Business Sophistication and Innovation are the key enablers for success in a rapidly changing world: Agility as a strategy. Most large companies have been mainly striving for efficiencies, and cannot adapt or adopt change.

So, that brings us back to Thomas Friedman (The World is Flat) and John Kotter’s article in the Harvard Business Review (“Accelerate“).

This last article has received quite a bit of attention in the industry. Kotter explains why change is unnatural to large hierarchical organizations, and why a better approach, which he calls a dual operating system, is needed to be both agile and efficient.

He proposes the creation of a volunteer (self steering) tribe drawn from people from all corners of the organization, at all levels. These people will form a network that works in parallel with the existing hierarchical structures.

The two entities form a Dual Operating System, each contributing to the vitality and viability of the organization in a different and complementary way. The network’s task is to propose and co-creation the strategies of the future, while the hierarchy continues to operate as efficiently as possible. Exploration and exploitation as two sides to the same coin. Highly aligned, but loosely coupled.

The network strategy will involve no additional costs or overheads, as staff are invited to volunteer their time, knowledge and ideas to contribute to the future of the organization in a capacity that differs from the date-to-day work.

Good companies in the Netherlands and in other countries understand that besides Exploitation Exploration is crucial. That changes are opportunities and not always threats. For years we have been calling this the power of the Network, of Intrapreneurship and of Effectuation – and we have never needed the Government (or BCG) to help us with it.


How to build a business – demotions

March 14, 2013

There has been a lot of publicity lately about demotions and salary cuts for older employees in IT Services companies like Capgemini, whose market value does no longer justify their salaries.

 

Like they did not see that one coming.

 

What is this fuss all about?

 

Of course people are aware that the number of years you are with the company and the number of times you had your salary raised has no correlation to the value you will bring to the clients. Many years with the company? Maybe that has given you insights in the internal organization, or maybe you can manage or coach younger colleagues. That is not very interesting for a client, who wants practical knowledge, results and tangible benefits.

 

 

Especially now, with a much more dynamic and flexible labour market, clients are much more critical and service providers see rates that feel the pressure of the crisis. So how could they have put themselves in this situation? Probably everyone has always been focused on the short-term, because collective labour agreements have dictated that salaries be raised every year, because clients were never the most important stakeholder in companies like this?

In The Netherlands we have almost four hundred collective labour agreements. In only six of them demotion as an instrument is part of the agreement. Unions, whose members are to be found under the older employees, have every intention to keep treating demotions as a taboo.

 

The whole idea of demotion is not new of course. In 2000 the Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid published a report suggesting that “the salary profile and the productivity profile” are getting out of sync. Their solution: more flexibility in salaries, no automatic correlation between age and salary increases, and ultimately demotion.

 

So what is the alternative and how could they have prevented this?

 

First of all, is seems more logical to correlate pay directly to productivity or market value. This can be done by paying basic salaries, plus additional components for both individual market value (measured through billable revenues) and company performance.

 

The question both companies and their employees will have to start asking themselves is how they can influence revenues per employee. Market value is determined by what clients are willing to pay based on the perceived benefits – although most people seem to think rates are determined by smart sales people. The employee feels he has limited influence on his market value. This of course is not true.

It can be increased by development though experience, training and smart matching. The first two are up to the professional. Matching – placing the professional on the assignments where he or she can add most value – is usually done by sales people. Unfortunately usually the match is made based on competences in CV’s and not on Character, Values, Culture and soft skills.

 

Our solution: make groups of professionals responsible for their own success and value. Self Steering teams determine what kind of professional education and training they need, and they are stimulated to build a network of clients. With some commercial training they are able to help the sales people not only with leads and opportunities, but also with better matches for proper rates.

The budget available for salaries and other compensation has a direct correlation with the revenues generated. The team members together determine their  own salaries. Demotion: a concept of the past.


How to build a business – Net Promoter Score

January 30, 2013

Two things have always been crucial in the assignments we do for our clients: what are the benefits we create (expressed in Economic Value or Cash Value Added) and are they truly excited and delighted by what we do. Over qualified resources, continuous support by peers and validation of the results are key in accomplishing this. But at least as important: are we able to measure and prove it? benefits Management has developed into something of a specialism, especially if you do not only measure in financial or quantitative terms, but also in areas like Risk, Scalability, Agility, Motivation.

Customer satisfaction, or even Client Delight is another challenge. Luckily this topic has been addressed some twenty years ago, by Fred Reichheld, a consultant from Bain & Company. He spent years researching enthusiasm, loyalty and commitment in customer relationships. Surveys did not seem to provide the answers he was looking for, partly because the answers from dissatisfied, undifferentiated and enthusiastic customers were so different that they could not drive any management decisions on improvement.
For answers he focussed on the happy customers only and decided to measure their enthusiasm by asking them one question, that he thought related directly to their loyalty: how willing were they to recommend the firm. We see this unpaid marketing department at work every day, nowadays through recommendations on the internet, and more than anything else, by the Like button of Facebook.

Like

Back then, it was a new concept, which he called Net Promoter Score, or NPS. More than the financial benefits our clients have, and definitely more than the revenue we generate, the level of loyalty created is key to success, and yes it is similarly important to measure the level of frustration and disappointment of those who might become active detractors.

With growth come more formalized processes, more dashboards and reports. close relations and intuition alone is no longer enough to keep track of our performance, and the time has come to also implement this process: Basically all that is required are three steps

Step 1.: ask each and every client one question: “How likely are you to recommend us?”, and have them score the likelihood on an eleven-point scale from 0 to 10

Step 2: Break the results up in three categories: those  that gave ratings from 0 to 6 are “Detractors”, the one that logged a 7 or 8 are “passively satisfied”, and only the score of 9 and 10 represent the “Promoters”.

Step 3: Compute the score by only looking at the difference between the Detractors and promoters: %Promoters – %Detractors = %Net Promoters.

NPS

So far so good. That is to say: there is potentially a lot wrong with NPS. A 0 score and a 6  have the same impact on the score, but from the client’s perspective there is probably a large difference. Also 0% detractors and 60% promoters gives the same result as 20% detractors and 80% promoters. So we want more: we want to know what are the reasons behind the score, and we want to be able to act on specific cases if there is reason. It is a one-question-only thing some say. If you do not understand the data you cannot act others argue. It seemed so simple

Now, three decisions need to be taken. Do we ask this question only, or do we ask more to find out what drove the score? Do we ask the questions ourselves, or do we get more honest answers if someone else asks them, and do we ask face-to-face, by phone, or by mail/online?

More discussions. We asked for advice. The specialists gave us options. One question, a few questions, many questions. Open questions, closed questions. Damn.

We asked more advice. some of the reactions were outspoken, almost emotional:

On line surveys are no more effective than written… only difference is the envelope.

The problems with written/on-lines include…

  •  Only outliers are motivated to respond… those who are very happy or very unhappy… so you get skewed results.
  • You don’t know who actually responded (the VP’s emo-punk daughter? An Admin? The dog?
  • The spontaneity (and any associated honesty) is lost.

Why in the world would anyone follow-up by phone to a written survey?

Respondents should NEVER be “followed-up” on unless they specifically request it.

Even if their responses are negative!

No respondent wants to justify their response or discuss it further… unless they ask for it.

The right way to do it is to be sure you ask enough open-ended questions in the survey to get the info you need without follow-up.

When you follow-up (and especially if you quiz them on any response), you bias or destroy their future cooperation.

Phone is best, 3rd party, brief is good.

Okay, we got the message.

So this is what our survey looks like. Two questions, preceded by an e-mail, asked by phone, by someone the client does not have a personal relation with:

1. Based on the work Qhuba did for you, how likely is it that you would recommend Qhuba, on a scale from 0 tot 10?

2. What factor had the most impact on your answer

  • the character and behavior of the resource (like integrity, cooperation)
  • the competences of the resource (knowledge, execution power)
  • the benefits realised versus the cost
  • the cooperation with other people in our firm
  • the relation and connection you have with our network
  • something else

Now I have one last question: How likely do you think it is that the NPS score we log and the answers to these questions will help us create more value for happier clients?


How to build a business – the American Dream

October 29, 2012

The American Dream: it does not exist.

From rags to riches on the basis of an excess of ambition and talent is a nice story, but in practice there is more to it. Malcolm Gladwell, who previously wrote books like The Tipping Point and Blink published an entertaining book about why some people are much more likely to succeed than others. Outliers.

The summary: origins, environment, and coincidence are just as important as intelligence, talent, ambition and perseverance. It would like to add (Gladwell does not): the ability to recognize opportunities and to grab them with both hands. I have written a blog about this ability – Effectuation – earlier.

Therefore, contrary to the stories that usually circulate about highly successful people – a story that focuses on intelligence and ambition, Outliers argues that if we want to understand how some people succeed, we must study in detail things like their background, their generation, their family, their place of birth, and even their birth date. These usually drive the coincidences that make them who they are. There is also such a thing as “making enough hours”. This is the “10,000 hours theory”, developed and popularized by Dr. Anders Ericsson, who basically found out that spending massive amounts of practice hours on a specific subject will lead to expert mastery in that field, more than talent will. Or the other way around: virtually no one who did not spent ten thousand hours of something, became really good at it. Whether a person has the opportunity to make those hours depends on… coincidences and perseverance.

The story of success is much more complex and interesting than it appears to be at first.

The logic that Gladwell uses to explain the success of the Beatles, Bill Gates, Asians in Mathematics, Jewish takeover lawyers and others is peculiar and interesting. It is all about coincidences. For Gates: the availability of sufficient computer time at exactly the right time, for the lawyers: they were all born from garment makers around 1930, they do not have to fight in the war, were not eligible for the WASP Wall Street firms, and had, around 1970, sufficient experience with acquisitions, which until then were not fancy. Before 1970 Yankee law firms refused to do this inferior work, which after the ‘70s was considered to most prestigious legal work.

So it boils down to: talent, ambition, and ten thousand hours of experience. Character and competence. We should start asking our candidates whether they have ten thousand flying hours. For those who join us as Professional (sometimes call the “professor” role) this will not be a problem. For entrepreneurs (the pilots in the plain), the headhunters, the networkers and sales-people that might be a challenge.

 

Thousands of hours experience with a specific task, seems contradictory to what Ricardo Semler propagates in his book The Seven Day Weekend.

The title is misleading. Weekend does not mean doing nothing but: do things that you like and make you happy. Semler, then CEO of Semco, a company with roots in Sao Paolo,  introduced a style of leadership that took liberalism and democracy as a starting point. Why do most people in most countries agree that democracy is the best way of governing, but why are most businesses organized along dictatorial line? Companies and the Roman army have many similarities. Companies and kindergartens have many similarities. What are the similarities between armies and kindergartens? 1. Decisions are made for you. 2. Personal initiative is not really appreciated and 3. Hardly anyone really enjoys it.

Semler turns it around: If employees care first and foremost about their self-interest, if Management refuses to impose (or even take) decisions, if there is a culture of transparency and trust, intrinsic motivation and peer pressure will do the rest. This involves making employees responsible for a lot more than putting in the hours.

It has taken decades to turn his business around to a democratic, innovative and successful enterprise, where employees determine their own working hours, their own salary, their location and decide who will be their bosses and their colleagues.

How nice is that: A company where people may attend the meetings they want to attend and all business information is available for everyone.

Employees are no longer just a means of production, but adult people with talents and ambitions who are asking, as many times as possible, the question “why?”.

It would be quite something if this could work, and I am convinced that it can work. I am not so sure if we have the patience and time to make all the mistakes, and to accept everyone making all the mistakes that are part and parcel to such a process.

 

But then, why not? If we are able to select and interest only the most talented people, with the highest integrity, and if we can all be fully transparent about our intentions, we will get there. First we will be looking for people with 10,000 hours on the clock.


How to build a business – Ten Questions

October 16, 2012

We have been in business for several years, we have more than sixty world-class people working with us, worked for eighty-eight world-class clients, held one hundred and fifty-three management meetings and published numerous internal and external documents. At some point it seemed to make sense to bring it all back to ten basic questions. The answer to those questions should describe all the major aspects of our business. Answers that all of our people should be able to give, when the questions are asked.

 

Here are the questions:

1. Where do we come from?

2. Why do we exist?

3. What do we look for in our resources ?

4. How do we behave?

5. What do we do?

6. How will we succeed?

7. What is the one most important thing right now?

8. Who must do what?

9. How are we organized?

10. How we make decisions and deliver on them?

 

And here are the answers

 

1. Where do we come from?

Qhuba, founded in 2007, is a fast-growing network organisation with more than sixty Partners, Staff and Associates (‘Qhubans’). Qhuba means drive, the drive to work together, to learn, to grow and to succeed.

 

2. Why do we exist?

We exist because we believe running companies can be fun and strategies can be implemented successfully when people of character and competence work together.

Qhuba believes that strategies are best executed by a multi-disciplinary leadership team that takes collective responsibility.

 

 

3. What do we look for in Qhubans ?

Regardless of whether they are Clients, Candidates, Network Partners, Prospects, Associates, Staff, Associate Partners, Partners, Managing Partners, Equity Partners, Practice Directors, Shareholders, or Friends, we expect:

  • Character (Integrity and Intentions)
  • Competencies (Hard and soft skills)
  • Network
  • Track record
  • A drive for Autonomy, Mastery, Contribution and working with Peers.

 

4. How do we behave?

We are Independent, Reliable, Uncompromising, Connected

 

5. What do we do?

When organizations look for support in the successful execution of their strategies, we provide (introductions to) people with the right character and competence. We can do this based on Client Value Pricing, on temporary assignments, on the client’s payroll, for a success fee or without a fee.

 

6. How will we succeed?

Together Qhubans use conversations to build a network of world-class professionals to make clients successful by providing capable people and by arranging introductions, opportunities and exposure, meanwhile building a highly recognised organisation as a platform for professional and personal growth.

 

7. What is most important right now?

Increasing Reputation in our network

  • Increase NPS with clients by delivering results
  • Increase credibility with prospective clients through content-marketing, sales and references
  • Increase Trust within Qhubans through growth and success
  • Increase Reputation with candidates through marketing

 

 

8. Who must do what?

Strategy, Structure and Reputation:   Wouter Hasekamp

Network:                                              Tjibbe van der Zeeuw (Liesbeth Hans)

Knowledge and Research                   Liesbeth Hans

Publications:                                      Hotze Zijlstra

Marketing:                                           Wouter Hasekamp, Rachelle Nall

Enablement and Support:                  Dennis van Alphen (Tom Kisters, RikJan Kruithof)

Portfolio:                                             Partners and Practice Directors (Peter Rappange, Mohammed Chaaibi, Gerard Kok, Evert-Jan Tazelaar)

Sales:                                                 Mario School (Susanne van Kleef, Gerard Kok, Evert-Jan Tazelaar)

Delivery:                                             Tjibbe van der Zeeuw (Beatrice Friebel)

 

 

 

9. How are we organized?

Qhuba is organised in Practices that address specific areas of expertise, without losing sight of the collective goal: strategy implementation across disciplines. Practices in the portfolio of Qhuba are:

  • Interim Management
  • Recruitment & Executive Search
  • Programme and Portfolio Management
  • Lean and Transformation
  • Finance and Benefits Management
  • Sourcing Support
  • Lean IT
  • Cloud Consulting
  • The Qloud Company

 

 

10. How we make decisions and deliver on them?

We believe in Collective Leadership: given our values and despite different intentions and goals we want to be able to operate as a tribe of peers, each contributing as a person and as a professional, without giving up our autonomy. Starting points for this ‘Tribal Democracy’ are:

  • Freedom of Thought
  • Freedom of Speech
  • Freedom of Choice
  • Freedom of Dissent
  • Radical Transparency

 

 

Conditions for participation in decision-making are:

  • Trust, which consists of Character (Integrity & Intentions) and Competence (Capabilities & Results)
  • Transparency of Information and Opinion. Silence equals disagreement. This is our first rule of engagement.
  • Commitment, both active commitment and formal commitment. This is the second rule of engagement
  • Accountability; there is zero-tolerance for lack of Trust, lack of Integrity, lack of Transparency, lack of Commitment, but also for Passivity, broken promises, non-performance
  • A shared definition of success made measurable and a focus on results. One team, one goal.

 

Success is measured by:

  • Client Benefits Realized and Nett Promoter Score
  • Staff retention en recruitment
  • Revenue – Margin – Profit

How to build a business – Employees and Contracts

July 18, 2012

Building a business requires creating and activating a network of Partners, Associates and Employees. We are striving for a healthy mix of people who share a DNA and a sense of purpose, but who might have different needs and possibilites, depending on their personality, the stage in their career, the desire for short or long term reward (cash versus value) and the appetite for risk.

For capable people with skills and ambition who want to be surrounded by people they can work with and learn from and who prefer or require a monthly income, becoming an employee can be the most appropriate choice. We call them intrapreneurs. This relation needs to be formalized in an employment contract. Contracts are not pretty. Despite network organisations, work2.0 and despite all good intentions basically they arrange and exchange of time for money.

The good intentions are that we want all our people to be independent, that is: responsible for their own choices and their own success, we know they are reliable professionals, who do not compromise on quality, and who are connected to a network of peers they like to work with and work for. This is our DNA. The intention is also to make sure they have an adequate monthly income and that there is no limit to what they earn, based on how successful they are.

Now try to stick all that in an agreement. What we did is: we offer all our professionals on the payroll a basis salary, and then we make a budget available that is equal to 50% of what their personal turnover is. Out of this budget they can make choices on for instance education, a company car, laptop, et cetera. The difference between salary plus costs and their personal budget will be paid as a bonus, if a set of OKR’s (Objectives and Key Results) are met. A nice combination of security (for the employee), limited risk (for the employer), freedom of choices on personal development and reward and intrapreneurship. Or so we think.

Of course a contract describing this level of freedom and responsibilities within the boundaries of the labor laws results in quite an extensive document. You would think that the more experienced employees, with several previous employers, would be most critical, especially because in their case the base salary usually is lower than what they were used to – be then the upside is higher than anywhere else. The opposite is the case. Last week we lost a prospective employee, who seemed really talented and a perfect fit, due to this contract.

The base salary was higher than what she earned in her previous job, we explained the model, the role, the responsibilities, the budget, the holidays, the risk, the fiscal implications. All better than where she came from. She did not sign. I am confused. Either she was not what we thought she was, and she did not understand it, or it was too good to be true and she became suspicious that their might be a snag. Or maybe we are a more average company than we think we are, or than we want to be, and people just expect a salary in exchange for their time.

The last option a refuse to accept.

Researchers like David Marsden (Professor of Industrial Relations and a Senior member of the Centre for Economic Performance) at the London School of Economics will tell us that in the Network Economy their is not only the contract between employer and employee, but also the psychological contract and the economic or incentive contract. Maybe I should go to London and try to understand. Or better, let me go to Brazil and visit Ricardo Semler. He did it the other way around in his company Semco, letting his employees choose what they do, where and when they do it, and even how they get paid. He wrote a book about it called Maverick, the success story about the world’s most unusual workplace.

So that’s where I will go if only because the weather in Sao Paolo is more attractive than in London.