Great leaders are sometimes unreasonable people. They don’t accept the conventional wisdom embraced religiously by others. To achieve significant breakthroughs, they sometimes reject the accepted orthodoxy and reframe what is possible. In traditional ways of thinking, leaders must choose between two competing outcomes. As the saying goes, they can’t have their cake and eat it too. Confronting the
Turning either/or into both/and was readily accepted by my Team. It creates a better dialog and allows us to stay in the problem longer. I wonder how hard it would be to extend either/or to include three variables - cheap, fast, good. Which companies pass that test? Two that come to mind are In-N-Out and Cick-Fil-A. Oh, now I'm hungry. Thanks for the post today!
The cheap/fast/good paradigm is usually associated with "you can only choose two" -- so it definitely falls into this trade-off discussion.
Was your team more accepting of flipping your situation into a both/and because it was a real world problem? Or was it an open discussion before you even had a specific tradeoff you were confronted with?
It naturally came about during a team discussion about how to proceed with a client of ours. We design/develop/deliver training. So there is a lot of good/fast/cheap trade-offs. One day, I encouraged the team to replace either/or with both/and when deciding how to proceed with a client request. Like I said, it opened up the dialog and conversation and led to much more what-if and problem solving.
I'd like to dispel the tradeoff that you have to sacrifice your family or you personal life in order to be an extraordinary performer at work. I've readily accepted that for too long.
Doesn't mean I'm not going to be a high performer, I just don't want to accept I can't "be admired" in more than one circle.
I'd guess there are many who hear about the behavioral approach to development and it takes some time to tease out all the fads and trends that are out there.
Turning either/or into both/and was readily accepted by my Team. It creates a better dialog and allows us to stay in the problem longer. I wonder how hard it would be to extend either/or to include three variables - cheap, fast, good. Which companies pass that test? Two that come to mind are In-N-Out and Cick-Fil-A. Oh, now I'm hungry. Thanks for the post today!
The cheap/fast/good paradigm is usually associated with "you can only choose two" -- so it definitely falls into this trade-off discussion.
Was your team more accepting of flipping your situation into a both/and because it was a real world problem? Or was it an open discussion before you even had a specific tradeoff you were confronted with?
It naturally came about during a team discussion about how to proceed with a client of ours. We design/develop/deliver training. So there is a lot of good/fast/cheap trade-offs. One day, I encouraged the team to replace either/or with both/and when deciding how to proceed with a client request. Like I said, it opened up the dialog and conversation and led to much more what-if and problem solving.
David, some might argue with you on the In-N-Out = Good equation. :)
I'd like to dispel the tradeoff that you have to sacrifice your family or you personal life in order to be an extraordinary performer at work. I've readily accepted that for too long.
Doesn't mean I'm not going to be a high performer, I just don't want to accept I can't "be admired" in more than one circle.
Good one, Steve, that is a trade-off that many people accept too readily.
Have to ask...
Does this sound like a recipe for burn out?
Is this hustle culture trying to redress itself?
It might be for some.
It might be for many, actually.
I'd guess there are many who hear about the behavioral approach to development and it takes some time to tease out all the fads and trends that are out there.
The leaders who become unreasonable about frameworks are fun to watch.
The leaders who become unreasonable about areas like employee performance are the nightmare.
Some of the ones mentioned above are a little bit of both.