Moments — Are we letting people do too much for us?

If you ever get to drive a Subaru BRZ you will find it is a very tight car to drive — the steering responses quickly and so do the brakes, and the clutch is nice and smooth.

So when it isn't, you should appreciate something is wrong.

Recently I was driving along minding my own business when suddenly the steering wasn't as tight, and the brakes were just a little off — and at that moment, in classic guy style, I kept driving with the working assumption it would self-correct. As my tolerance waned for the "self-correcting to happen" I finally pulled over (just in case there was actually something wrong). I suppose in hindsight I really wasn't surprised I had a flat rear tire because as I said, BRZ's are tight driving cars. What surprised me was what happened next.

As I was assessing my options I said to myself, "I guess I should call a tow truck" — a moment later, I physically stopped myself and started an internal discussion that went something like this.

• Why would I call a tow truck when I don't need a tow?
• I have a spare and all the tools to change the tire myself.
• I can do it in a tenth of time it will take someone to get here.
• Other than laziness, is there any reason not to do it myself?
• I'm glad it's not really cold and it's sunny.
• It's a pain in the ass to empty the trunk.

It had been a while since I had changed a tire so I wasn't very efficient but it was changed in twenty minutes; I then headed off to track down a new tire. It's a fun little story to be sure, but what really resonated with me is why my first reaction would be to call a tow truck (when I obviously could do it myself)?

I appreciate the premise of "why do it yourself, when you can get someone else to do it?", and I also understand that it is "impossible to know how to do everything so you will need people's help"...  as well as the argument regarding opportunity cost and "how net/net it'll be more profitable to get someone else to do it".

But now I can't help ask the question, "When does it actually become detrimental to have someone else do it for you?"

I'm not suggesting I have any answers to this question (and frankly I only thought of it because I got a flat tire), but is does create the opportunity for a fine discussion (particularly if there is wine involved) —

• Are you getting someone else to do it because you're lazy?
• Is it something you just can't do or learn to do?
• Are you spending money you "can't afford to spend" to have someone do it?
• Are you denying your own development by letting someone else do it?
• Are you simply concerned with the consequences?
• Et Cetera, et cetera...

For me the biggest consideration is about "waiting". Are you putting yourself on hold because of someone else? 

Waiting is not active, and if you are not active, you are not getting things done. And if you aren't getting things done, you are not going to reach your goals. The waiting place is the worst place to be, and even a worst habit to develop because in the end you will find yourself always waiting to get something done (and in the end accomplish nothing).

As I mentioned I really don't have any answers to this other than it seems I hate to wait.

iamgpe

"In God we trust, everyone...

... else bring data."

I think the only reason I even bring this up is because I've been looking at many, many spreadsheets lately — and with that, an awful lot of data.

This pithy term comes to me honestly because many years ago I was developing my function excellence skills and participated in Six Sigma Black Belt training. This humbling affair still resonates when I think about the onslaught of statistical and functional excellence models, playing with toy catapults (and the statistical analysis behind what was seemingly child's play), and my disheartenment when I watched people much smarter than myself in a daze after class. In the end I completed my project and because of the experience carry the following three truths at my core when it comes to how I need to think about things.

Truth 1. "In God we trust, everyone else bring data" — it's a reminder that only data offers an objective view of things.

Truth 2. The DMAIC model is very useful when you want to improve something — Define, Measure, Analysis, Improvement, Control

Truth 3. What we "subjectively believe" tends not to be the same as what "objectively is" — and sometimes it's worlds apart.

I'm hard wired to be subjective, figurative, and broad thinking (and I suppose I'm really an artist stuck in a scientist's body) and because of this, I hold these hard earned truths with passion and appreciation. 

Data is the currency of real understanding and it trumps words like "I think", "I feel" and "I believe" and enables you to use the words " I know". Data brings objectivity to the understanding of a situation, what's really happening, and helps you drive better decisions and actions. While I'm thinking about this, here's another pithy saying that warrants consideration, "Lies, damn lies, statistics" — it's a reminder that even numbers need to be vetted and confirmed for accuracy because, although data is objective, it still needs to be validated.

It seems there is actually a fourth truth that I almost forgot about —

Truth 4. When you bring data make sure you aren't bringing data for data's sake but for reasons associated with an objective (hopefully to move your goals forward.)

Forgive me for not remembering it sooner but the training was a while ago, and as you may appreciate, a little traumatic.

iamgpe

Ownership, responsibility, culpability... and progress.

I once knew a leader who was enthusiastic about ensuring every goal (objective or project) had an owner and his thinking was simple — if there was no owner how could you expect anything to get done, and in the same vein, there could only be one. For him, if you had more than one owner, there was no true accountability (which in his mind was more or less like not having an owner at all). 

It didn't take me long to jump on his ownership bandwagon because it's really the only way to get anything done.

And now for the rub that comes with this progressive thinking — since most things don't happen without a team of people, how do you reconcile this with the need for one owner?

You definitely need to ensure you have the right people on the team, a solid time and event schedule, the needed resources, sacrosanct operating mechanisms to ensure action is moving forward, and a solid "multi-coloured" dashboard to ensure everyone knows what's happening — all of this is solid, quantifiable, and necessary, but the reconciliation with "one and the many" comes with the words "responsibility" and "culpability", and even more subtly, the words "you" and "we". 

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty [rəˌspänsəˈbilədē] NOUN — the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone

cul·pa·bil·i·ty [ˌkəlpəˈbilədē] NOUN — responsibility for a fault or wrong; blame

you [yo͞o, yə] PRONOUN — used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing

we [wē] PRONOUN — used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together:

Anything you are involved with inherently needs responsibility and culpability, and if it's just you it's easy because you own all of it — and if there is more that just you then these words need to be injected into the group. Ownership is about "you" accepting responsibility and culpability for the goal (objective or project), and if there is a team behind you then that involves expanding the definition of responsibility and culpability to include everyone involved (something imperative for success) — the "you" becomes "we".

If you ever hear yourself trying to avoid "responsibility" or "culpability" then you are falling short as the owner — and if you ever hear anyone on the team trying to avoid "responsibility" or "culpability" you are also falling short, because remember, you own that too. 

Ownership and Leadership... semantics if you ask me, because its true when they say, "True leadership has no title".

iamgpe