Career

Rather than talk about Artificial Intelligence (AI), I prefer to reference Virtual Intelligence (VI). Artificial implies fake or unnatural, whereas Virtual implies computer generated or simulated. Virtual suggests a replication of the real world. I believe the term VI better represents the transformation we are currently witnessing in the digitalisation of society.

What will VI mean to the professions and what impact will it have on those professionals and their careers? I believe the impact will be profound.

Many professionals believe their roles within society will forever be safe based on the presumption that judgement, creativity, instinct and experience will always prevail and never be digitally replicated. This misconception may be the undoing of many.

To understand this better, we need to clarify why these human attributes exist in the first place. Primarily, humans use these terms to explain their lack of processing power. People who perform at the highest level, use judgement or instinct to make decisions. Similarly, a person who generates something that hasn’t been seen or done before is defined as creative. So how can computers replicate these attributes?

The reality is that computers don’t need these attributes. Their processing power is infinitely higher than a human and continues to grow exponentially. Rather than be creative, a computer can generate infinite options to an open problem. By applying defined parameters, infinite options quickly converge on the best solution. Without the ability to generate every possible option the human relies on creativity alone.

So, will VI render the role of professionals irrelevant? In my mind this will ultimately be determined by how the client uses the technology. If the client perceives any level of risk or uncertainty in using the technology, then the client will expect the uncertainty and risk to be carried by the professional and hence their relevance will be maintained. If, however, the client is willing to accept that there is no risk associated with using VI, the professional will ultimately be rendered irrelevant.

Responsibility will transfer over to the client, virtual will become real and the only thing artificial will be the professional.

One of the key elements to a successful business lies within the laws of physics. Between Galileo and Newton, the Law of Inertia (Newton’s First Law) was developed to explain how bodies behave. Interestingly, while inertia is not directly measurable, it can be calculated, and it is critical in describing outcomes and fundamental in determining behaviour. The principles of this theory are overwhelmingly relevant in business.

We should not confuse inertia with momentum. Momentum is a measure of how quick you’re moving relative to mass. Inertia is how much force is needed to impart change, or similarly, how resistant it is to change. It’s inertia that needs to be monitored to ensure it’s not detrimental to your business.

While most businesses see momentum as desirable, consideration is needed towards the resulting impact on inertia. The momentum a business can experience may often hide the dangers of building inertia.

Using Newton’s 1st and 2nd Law as the analogy, business inertia can be explained. Bodies with large inertia require a great deal of force to move. Without the application of enormous force, bodies of large mass take a long time to slow down, speed up and more importantly, change direction. Large inertia can make organisations slow to react. With the same level of inertia, adding mass slows them down.

Hence, business inertia is an important characteristic in predicting outcomes and assessing behaviour.

Managing inertia, while maintaining momentum, is one of the keys to success.

So did Newton have a deep understanding of business? I’m not sure. Does his theory relate to business as much as it does to physics? Absolutely.

Managing a business and the people within it can be challenging to say the least.

Understanding your business and then communicating and implementing strategy effectively is critical to success.

One approach that can be effective in understanding, communicating and implementing, lies within the interpretation of, and understanding the differences between, accountability and responsibility.

Empowering people, establishing trust within a relationship, while allowing autonomy within roles are key attributes of a thriving workplace. Identifying and articulating the meaning of these two terms can create clarity for one role while defining and appreciating the roles of others around them.

In simple terms, responsibility should lie with the person doing the work. Accountability should sit with the person responsible for those doing the work.

When articulated in this way, the messaging becomes very powerful.

For those taking responsibility for their own work, there is a clear recognition that autonomy exists. Understanding that accountability rests with someone else establishes trust and authentic empowerment results.

For those responsible for people, recognising that accountability lies with them, but without responsibility for doing the work, provides powerful guidance on how they should act and behave. Handing over responsibility for the work in a genuine manner, while remaining accountable for the outcomes, is extremely effective in defining the role of those accountable for others. Importantly, this acknowledgement helps those responsible for work, to appreciate the trust bestowed on them by others.

While titles and management structures will vary significantly between organisations, the fundamentals outlined above provide clarity for most within the business. From those who take full responsibility for only their own work, through to those that remain fully accountable for the entire operation.

Defining these two simple terms succinctly and using them to provide guidance on people’s roles within a group goes a long way to establishing respect, trust and teamwork within the workplace. Characteristics that all organisations strive for.

Has society become too risk-averse?

Do people have expectations on safety, compliance and equalisation to the extent that trailblazing is frowned upon, while risk-takers and outliers are ostracised?

Conservatism is the antithesis of aspiration. Australians are ashamed of failure. Other cultures wear failure as a badge of honour, a sign of resilience, resourcefulness and strength.

Generationally, children are brought up in an ever-increasing protected and sheltered environment, where adversity, hardship and disappointment are avoided. Exposure to these experiences builds resilience. History has shown that through these experiences, true innovation and progress flourish. Are some of the essential qualities, that remain critical to people’s wellbeing, being filtered out?

When I speak to people, be it young people, business people or others, decisions and expectations are often set on the basis that they shouldn’t fail or carry any risk. Aspiration is often replaced with certainty. But with certainty comes conservatism, which can often lead to underachievement.

So as leaders, I believe it is critical that we encourage aspiration and risk-taking in others. Leaders should provide the experienced support, foresight and reassurance to allow others to manage and accept potential failure, and in the process build resilience.

Our advice should be “Don’t underachieve for fear of failure”.

Accepting potential failure is the prerequisite to overachievement. Resilience is the essential ingredient in realising it.

How do you get the best out of people? It has long been a question in business, with many varied opinions and points of view.

Is it through motivation, reward, incentive? Does it result from creating the right working environment? Is it all or none of these things? My feeling is we are asking the wrong question. We shouldn’t be seeking to draw the most out of people, but rather have them be willing to offer as much as possible.

Everyone has different expectations on what is normal acceptable effort. If we set our own measures on what we want out of our people, then neither party is content. There is either more to be offered, or there is a feeling that expectations are too high.

Alternatively, we can build relationships with people and make them feel committed and willing to contribute. We can show them how their efforts positively impact on others and the business overall. We can create a sense of belonging and have them recognise that what is good for the business is good for them.

This is what brings the best out of people. Achieve these things and the best outcome will be delivered. There will be no reluctant, unsustainable sacrifice, just a willing, ongoing offering.

Most professionals know exactly how to execute their skills and deliver a high quality product. But what about providing a service to their clients? How much formal training do professionals receive in understanding and executing the highest level of service? Do they really understand its value and importance?

I’ve always been a strong believer in prioritising service for 3 simple reasons, and they all relate to the client.

Firstly, in many instances, clients don’t have an intimate understanding of our skills or how we go about our craft, therefore have limited ability to assess what we do. When it comes to service however, they have all the knowledge required to assess and evaluate our performance. Everyone knows what they want when it comes to service.

Secondly, in professional services, comparisons of product are very hard to determine. Rarely are two situations the same. Comparing service is much easier. An unreturned phone call or broken commitment can be easily related and assessed against others.

Lastly, poor service can’t be rectified. Returning a phone call too late or not delivering on an undertaking is irreversible. Rectifying an incomplete or sub-standard product can be fixed and made good later.

So as professionals, once we understand the importance of service, we can then afford it the attention and priority needed. Well, almost.

There is one key ingredient in implementing the highest level of service, and that centres around the client’s expectations. Without effective management on what is expected as good service, meeting those expectations is extremely difficult. As we all know, unrealistic expectations can never be met. The key to good service is not delivering quicker or working harder, it’s managing the client’s perception of what is realistic and achievable.

So next time you have a time commitment that can’t be met because the product isn’t ready, what will you do? Will you let the client down on service and deliver the finished product late, or will you deliver the unfinished product on time?

The real answer is; you should have agreed earlier with the client that the product would take longer to deliver.

As society changes and workplaces adjust, things that were considered acceptable not that long ago can quickly fall out of favour, or be considered inappropriate. Similarly, terminology and words that were part of our everyday vocabulary now have little meaning or relevance.

“Taping” a TV show is now an incorrect term. We “record” or simply catch-up via the internet. When was the last time you bought a postcard? Do young people of today even understand the concept of buying a picture while on holidays and posting it by snail mail? Is the term “postcard view” obsolete?

In previous generations, there was value attached to hard work, uncompromising commitment and the school of hard knocks. People accepted that to get somewhere in life, “blood, sweat and tears” were non-negotiable consequences. But this is no longer the case.

Let’s look at the term “blood”. The uncompromising commitment to work is no longer accepted in the workplace as appropriate. Due to a greater (and better) balance of responsibilities between life partners in the household and in the parenting of children, the value attached to a differing work life balance has dramatically changed.

The staid and structured work environment has also changed significantly, along with formality. Now we expect flexibility within a casual environment. We want to enjoy work, not bleed.
“Blood” has been replaced by “Fun”.

Hard work used to be directly related to success. It was respected, admired and rewarded in the workplace. In some ways, it is now frowned upon. There is often pity bestowed on the hardworking individual for not having a life outside of work.

Technology has taken over. It’s not about working harder. It’s about working smarter. “Sweat” has been replaced by “Tech”.

And the final change that has occurred lies within the expectation of tears at some point along the journey. Where previously motivation was sourced through the desire to avoid humiliation, or to avoid a berating from a work colleague, we now live in the uncertainty of factors outside the workplace.

The workplace has become a protected zone and in its place, external factors are at play. We now face constant concern that things are moving too fast. Disruption is at the forefront of our minds; information overload provides us with too much irrelevance and distracts us from what should be our focus.

We don’t shed “tears”in the workplace anymore, we live in the “fear” that our jobs may be extinct in the near future.

So, is society and the workplace better for these changes? Of course, it is. The challenge lies in how we adjust to these changes. In some instances, changes need no thought. It’s easy to stop buying postcards. Other changes need conscious consideration and adaption.

There is a saying that “Chocolates should be the reward, not the motivation. If they are the motivation, then you just get fat!”

In business, and in team environments, this simple philosophy has proven over and over again to be the foundation of success. The opposite may provide short term benefits, but ultimately leads to failure.

It is critical for leaders to understand the difference between reward and motivation and recognise that it is not the same for everyone.

Over many years I have witnessed a shift in what motivates people at similar ages and what they value as reward. For differing generations, the motivation also varies. As a business grows, the opportunities for people within that business also change. This leads to the organisation attracting different people, who are motivated by different things. Small firms tend to attract people that value responsibility, intimacy, autonomy and flexibility. Larger firms tend to attract team players that are comfortable with structure, defined roles and who value job security.

Previously, young professionals were motivated by setting a career path and committing totally to the ultimate outcome. In more recent times, young professionals have a broader outlook towards their career and a greater focus on balancing life inside and outside of work.

Reward for young people has also changed. While financial recompense and career progression will always be important, today it is critical that young people feel valued and acknowledged in ways other than just by money.

As a professional’s career develops, the motivation also changes. Early in a career there is a focus on gaining recognition, building reputation, learning and developing skills. Later in one’s career, the focus shifts to working with likeminded people, tenure and work environment.

Understanding these differences, and being able to respond as the motivation changes within people over time and from generation to generation is not easy. Rewarding them appropriately based on these differences also adds to the complexity. Doing all of this within a growing business can become quite a challenge to get right. For businesses that rely heavily on people, success is based on maintaining an environment that satisfies all.

While it is easy to generalise in an attempt to articulate thoughts and concepts, it is wrong to assume there is strong demarcation between groups, or that within groups characteristics are common to all.

The key ingredient in creating the right environment is to treat people individually, with a full understanding of what motivates them and the best way to reward them. Achieve this, and not only will everyone get some chocolate, but it will taste a whole lot sweeter!

While there is plenty of literature around the characteristics of varying generations, all of which is relatively sound in its general assessment, my experience is that by treating people individually without bias or assumption, you maximise the opportunity of rewarding them appropriately. Understanding how to motivate them is no different. Individualise the approach, and the reward will be there for all to share.

In a professional environment, career development is fundamental to motivation and reward. There are constants, irrespective of generation and stage. These include the desire to be successful and the sense of progression. What does change is the measures of success and the definition of progress.

There will always be expert analysis, opinions and dialogue regarding leadership. What characterises it, can we teach it, how do we assess one’s competency…the list goes on and on.  To all of these questions, one should ask, “Is it really that complicated and are we looking and thinking too deeply?”

As with most engineering and life problems, the best solutions are often the obvious ones. So, what defines a good leader? Is it skills or qualities? I believe leadership qualities and leadership skills are fundamentally different, and there are sound reasons for this.

What defines a good leader? Is it skills or qualities?

In my opinion, leadership qualities are less tangible but inherently more obvious and easier to identify in someone, whereas skills are easier to define but quite often harder to assess. Qualities are generally common between individual leaders whilst their skills can vary enormously. It is this variation in skillset that defines the type of leader, not whether one is or isn’t.

A great deal of the literature written regarding leadership centres around identifying, assessing and evaluating the skills required. However, this focus can often lead to over-complication and more importantly, distraction from the most important issue i.e. the person’s qualities as a leader. In relation to someone being a true leader, I believe the qualities are mandatory, the skills are optional.

Within any organisation, true leaders will always stand out. What is even more profound is that their qualities can usually be easily identified at a relatively young age, early in their career. These qualities strengthen with time and they mature and evolve at a rate commensurate with the opportunities provided.

A critical component of any successful business is the development of them. Too often, I believe, companies assess individuals with leadership aspirations based on skills rather than qualities. Even more concerning is those with a strong skillset may be granted the privilege of leadership over those who have the inherent qualities.

Too often, I believe, companies assess individuals with leadership aspirations based on skills rather than qualities.

For me the approach is simple. Identify those within the organisation who show strong leadership qualities and then build their skills to make them more effective. Many would argue this approach carries risk, based on it primarily being an intuitive decision rather than analytical. I would argue not, due to these leadership qualities being generally easy to identify. In other words, choose the standout individuals with natural talent. Make the obvious decision and don’t over-complicate it.

Once the “easy” decision is made, then the hard work begins. Allow individuals exposure to situations that will develop their skills, whilst providing them with mentoring and guidance. Most importantly, and because of their own unique skillset, allow them to be their own type of leader.