Stop being an overachiever

This post came out from The Business Times (4 June 2016)
Title - Stop being an overachiever

There is a fine line between a high performer and an overachiever: knowing the difference can make or break your career.

Overachieving employees, while being able to exceed targets and do well from a micro-perspective, may not be seen as having the potential or ability to grow and succeed in the organisation. This is because such individuals often miss the big picture, spending all their time on low value work that can be done by just anybody instead of finding ways to create value for the organisation.

High performers, on the other hand, think strategically and focus on long term goals, rather than focusing only on the completion of short term tasks. As a result, they are able to live a balanced life while overachievers will sacrifice personal time and work long hours to get the job done.

Overachievers also tend to find it hard to prioritise as they see everything as equally important. Coupled with their need for perfection, these workers risk burnout and find it hard to bounce back from failure.

Overly competent people may like the feeling of being indispensible, but being the go-to person at work can have career consequences.

Firstly, it can affect team dynamics in the office. Such workers risk alienation from colleagues for being the boss's pet, and are likely to resent colleagues who are not as conscientious. Toxicity aside, having a reputation as a workhorse means that you find yourself often assigned tasks by bosses and colleagues with nothing to show for it aside from a pat on the back, you are reinforcing the belief that it is okay to pile more work on you. Ultimately, being a people-pleasing pushover demonstrates to management that you lack the maturity or leadership quality needed to take it to the next level.

But the biggest risk of being too good at one's work is that the person becomes so central and critical to the job that there is no succession plan in place. The hard truth is that the hardest workers don't always get promoted - but the most strategic ones who demonstrate their value do.

So, if being an overachiever resonates with you, it's not too late to change things. This means taking stock of your current career and growth trajectory, and arranging for a meeting with your superiors. List down every single piece of work or project that you are handling and go through it with your manager to find out what your priorities should be. Your manager might not even be fully aware of what you do.

Be clear on what your career aspirations are and ensure that the work you will be doing is aligned to the attainment of the goals agreed upon by the manager and yourself. Once this is out of the way, be firm in saying no to work that is not in line with these goals. Old habits die hard, so ask yourself each time you are asked to work on something: Will this benefit me?

If your manager is not forthcoming and you sense that your career progression is not a priority, it may be wise to evaluate if it is worthwhile staying on in the department. This is especially so if performance and extra work are constantly not rewarded and management does nothing to alleviate the unfair work allocation even after the issue has been raised.

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Increase your productivity at work

This post came out from The Straits Times (22 June 2016)
Title - Increase your productivity at work

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Begin with the end in mind
2. Have a sense of purpose
3. Use your time wisely

On Begin with the end in mind

• Be clear on what you want to achieve at the end of the day. It is important to be aware of your tasks and deadlines.
• Put aside 10 minutes to 15 minutes at the start of each day to plan your day ahead. List down all the tasks you have to complete, and tackle those that are high priority. 
• Be flexible and adaptable to cope with competing deadlines and rapidly changing priorities.

On Have a sense of purpose

• Having goals in mind when you create your-to-do list. Have a clear idea of the skills you wish to improve on can spur you to work harder and achieve better standards of performance. This added sense of motivation can also help you to think of new ideas, or speed up problem-solving procedures.

On Use your time wisely

• Be focused and minimise distractions during working hours. Devote your full attention to your work and limit small talk with colleagues, as well as the time spent on checking your mobile devices. 
• You can make use of pockets of time available in between appointments or events, to work on plans for the next day, answering e-mails, or reading self-improvement books. 

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Embracing agile

Article from Harvard Business Review by Darrell K. Rigby, Jeff Sutherland, and Hirotaka Takeuchi

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Learn how agile really works
2. Understand where agile does or does not work
3. Start small and let the word spread
4. Allow 'Master' teams to customise their practices
5. Practice agile at the top
6. Destroy the barriers to agile behaviours

On Learn how agile really works

Some executives seem to associate agile with anarchy (everybody does what he or she wants to), whereas others take it to mean "doing what I say, only faster". But agile is neither. It comes in several varieties, which have much in common but emphasize slightly different things. They include scrum, which emphasizes creative and adaptive teamwork in solving complex problems; lean development, which focuses on the continual elimination of waste; and kanban, which concentrates on reducing lead times and the amount of work in process.

The fundamentals of scrum are relatively simple. To tackle an opportunity, the organization forms and empowers a small team, usually three to nine people, most of whom are assigned full time. The team is cross functional and includes all the skills necessary to complete its tasks. It manages itself and is strictly accountable for every aspect of the work.

The team's "initiative owner" (also known as a product owner) is ultimately responsible for delivering value to customers (including internal customers and future users) and to the business. The person in this role usually comes from a business function and divides his or her time between working with the team and coordinating with key stakeholders: customers, senior executives, and business managers. The initiative owner may use a technique such as design thinking or crowd-sourcing to build a comprehensive "portfolio backlog" of promising opportunities. Then he or she continually and ruthlessly rank-orders that list according to the latest estimates of value to internal or external customers and to the company.

The initiative owner doesn't tell the team who should do what or how long tasks will take. Rather, the team creates a simple road map and plans in detail only those activities that won't change before execution. Its members break the highest-ranked tasks into small modules, decide how much work the team will take on and how to accomplish it, develop a clear definition of "done", and then start building working versions o the product in short cycles (less than a month) known as sprints. A process facilitator (often a trained scrum master) guides the process. This person protects the team from distractions and helps it put its collective intelligence to work.

The process is transparent to everyone. Team members hold brief daily "stand up" meetings to review progress and identify roadblocks. They resolve disagreements through experimentation and feedback rather than endless debates or appeals to authority. They test small working prototypes of part or all of the offering with a few customers for short periods of time. If customers get excited, a prototype may be released immediately, even if some senior executive isn't a fan, or others think it needs more bells and whistles. The team then brainstorms ways to improve future cycles and prepares to attack the next top priority.

Compared with traditional management approaches, agile offers a number of major benefits, all of which have been studied and documented. It increases team productivity and employee satisfaction. It minimizes the waste inherent in redundant meetings, repetitive planning, excessive documentation, quality defects, and low-value product features. By improving visibility and continually adapting to customers' changing priorities, agile improves customer engagement and satisfaction, brings the most valuable products and features to market faster and more predictably, and reduces risk. By engaging team members from multiple disciplines as collaborative peers, it broadens organizational experience and builds mutual trust and respect. Finally, by dramatically reducing the time squandered on micromanaging functional projects, it allows senior managers to devote themselves more fully to higher-value work that only they can do: creating and adjusting the corporate vision; prioritizing strategic strategic initiatives; simplifying and focusing work; assigning the right people to tasks; increasing cross-functional collaboration; and removing impediments to progress.

On Understand where agile does or does not work

Agile is most effective and easiest to implement under conditions commonly found in software innovation: The problem to be solved is complex; solutions are initially unknown, and product requirements will most likely change; the work can be modularized; close collaborations with end users (and rapidly feedback from them) is feasible; and creative teams will typically outperform command and control groups.

In our experience, these conditions exist for many product development functions, marketing projects, strategic-planning activities, supply-chain challenges, and resource allocation decisions. They are less common in routine operations such as plant maintenance, purchasing, sales calls, and accounting. And because agile requires training, behavioural change, and often new information technologies, executives must decide whether the anticipated payoffs will justify the effort and expenses of a transition.

Agile innovation also depends on having a cadre of eager participants. One of its core principles is "Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they needs, and trust them to get the job done.: When the majority of a company, a function, or a team chooses to adopt agile methodologies, leaders may need to press the holdouts to follow suit or even replace them. But it's better to enlist passionate volunteers than to coerce resisters.

On Start small and let the word spread

Large companies typically launch change programs as massive efforts. But the most successful introductions of agile usually start small. They often begin in IT, where software developers are likely to be familiar with the principles. Then agile might spread to another function, with the original practitioners acting as coaches. Each success seems to create a group of passionate evangelists who can hardly wait to tell others in the organization how well agile works.

On Allow "Master" teams to customize their practices

Mastering agile innovation is similar. Before beginning to modify or customize agile, a person or team will benefit from practicing the widely used methodologies that have delivered success in thousands of companies.

Over time, experienced practitioners should be permitted to customize agile practices. For example, one principles holds that teams should keep their progress and impediments constantly visible. Originally, the most popular way of doing this was by manually advancing colored sticky notes from the "to-do" column to "doing" to "done" on large whiteboards. Many teams are still devoted to this practice and enjoy having nonmembers visit their team rooms to view and discuss progress. But others are turning to software programs and computer screens to minimize input time and allow the information to be shared simultaneously in multiple locations.

A key principle guides this type of improvisation: If a team wants to modify particular practices, it should experiment and track the results to make sure that the changes are improving rather than reducing customer satisfaction, work velocity, and team morale.

On Practice agile at the top

Some C-suite activities are not suited to agile methodologies (Routine and predictable tasks - such as performance assessments, press interviews, and visits to plants, customers and suppliers - fall into this category). But many, and arguably the most important are. They include strategy development and resource allocation, cultivating breakthrough innovations, and improving organizational collaboration. Senior executives who come together as an agile team and learn to apply the discipline to these activities achieve far-reaching benefits. Their own productivity and morale improve. They speak the language of the teams they are empowering. They experience common challenges and learn how to overcome them. They recognise an stop behaviours that impede agile teams. They learn to simplify and focus work. Results improve, increasing confidence and engagement throughout the organization.

On Destroy the barriers to agile behaviours

Research has found that more than 70% of agile practitioners report tension between their teams and the rest of the organization. Little wonder: They are following different road maps and moving at different speed.

Get everyone on the same page - Individual teams focusing on small parts of large, complex problems need to see, and work from, the same list of enterprise priorities - even if not all the teams responsible for those priorities are using agile processes.

Don't change structures right away; change roles instead - Many executives assume that creating more cross-functional teams will necessitate major changes in organizational structure. That is rarely true. Highly empowered cross-functional teams do, by definition, need some form of matrix management, but that requires primarily that different disciplines learn how to work together simultaneously rather than separately and sequentially.

Name only one boss for each decision - People can have multiple bosses, but decisions cannot. In an agile operating model it must be crystal clear who is responsible for commissioning a cross-functional team, selecting and replacing team members, appointing the team leader, and approving the team's decisions. An agile leadership team often authorises a senior executive to identify the critical issues, design processes for addressing them, and appoint a single owner for each innovation initiative. Other senior leaders must avoid second-guessing or overturning the owner's decisions. It's fine to provide guidance and assistance, but if you don't like the results, change the initiative owner, don't incapacitate him or her.

Focus on teams, not individuals - Studies by the MIT Centre for Collective Intelligence and others show that although the intelligence of individuals affects team performance, the team's collective intelligence is even more important. It's also far easier to change. Agile teams use process facilitators to continually improve their collective intelligence - for example, by clarifying roles, teaching conflict resolution techniques, and ensuring that team members contribute equally. Shifting metrics from output and utilization rates (how busy people are) to business outcomes and team happiness (how valuable and engaged people are) also helps, as do recognition and reward systems that weight team results higher than individual efforts.

Lead with questions, not orders - General George S. Patton Jr, famously advised leaders never to tell people how to do things: "Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." Rather than give orders, leaders in agile organizations learn to guide with questions, such as "What do you recommend?" and "How could we test that?" This management style helps functional experts grow into general mangers, and it helps enterprise strategists and organizations evolve from silos battling for power and resources into collaborative cross-functional teams.

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Outsmart your own biases

Article from Harvard Business Review by Jack b. Soll, Katherine L. Milkman, and John W. Payne

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Thinking about the future
2. Thinking about objectives
3. Thinking about options
4. Fighting motivated bias

On Thinking about the future

• Nearly everyone thinks too narrowly about possible outcomes. Some people make one best guess and stop there. Others at least try to hedge their bets (using percentage/ likelihood). Because most of us tend to be highly overconfident in our estimates, it's important to "nudge" ourselves to allow for risk and uncertainty. 
• Make three estimates. To improve your accuracy, work up at least three estimates - low, medium, and high - instead of just stating a range. People give wider ranges when they think about their low and high estimates separately, and coming up with three numbers prompts you to do that. Your low and high guesses should be unlikely but still within the realm of possibility. Chances are, your middle estimate will bring you closer to reality than a two number range would. 
• Think twice. A related exercise is to make two forecasts and take the average. Research shows that when people think more than once about a problem, they often come at it with a different perspective, adding valuable information. So tap your own inner crowd and allow time for reconsideration: Project an outcome, take a break (sleep on it if you can), and then come back and project another. Don't refer to your previous estimate - you'll only anchor yourself and limit your ability to achieve new insights. If you can't avoid thinking about your previous estimate, then assume it was wrong and consider reasons that support a different guess.
• Use premortems. In a postmortem, the task is typically to understand the cause of a past failure. In a premortem, you imagine a future failure and then explain the cause. This technique, also called prospective hindsight, helps you identify potential problems that ordinary foresight won't bring to mind. Thinking in this way has several benefits. First, it tempers optimism, encouraging a more realistic assessment of risk. Second, it helps you prepare backup plans and exit strategies. Third, it can highlight factors that will influence success or failure, which may increase your ability to control the results. 
• Take an outside view. This is where you consider what's happened with similar ventures and what advice you'd give someone else if you weren't involved in it. It prevents the "planning fallacy" - spinning a narrative of total success and managing for that, even though your odds of failure are actually pretty high.

On Thinking about objectives

• It's important to have an expansive mindset about your objectives, too. This will help you focus when it's time to pick your most suitable options. Most people unwittingly limit themselves by allowing only a subset of worthy goals to guide them, simply because they're unaware of the full range of possibilities. Early in the decision-making process, you want to generate many objectives. Later you can sort out which ones matter most.
• Seek advice. Round our your perspective by looking to others for ideas. Outline objectives on your own before seeking advice so that you don't get "anchored" by what others say. And don't anchor your advisers by leading with what you already believe. If you are making a decision jointly with others, have people list their goals independently and then combine the lists. 
• Cycle through your objective. Looking at objectives one by one rather than all at once helps people come up with more alternatives. Seeking a solution that checks off every single box is too difficult - it paralyzes the decision maker. 

On thinking about options

• Although you need a critical mass of options to make sound decisions, you also need to find strong contenders - at least two but ideally three to five. Unfortunately, people rarely consider more than one at a time Managers tend to frame decisions as yes-or-no questions instead of generating alternatives. Yes-no framing is just one way we narrow our options. Others include focusing on one type of solution to a problem (what psychologists call functional fixedness) and being constrained by our assumptions about what works and what doesn't. All these are signs of cognitive rigidity, which gets amplified when we feel threatened by time pressure, negative emotions, exhaustion, and other stressors. We devote mental energy to figuring out how to avoid a loss rather than developing new possibilities to explore.
• Use joint evaluation. The problem with evaluating options in isolation is that you can't ensure the best outcomes. A proven way to snap into joint evaluation mode is to consider what you'll be missing if you make a certain choice. 
• Try the "vanishing options" test. Once people have a solid option, they usually want to move on, so they fail to explore alternatives that may be superior. To address this problem, the decision experts Chip Heath and Dan Heath recommend a mental trick" Assume you can't choose any of the options you're weighing and ask, "What else could I do?". This question will trigger an exploration of alternatives. 

On Fighting motivated bias

• All these cognitive biases - narrow thinking about the future, about objectives, and about options - are said to be "motivated" when driven by an intense psychological need, such as a strong emotional attachment or investment. 
• Motivated biases are especially difficult to overcome. You know this if you've ever poured countless hours and resources into developing an idea, only to discover months later that someone has beaten you to it You should move on, but your desire to avoid a loss is so great that it distorts your perception of benefits and risks. And so you feel an overwhelming urge to forge ahead - to prove that your idea is somehow bigger or better. 
• Our misguided faith in our own judgement makes matters worse. We're overconfident for two reasons: We give the information we do have too much weight. And because we don't know what we can't see, we have trouble imagining other ways of framing the problem or working towards a solution. 
• But we can preempt some motivated biases, such as the tendency to doggedly pursue a course of action we desperately want to take, by using a "trip wire" to redirect ourselves to a more logical path. In business, trip wires can make people less vulnerable to "present bias" - the tendency to focus on immediate preferences and ignore long term aims and consequences. 

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Are you ready to decide?

Article from McKinsey Quarterly by Philip Meissner, Oliver Sibony, and Torsten Wulf

Some pointers that I've got are:

Confirmation bias - Our unconscious tendency to attach more weight than we should to information that is consistent with our beliefs, hypotheses, and recent experiences and to discount information that contradicts them.
Overconfidence bias - Frequently makes executives misjudge their own abilities, as well as the competencies of the business. It leads them to take risks they should not take, in the mistaken belief that they will be able to control outcomes.

Since executives won't get very far by focusing directly on biases, they should consider instead whether safeguards against them have been used. In other words, leaders should ask about the process used to develop the proposal, not about the proposal itself or the degree of confidence it inspires. Questions below helps in the evaluation of the process in the context of the two main categories of biases described earlier.

This first set of questions "Consideration of different points of view" aims to determine whether the confirmation bias has been kept in check. These questions focus on the sources of assumptions and the diversity of opinions expressed. A broad set of sources (including outside views) or a diverse set of opinions is a good indicator that the initial assumptions of the decision process have not gone unchallenged.

• Have the recommenders checked their assumptions?
• In their analysis, have they considered factors that would make the project exceed its initial goals?
• Have they compared their assumptions with those made for a comparable external project?
• Have they compared their assumptions with those made for a comparable internal project?
• Have the recommenders integrated a diverse set of opinions?
• Have they assembled a diverse team for the decision making process?
• Have they discussed their proposal with someone who would most certainly disagree with it?
• Have they considered at least one plausible alternative to the course of action being recommended?

A second set of questions "Consideration of downside risk" asks whether the possibility of negative outcomes - including company-, industry-, and macro-level downsides - has been thoroughly evaluated. Such an evaluation can act as a safeguard against overconfidence

• Inside the organization, what are the decision's two most important side effects that might negatively affect its outcome? Have the recommenders considered these side effects?
• Side effect A
• Side effect B
• In the company's industry, what are the two most important potential changes that might negatively affect the outcome of this decision? Have the recommendation considered these changes?
• Potential industry change A
• Potential industry change B
• In the macro environment, what are the two most important potential changes that might negatively affect the outcome of this decision? Have the recommenders considered these changes?
• Potential macro-environment change A
• Potential macro-environment change B

On each dimension, the questions are designed to be flexible, so that the circumstances of the decision at hand can be taken into account. Once the questions have been answered (with a simple yes or no), the responses can be transcribed on a matrix. This scoring will place the proposed decision in one of the four quadrants, leading to different courses of action. 

• Decide (3+ yes "Consideration of downside risk and 3+ yes "Consideration of different point of views"). This quadrant represents the most favorable outcome: the process that led to such a decision appears to have included safeguards against both confirmation bias and overconfidence.
• Reach out (3+ yes "Consideration of downside risk and 0-2 yes "Consideration of different point of views"). Proposals that fall in this quadrant have been tested for their resilience to downside risks but may still be based on overly narrow assumptions. Decision makers should consider techniques that broaden their perspectives and help them generate meaningful alternatives. One such technique is the vanishing-options test: executives force themselves to generate new ideas by imaging that none of the proposals on the table are available. 
• Stress test (0-2 yes "Consideration of downside risk and 3+ yes "Consideration of different point of views"). Decisions in this quadrant reflect a variety of viewpoints but, nevertheless, may not have been sufficiently challenged and could therefore be tainted by overoptimism. Executives should consider a thorough outside review of the possible risks - for instance, by conducting a premortem or asking an outside challenger to play the role of devil's advocate.
• Reconsider (0-2 yes "Consideration of downside risk and 0-2 yes "Consideration of different point of views"). When this appears, the process has probably not been comprehensive. Decision makers should therefore follow a dual strategy that generates both new perspectives and new reviews of risks. 

A key question is who answers the questions in the tool. Since individuals developing a recommendation will not be aware of their biases, they cannot be expected to assess their own decision readiness. The answers must therefore come from the outside: Not the executive who has driven the decision process, but other ho have a more neutral view.

In practice, decision makers will be in one of two situations. In the first, and easiest, they reviewed recommendations prepared by others but had minimal involvement in developing them. In that case, decision makers are well placed to address the screening tool questions themselves.

But in the second and more frequent case, the decision makers were actively involved in studying decisions that have now reached the final stage. In this case, they no longer have an outside view of the process and will need to seek out answers from informed observers: staff members, such as the CFO; colleagues from other parts of the organisation; or outside advisers. Some companies will wish to define this role in advance and make it a formal part of their decision-making process, to void having a respondent who shares the decision maker's point of view.

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Winning hearts and minds in the 21st century

Article from MxKinsey Quarterly by Tessa Basford and Bill Schaninger

Almost 15 years ago, we introduced the idea that four key actions could work together to support the changing mindsets and behaviour of the workforce. These are: fostering understanding and conviction, reinforcing change through formal mechanisms, developing talent and skills, and modeling of new roles.The challenge for executives now is that they must learn to apply the model in new and imaginative way.

Two key features of the modern workplace are particularly important in the context of change. One is the increasingly advanced technological and digital landscape, including mobile connectivity and social media, that has opened up exciting new possibilities for influence. The second is the new generation of millennial employees. On the surface, at least, they seem to have different needs and respond to change in ways that set them apart from their more tenured coworkers.

Digital advances can turbocharge efforts to foster understanding and conviction, thereby helping employees to feel more involved in change efforts and better play a role in shaping them. Consider, for example, how modern digital communications make it easy to personalise messages, tailoring them to the needs of individuals and delivering them directly to frontline employees. We take such personalised communications for granted, but they are significant in the context of major change efforts: they help to prevent a break in the cascade when a message trickles down from the CEO through middle management.

Technology also can help identify obstacles to change, such as overconfidence in your abilities or knowledge. Rapid-fire online polling tools make it relatively straightforward to take an organization's pulse, identifying differences in outlook and understanding between top management and the rank and file.

More positively, leaders can use technology tools to celebrate skill building. For example, digital tools give organizations a creative way to show how increased effort (such as the adoption of new software or attendance at a training programme) can improve performance. By profiling success stories on company intranet pages and displaying training certificates and "badges" on Chatter and Yammer, organizations can instill a sense of control and competence that stimulates the improvement efforts of both individuals and teams.

Social platforms are more than just tools for communication and for building skills and a sense of community. They provide a sophisticated analysis that reinforces role modeling and builds up a momentum of influence. Over the past couple of years, we've seen a growing number of companies use social-networking analyses and similar techniques to help identify hidden influencers: people whose attitudes may command respect among their colleagues and whose role might be critical for the success of a change programme.

Companies can now influence people in new ways
1. Role modeling - "I see my leaders, colleagues, and staff behaving differently."

• What's changed - Social networks allow companies to gauge the opinions of the group - but employees can also be easily swayed by the collective voice.

2. Fostering understanding and conviction - "I understand what is being asked of me, and it makes sense."

• What's changed - Technological advances and new channels facilitate more frequent and increasingly personalised communication.

3. Reinforcing with formal mechanisms - :I see that our structures, processes, and systems support the changes I am being asked to make."

• What's changed - The things that motivate millennials probably differ from what motivates more tenured employees - organizations may need to be more creative with rewards.

4. Developing talent and skills - "I have the skills and opportunities to behave in the new way."

• What's changed - Digital platforms provide an opportunity for organizations to highlight - and celebrate - those who have acquired new knowledge and skills. 

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Increase your return on failure

Article from Harvard Business Review by Julian Birkinshaw and Martine Haas

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Step 1: Learn from every failure
2. Step 2: Share the lessons
3. Step 3: Review your pattern of failure

On Step 1: Learn from every failure

• Begin by getting people to reflect on projects or initiatives that disappointed. Of course, this doesn't come naturally: Reviewing past problems isn't just tedious; it's painful. Most of us would prefer to invest our time looking forward, not back. 
• When something doesn't go as planned, it's an opportunity to challenge your default beliefs and adjust accordingly. We recommend spelling out what the project has taught you about each of these things: customers and market dynamics; your organization's strategy, culture and processes; yourself and your team; and future trends.
• These insights, of course, are the assets. Our exercise also has you compile a list of the associated liabilities - the projects direct costs in time and money, any external costs (reputation, for example), and any internal indirect costs (such as excessive consumption of management attention). 

On Step 2: Share the lessons

• While it's useful to reflect on individual failures, the real payoff comes when you spread the lessons across the organisation. As one executive commented, "You need to build a review cycle where this is fed into a broader conversation." When the information, ideas, and opportunities for improvement gained from an unsuccessful project in one business area are passed on to another, their benefits are magnified. 
• Shared learning also increases the likelihood of future initiatives. "The biggest mistake you can make as a leader is to shoot the messenger and bury the bad news," one executive noted. By reflecting on the positives, you build trust and goodwill and clear the pathway for others to take action on risker ideas.
• We recommend bringing senior leaders (across a unit or the whole organization) together on a regular basis to talk about their respective failures. These reviews work best when they are fast and to the point; takes place frequently, through good times and bad; and are forward looking, with an emphasis on learning. We call them Triple F reviews (Fast, Frequent, Forward looking).

On Step 3: Review your pattern of failure

• The third step is to take a bird's eye view of the organization and ask whether your overall approach to failure is working. Are you learning from every unsuccessful endeavour? Are you sharing those lessons across the organization? And are they helping you improve your strategy and execution?

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

3 career mistakes to avoid

This post came out from The Straits Times (25 May 2016)
Title - 3 career mistakes to avoid

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Job hopping without addressing the crux of the problem
2. Inflating your resume during interviews
3. Not pacing yourself and suffering from frequent burnouts

On Job hopping without addressing the crux of the problem

• If you tend to change jobs frequently, identify the underlying reasons. Can you communicate well with your co-workers? Can you manage stress and tight deadlines effectively?
• It is vital to recognise and address the root of the issue of reasons for leaving jobs. Sweeping problems under the carpet and changing your job constantly more often than not highlights a lack of commitment, which could also be reflected in other areas of life outside work. A thorough understanding of yourself plays a key part in every career move. 

On Inflating your resume during interviews

• Do not fall into the common pitfall of over-promising what you can do or over selling the skills you have during interviews. Understand what you are really able to do at your level, and accepting the value in all that you bring including your personal qualities is very important. 
• It is also a useful way to keep yourself level-headed and 'real' for your potential future employer. Re-evaluate if your skill sets, strengths, passion and values are in line with the job you applied for.
• People feel more fulfilled when their careers offer them meaningful opportunities to utilise their skills and prospects to shine in their chosen areas of expertise.

On Not pacing yourself and suffering from frequent burnouts

• Do you often feel physically, mentally and emotionally exhausted due to the demands of your job? This fatigue may also cause you to lose interest in other areas of your life, such as social and family interaction.
• Set aside time for relaxation. Give yourself a break from work. Set appropriate boundaries and refrain from checking e-mails or answering calls during your down time.
• Have an active life outside of work. Attending interest or hobby groups can help to make life more fulfilling and leave you feeling recharged. Keeping to a regular exercise routine helps to release the physical tension and stiffness resulting from sitting at your desk for long hours. 

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Put your best face forward - How to look presentable during an interview

This post came out from The Straits Times (26 May 2016)
Title - Put your best face forward

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Make a good impression
2. Appearance and attire
3. Verbal communication
4. Non-verbal communication
5. Grooming

On Make a good impression

• Employers sum up our looks within the first 30 seconds, hence putting our best face forward is critical. While one should not overdo one's make up, under doing it can suggest a lack of attentiveness. 
• Amy Cuddy, a Harvard-trained professor, has concluded that during an initial encounter with a person, we come away with two impressions. The first is how warm the person is, while the second is how trustworthy we perceive them to be. More than 80 per cent of first impressions are determined by these two traits. A sure-fire way of managing the first impression we create is by curating our image.

On Appearance and attire

• Do your clothes project the right personal image? An interview for an executive position will require a full suit preferably in conservative colours, while a creative position allows more room for expression.
• Play around with accessories to reflect your personality. For a final touch, iron your clothes and polish your shoes.

On Verbal communication

• Are you able to articulate your thoughts clearly? Do you speak at the right pace so it is easy for the listener to understand you? 
• You can adopt a role-play scenario with friends to evaluate your performance, or record yourself as you read aloud. When you play back the recording, take note of problem areas to improve your diction.

On Non-verbal communication

• Establishing eye contact is key to connect with your interviewer. A firm handshake is one way of showing your confidence, and conveys genuine interest.
• Look attentive and alert by maintaining good posture. When seated, place your hands in front of you or on your lap. Avoid digging your hands into your pockets or crossing them in front of your chest as it signals nervousness.

On Grooming

• Your overall presentation, from make-up to general cleanliness, determines the image you project. Dress appropriately for the meeting and spend time fine-tuning your look, as it can give you a winning edge. 

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big

Managing yourself - Learn to love networking

Article from Harvard Business Review by Tiziana Casciaro, Francesca Gino, and Maryam Kouchaki

Some pointers that I've got are:
1. Focus on learning
2. Identify common interests
3. Think broadly about what you can give
4. Find a higher purpose

On Focus on learning

• Most people have a dominant motivational focus - what psychologists refer to as either a "promotion" or a "prevention" mindset. Those in the former category think primarily about the growth, advancement, and accomplishments that networking can bring them, while those in the latter see it as something they are obliged to take part in for professional reasons. 
• Promotion-focused people networked because they wanted to and approached the activity with excitement, curiosity, and an open mind about all the possibilities that might unfold.
• Prevention-focused people saw networking as a necessary evil and felt inauthentic while engaged in it, so they did it less often, and as a result, under-performed in aspects of their jobs. 
• It is possible to shift your mindset from prevention to promotion, so that you see networking as an opportunity for discovery and learning rather than a chore. Consider a work-related social function you feel obliged to attend. You can tell yourself, "I hate these kinds of events. I'm going to have to put on a show and schmooze and pretend to like it." Or you can tell yourself, "Who knows - it could be interesting. Sometimes when you least expect it, you have a conversation that brings up new ideas and leads to new experiences and opportunities". 
• If you are an introvert, you can't simply will yourself to be extroverted, of course. But everyone can choose which motivational focus to bring to networking. Concentrate on the positives - how it's going to help you boost the knowledge and skills that are needed in your job - and the activity will begin to seem much more worthwhile. 

On Identify common interests

• The next step in making networking more palatable is to think about how your interests and goals align with those of people you meet and how that can help you forge meaningful working relationships. 
• Northwestern University's Brian Uzzi calls this the shared activities principle. "Potent networks are not forged through casual interactions but through relatively high-stakes activities that connect you with diverse others. 
• Numerous studies in social psychology have demonstrated that people establish the most collaborative and longest-lasting connections when they work together on tasks that require one another's contributions. 
• When your networking is driven by substantive, shared interests you've identified through serious research, it will feel more authentic and meaningful and is more likely to lead to relationships that have those qualities too.

On Think broadly about what you can give

• Even when you do not share an interest with someone, you can probably find something valuable to offer by thinking beyond the obvious. Of course, this isn't always easy. 
• We've found that people who feel powerless - because they are junior in their organisations, because they belong to a minority, or for other reasons - often believe they have too little to give and are therefore the least likely to engage in networking, even though they're the ones who will probably derive the most benefit from it. 
• When people believe they have a lot to offer others, such as wise advice, mentorship, access, and resources, networking feels easier and less selfish. 
• However, even those with lower rank and less power almost certainly have more to offer than they realise. In their book "Influence without authority", Allan Cohen and David Bradford note that most people tend to think too narrowly about the resources they have that others might value. They focus on tangible, task-related things such as money, social connections, technical support, and information, while ignoring less obvious assets such as gratitude, recognition, and enhanced reputation. For instance, although mentors typically like helping others, they tend to enjoy it all the more when they are thanked for their assistance.
• People also appreciate those who understand their values and identities and make them feel included. 
• You might also have unique insights or knowledge that could be useful to those with whom you are networking. For example, junior people are often better informed than their senior colleagues about generational trends and new markets and technologies. 
• When you think more about what you can give to others than what you can get from them, networking will seem less self-promotional and more selfless - and therefore more worth your time. 

On Find a higher purpose

• Another factor that affects people's interest in and effectiveness at networking is the primary purpose they have in mind when they do it. 
• Any work activity becomes more attractive when it is linked to a higher goal. So frame your networking in those terms. 

Yours,
Something Small Thinking Big