This morning I tested the theory of the distribution of labour.

I put myself into the hands of another service provider. Now I’m someone who provides services for a living but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do and in this case I simply couldn’t do the job myself.

I had to get to London and I hired a train driver, and his train, to take me there.

I let the driver get on with his job whilst I got on with mine. Neither disturbed the other, we both won. It’s obvious.

So the theory holds good when you can’t do the job yourself, but what about when you can?

Let’s say my daughter’s room needs tidying. (I know it’s a stretch, but just go with it). And let’s say for the moment that we’ve talked about it and she agrees it’s a good idea. Now what? We have some choices:

1. We do it together
2. I leave her to get on with it
3. I leave her, but check in to make sure everything is ok
4. I leave her to do it, check back in to see the progress, get frustrated, end up doing it myself

The fourth answer is definitely the wrong answer but it’s the one that plays out in thousands of bedrooms, boardrooms and meeting rooms every day.

Sometimes you may have to make sure the job is done the way you want it to be done and sometimes that may mean doing the job yourself. But not very often.

Learn by doing

Taking things into your own hands – whether that means doing it yourself, constantly checking in, or riding someone to make sure they do things your way – stops personal development and guarantees you’ll be elbow deep in grease every time this job comes up.

The slow way is to let them do the job themselves. It may not be perfect or done in the shortest possible time but the most effective way of learning – to drive the train, to tidy the room or to take any kind of responsibility – is by doing.

This probably means making mistakes. As long as it’s not life or death, that’s ok.

The slow way to manage is to separate the what from the how. Agree the what and let them get on with the how. They’ll develop, the organisation will develop, and you can get on with your real job.

The distribution of labour only works if you actually distribute the labour – with it we can go to the moon, without it we’d probably still be laying the concrete on the launch pad.

Neatly filed under Managing
Tags: motivation, responsibility

It’s easy to believe that the competition is made up of other companies or people who want the same thing that you do; to land the new client, to get share of market, or wallet, or mind. It’s compelling to think that they are out to beat you.

But sometimes it’s not them, it’s you.

In The Art of War (which you can find here), sixth century B.C. military strategist Sun Tzu says,

“Know your opponent, know yourself and know the terrain: one hundred challenges without danger.”

Competition is everything that stands in the way of success.

Yep, your competitors are certainly out there, working hard to get over the line before you.

Absolutely, it’s critical to understand, plan and organise for the terrain where you operate.

Spend time looking out the window, yes, but don’t forget to look in the mirror too.

A few months ago I stood on the start line of my marathon training for Boston 2009. I’ve done plenty or marathons before so I know how to run, how to train and how to race. Two months into my program and my training came crashing down. I haven’t run since.

I was focused on the finish line, motivated to train, clear about my plan. I was disciplined.

So focused, motivated, clear and disciplined in fact that I completely forgot to know myself, to listen to my body. I pushed through the pain and limped into an overuse injury that stopped me running for the last two months. I withdrew from Boston this morning.

What attitudes are in your way? What long-held assumptions are tripping you up? What issues are you ignoring or tiptoeing around every day? What must you change, what should not be allowed to wait? Listen and do.

Neatly filed under Focus,Managing
Tags: competition, motivation

In 1992 Frederick Herzberg wrote a new introduction to his 1959 classic, The Motivation to Work (which you can find here),

“In The Motivation to Work and in all subsequent studies, achievement or quality performance has been the most frequent factor leading to job satisfaction. In other words, we found that behaviour or performance leads to satisfaction and positive attitudes. We had assumed, like most other researchers at the time, that FAE units (factors, attitudes, effects) would show that attitude leads to behaviour.” (Emphasis mine)

Happy people don’t do good work, people who do good work are happy.

Neatly filed under Managing
Tags: herzberg, motivation