Your Freedom Lies in Monkeys

I have attended alot of conferences in my career. Although there are many types of conferences, the motivational ones are always interesting. You never walk away from these conferences fully satisfied but more with a slightly subdued hunger. This is not a bad thing by any means. Overeating at any conference can leave you bloated and with a headache. The key to any conference is to walk away with a few "nuggets" of wisdom with which to build on.

The scale you see at the top is one such nugget. The scale was developed by William Oncken, a consulting guru best known for his time management techniques and metaphorical monkeys. Centering around managers, Oncken's technique is to depict everyday issues and challenges as monkeys and show ways to remove them. The path to less stress and more time in your day to do YOUR REAL JOB is be rid of monkeys - especially those that are not yours. If you think about it, we all do this on a daily basis where we walk in the morning physched about our day and then are bombarded but OTHERS issues. As a manager you have a responsibility to those above and below you in the chain of command. So how do you be the best you can at your own job, while still supporting your staff, boss, and organizational needs?

The strategy with the depicted scale is to have the majority (if not all) of you staff performing above a #3. The more independent your staff is of your decisions or controls, the more time you have to spend on issues that you want to be engaged in. I added the arrows on the side to illustrate the key problems that managers face in moving up and down this scale.

1. Trust: Many managers do not inherently trust their staff to make the right decisions. They are micro-managers because of this fault and feel the need to be involved in all decisions, no matter their importance. The issue of trust is hard to overcome but highlights a larger problem. If you do not trust your staff to make the decisions necessary in their position, why do they exist! Not everyone needs a #1 employee but allowing your employees to feel empowered with some decision making is one solution to overcoming this issue of trust.



2. Self-Importance: A phenomena that my wife has actually coined, this is where individuals make themselves to be more important to a situation then they may need to be (or actually are). Many managers don't want staff making decisions simply because they like the control. There is a subtle difference here as trust implies you think your staff will not make the right decision, whereas self-importance means you view decision making as an issue of self-worth. The more decisions you make, the more self-worth you have. The logic is flawed and the issue of monkeys is even more prevelant as individuals with a high degree of self-importance often complain the most about having no time.

This scale works at all levels, even if you are in a subordinate role or at the bottom of the corporate ladder. DO NOT feel the need to be "yes" man(woman) and accept responsibility for everyone around you. DO work you feel you would be engaged in, and work with others to find common grounds on who takes responsiblity for issues on a daily basis. You will always a few monkeys on your back, but this scale provides a good check to remove many others before they turn into gorrillas. I was even told about an executive who has a monkey on his desk that he shifts to those walking in the door. This ensures you have a visual of issue at hand and that it is given to the appropriate person after the conversation finishes.

My 2 thoughts anyways......

Brinks Alarms: Beware of the Fuel Surcharge Tax

I like to inform consumers when I feel they are being wronged. A run-in with Brinks leads me to believe that I am not alone in my 2 thoughts....

I recently had a problem with my Brinks alarm. I was trying to test the system and realized I didn't have a live connection with the monitoring group. For those not familiar with the Brinks alarm system (or don't currently own an alarm that is monitored), your are expected by Brinks to "test" your alarm once a month. This is done by asking the system to send a signal to the central server to ensure the unit is performing correctly (verifying a live signal) and then sending a counter-signal back to the device to let the user know (with a loud beep) that a successful connection was made. After repeated tries, I decided to call Brinks to get help with this problem.

We purchased through Brinks because we wanted a reputable company. We were assured of their great technology and years of expertise in residential service. We were also assured of their no-hassle technical service should we have a problem with our system at any point. Imagine my surprise when I asked for a technician to come out and Brinks hesitated. They first asked if I had a digital phone. I told them I did but it was in place before I had the system put in (which I was told at the time wouldn't be a problem). They repeatedly stressed that their system has problems with digital phones (monitoring requires a connection via the telephone line). They (Brinks) wanted to let me know that a charge would be made if it the problem wasn't theirs. I told Brinks I didn't care as the phone was well in place before and the system had worked fine for months. What I also found out was technicians only work Mondays to Saturdays and only during work hours. With the exception of a Saturday visit, I would have to take time-off work to be home between the hours of either 9:00am - 12:00am or 1:00pm to 4:00pm. I booked a Friday knowing my wife would be home on one of her days off.

I called later that day to see how things went. My wife told me the technician had come and mentioned that Brinks was having several problems with their systems similar to ours. He ended up fixing the system but then asked my wife for a $5.00 fee to cover the fuel costs for the trip. She paid the fee but knew full well that I would have not endorsed such a cost.

I called Brinks yesterday to examine the plausibility of the cost. Here is Brinks arguments for charging the $5.00 fee:

• Its a Canadian Law to charge the $5.00 fuel surcharge.


• Its Brinks policy.


• Everyone is charged and has been charged since March of 2007.

Here are my arguments:

• Firstly, there is no such Canadian Law that asks all services calls for warranty approved work to be charged a $5.00 surcharge for fuel.


• The very meaning of the word "surcharge" implies this is a company policy to add an additional cost to its clients, not a Canadian Law demanding such a fee. Also, Brinks constantly referred to this $5.00 surcharge for fuel as a "Fuel Surcharge Tax", talk about trying to group words together to make the argument.


• The Protective Service Agreement that I signed with Brinks to enter into this arrangement in section 6. under "Repair Service" does not mention any such surcharge to warranty approved work. There is mention of acts of god, misuse, negligence, fire, but no mention of a surcharge that will accompany a visit where the system is not performing to its designed specifications.

In the end, the Service Call Manager (of course I had it elevated) gave me another number to call to get my credit of $5.00. He said that he would neither agree or disagree with me on this matter as he did not have the authority to change company policy. This in itself is an admission of error on the part of Brinks.

If anyone else has had similar challenges, the number to call is: 1-800-437-3611. They are only open Mon-Fri 8am to 5pm.

Developing Leadership Impact: Executive Retreat at Royal Roads University

I recently attended a week-long retreat at Royal Roads University entitled "Developing Leadership Impact." Having attended a few course of similar nature, I told the facilitators that I was cautiously optimistic of the week ahead. I viewed the course as a bit of analysis of one self, knowing what your styles, behaviors, and strengths are as a leader so that you can successfully negotiate your way through your career. Indeed, I was partially correct on this assumption. My final reflections on the course had me state to the facilitators and group, “that I learned all about myself, but even more about those around me, and it was a pleasure to get to know everyone outside of work. For this I thank everyone who attended.” There was no real revelations within this course but a lot of self-reflection which is often the cause when you are trying to find out what exactly makes you “tick.” I particularly enjoyed conversations on theory and the use of “simple” models to explain the behavior of change and resistance.

Part of the pre-course work was to engage my boss, peers, and observers in a 360 degree review of myself. Boss being those individuals that I report to (or have in the past), peers are those in similar positions of authority, and observers are those individuals that report to me (or have in the past). The feedback revealed a slight halo effect in that I has underscored my performance when compared to that evaluation of my colleagues. I was pleased with the results and while there were no obvious gaps, a review with my coach revealed some areas of improvement around issues such as adaptability, facilitation skills, and globalism. Knowing my strong character, I purport this to possible intimidation by others in my presence, something I need to be more considerate of when dealing with introverts. Things I scored highest in included honesty and integrity, something I feel is the hardest to gain from your colleagues and I was pleased with these scores.

I also completed and received the results of an HBDI survey that assesses you thinking styles through correlation with what is called the Herrmann Whole Brain Model. The profile (a transparent sheet that shows your style based on 4 quadrants: facts, form, futures, and feelings) looks like a bullseye with the cross-hairs separating the 4 distinct quadrants. Some of this is based on left brain – right brain, but more of it has to do with where you comfort lies as an individual. For example, I scored high in facts, futures, and feelings categories (with a slight edge in futures). My least preferred style is form which revolves around being detailed, organized, and working in a sequential fashion. The interesting part of my score was a second dashed line that formed another shape between the first and showed that in times of stress I move further away from the forms quadrant and more into the futures quadrant. This result bolds well for my leadership style as I tend to back to organizational goals and visions to help direct our activities in a time of crisis. What was even more interesting than my scores was that of two colleagues in the class who when comparing results had shapes that were almost identical.

I was also asked to complete a Parker Team Survey(PTS) in preparation for this course. The PTS reveals your team player style when working within groups. The 4 distinct styles are contributor, collaborator, communicator, and challenger. Scores from a series of behavioral questions revealed I had two primary styles (scores within 3 points of each other) that included being a communicator and challenger. According to PTS, “I ensure that the members work well together while you push the team to address important questions about its strengths and weaknesses. However, you run the risk of seeing process as an end in itself. You need to keep in mind that the team must set long-term goals and work hard to deliver high-quality products and services that satisfy current customer needs.” The beneficial part of this exercise was how others in my team for this week-long retreat scored and how I could use those scores to understand their team player styles.

As eluded to in the earlier paragraph, I was put in team with 4 other individuals and assigned a business case for the Royal BC Museum. The purpose of this was to use learning’s within the class to work through a tangible case in the real world. Seeing as we only had a week and limited time outside of lectures to work on this, I was reminded of my younger graduate and undergraduate days where we worked on similar tasks. The challenge presented by the museum was one around declining revenues and admission and how we could revive the “presence” of the museum within the hearts and minds of British Columbians. What I learned form this task was that we had some very different styles on our team but worked well under pressure. One weakness was my automatic need to facilitate and in bringing the team some structure I also used a lot of my business related jargon. This provide a bit detrimental to the presentation as the other 2 groups worked more of a feel-good approach, something museum executives picked up on. Otherwise, our group came up with some very creative ideas from partnerships, global exhibits, and a theme-based game for kids.

The Developing Leadership retreat was great experience and one I would recommend to anyone. The retreat was sent in the old Hatley castle which belonged to the Dunsmuir family. This was a surreal part of the whole experience and a tour of the history helped me appreciate the architecture even more. It also helped to spend more than 14 hours a day in lectures and team work sessions there as well.

My 2 thoughts anyways…

I am, therefore I exist as a Leader

I am currently enrolled in day 3 of the the "Developing Leadership Impact: Executive Retreat. This is a personal leadership course that is administered by Royal Roads University. Within the 15 participants of this week long course, 12 of us are from the same Ministry.

I will update everyone further on my time here but needless to say that it has been pretty exhausting so far. The sessions run form 8:30am to about 6:00pm with work sessions in the evenings where 3 groups of 5 have been assigned a team project. The analysis is for Royal BC Museum and their struggles to engage British Columbians and thereby improving there bottom line. Challenges exist in a changing demographic, multitude of entertainment and recreational options, and a declining tourism industry in the rise of the CDN Dollar.

I will post our presentation at a later date to illustrate some of our recommendations.

My 2 thoughts anyways.......

Who said Halloween is "dead"??

Who ever said halloween is dead (at least from the perspective of trick-or-treaters) is obviously not living Surrey. My wife and I fielded between 130 and 140 kids yesterday. I would say that close to 80% were below the age of 6-7 which means plenty will be back next year as well. I only counted 5-10 that weren't in any sort of costume.


All week I had been asking co-workers what their experience had been with the level of kids coming on halloween. I was told by most that halloween had died down and that most kids don't go out or go to the mall to trick-or-treat. Your kidding right? The mall! Where is the halloween spirit in mass commercialization. Wait a minute, this is halloween right, a holiday that bears no real resemblance to anything religious (link here) and yet is observed by most western and latin countries around the globe. In any event, we didn't buy much candy which forced me to make an emergency trip to the local Safeway.


Now we have too much candy, but at least we know for next year.


My 2 thoughts anyways...