Field notes

Legendary musician, composer, and producer Quincy Jones died last week at the age of 91. Few artists have been as commercially successful or prolific as Jones during his more than seven decades of musical influence. He won 28 Grammy Awards, a National Medal of Arts, and placed his fingerprints on music icons that included Frank Sinatra, Michael Jackson, Lionel Hampton, and Dizzy Gillespie. His output as a writer and producer was nothing short of astounding. So, what allowed Jones to become so productive? What made him so prolific? The answer is that he bucked a trend and made a commitment to how he executed ideas and projects that are contrary to what most creative artists and leaders do. In a world of multi-tasking executives and artists, Jones insisted on tackling one task at a time and not leaving it until it was finished.

Allowing an under-skilled team member to learn how others (not just the leader) view their performance and how those peers suggest developing those critical skills can promote a learning environment conducive to overcoming the effect.A change in self-assessment and skill may occur slowly, but raising the awareness of the team member is critical for future performance. Good leaders work hard to make gains and not accept weak performance from those who falsely overestimate their skills. On teams, it is the indifference to incompetence that is the ultimate agony.

In too many cases, leaders behave as if making the decision signals the finish line rather than the starting line. They conclude that the hard work has been completed, and all that is needed is for the decision to be announced and for the team to begin making preparations to act on it. But without the energy, momentum, and fast resolution to immediately begin executing a decision, it often takes weeks or months for the team to make real progress. The momentum to execute any decision lies in the leader’s hands. The enthusiasm to move quickly is felt by everyone in the organization or not. Great leaders create the momentum to execute major decisions quickly. Anything less is too slow.

In many instances, simply shortening a traditional timeframe dramatically shakes things up and produces a different level of engagement and production. Leaders sometimes make these changes temporary instead of permanent. Creativity and common sense are the primary guides for thinking about how to incorporate periodization into the workplace. Time traditions are highly resistant to change, but leaders who occasionally introduce new periods often reap significant benefits. How we choose to count and measure time is more fluid than most leaders think. And changes in time periods get people thinking and working differently.

Teams often get into a meeting rut. By following the same agenda and structure, they operate efficiently but sometimes bypass or overlook critical issues and discussions. Not addressing the most pressing issue that faces the team is far too commonplace. This is a direct result of depending on the same people and the same agenda to drive the meeting and conversation. Good leaders acknowledge that at any given point in time, there are one or more critically important issues to discuss or questions to answer. The best use of meeting time is to direct energy toward such significant topics.

Leaders must never delegate strategy to others. But to accomplish that and still maintain the momentum of team progress, they must share decision-making on nearly everything else. The best leaders reserve their decision-making rights only for those choices and issues that will have a major and lasting impact on the team. If it doesn’t involve strategy, the default should be to delegate the decision to others. Any leader swamped with what they perceive to be a host of critical decisions that only they should or can make is usually fooling themselves. If the team is waiting on you, they are waiting too long.