Be the leader you wish you had

BE THE LEADER YOU WISH YOU HAD

I use this saying often in my 1:1s with my directs and in my private coaching sessions. It is a powerful way to make one pause for a moment, reflect, adjust to the discomfort, then embrace the excitement of a new energy that is created.

Adopting this mindset has transformed me from standard "manager" to empathetic "leader". Reading Seth Godin's "The Song of Significance" reinforced my instinctual leadership practices. 

Quoting from "13. Let's Get Real or Let's Not Play", Seth says this:

<quote> No one goes to the gym to willingly get punched in the face by the senior vice president of boxing. But some folks eagerly pay for a sparring partner when it's time to get better.  The difference is obvious, but we've forgotten to say it out aloud.  No grades, no check marks, no badges. I'm not in charge of you, and I'm not manipulating you. I'm simply establishing the conditions for you to get to where you said you wanted to go.  You tell me where you're going and what you need. You make promises about your commitment and skills development.  I'll show up to illuminate, question, answer, spar with, and challenge you. I'll make sure you're part of a team of people who are ready to care as much as you do. We can get real. Or let's not play. </quote>

This is not some leadership mumbo jumbo. Some time ago, I developed a model for personal development that borrowed concepts from agile product management by way of user stories (search RAGE tag on this blog). I then used the same methods in the way I work with my direct reports. HR people might call this "contracting with the employee" but I take it further. I get real. It's not about objectives, KPIs & deliver results. I put myself on the line. I reach out. And so when it comes to performance reviews, my reviews are a two-way conversation. My direct also evaluates Mo's performance - because as a leader, I believe leaders mirror & contribute to the performance of their direct reports. 

What's my mechanism then?

I ask each person to write a user story in this format:

In order for me, [Name] to do [XYZ] (e.g. my job | grow | be inspired | learn | etc.) I need my manager (Mo) to support me by doing [....insert your wish-list here] so that I can ....

So I start the year with level setting on our contracts together, and in our 1:1s, we check-in and inspect, comment, re-calibrate, adjust.  

Guess what? 

This mechanism might seem simple but it's quite challenging for people. Usually, it's the first time they're experiencing a manager doing it this way. There's hook both ways. Often, it takes a few iterations to get the user stories crafted in way that is mutually relatable and agreeable. My mechanism goes beyond the standard business SMART goal setting. I make it human. Real. Personal. For me, this is my song of significance.

Here's some real-world examples in play, from senior managers that report into me - See how doing so puts me, Mo, on the hook?

* In order for me to do my job, I need my manager (Mo) to support me by throwing me in the deep end and exposing me to as much as possible so that I can quickly learn and understand this business

* In order for me to do be inspired, I need my manager (Mo) to support me by leading by example so that I can learn from his vast experience

* In order for me to do grow, I need my manager (Mo) to support me by pushing me out my comfort zone so that I can grow in all directions.

* In order for me to do my job. I need my manager (Mo) to support me by throwing me in the deep end and exposing me to as much as possible so that I can quickly learn and understand this business

* In order for me to grow my skillset, I need my manager to support me in blocking out time on my calendar so I can complete the ‘make great hiring decisions’ course (5hrs)

* In order for me to get promoted to L7, I need my manager to support me by identifying key opportunities so that I can start building a roadmap of promotional milestones

On: The Office Life

another one of my #thismightnotwork posts (inspired by Seth Godin)

Deep down...

We know that nobody owes us anything.

We know that we are just cogs in a machine, replaceable.

We know that company loyalty does not really exist, no really, it IS about the bottom-line!

We know that we are only as good as our last project, even though ten projects earlier, we shot the lights out.

We know that no matter what we like to believe, most relationships in the office are simply transactional, although we would like it to be deeper.

We know that it does not matter how much we try, we can't (neither should we care to), change people's perceptions or deeply entrenched biases.

We know that mediocrity can be contagious if we stick around for too long, and unable to really influence change in performance and behaviour.

We know that tribes, cliques and clubs exist, it's natural (especially in Africa when it comes to racial divides), but we either feign ignorance or hope it gets better.

When a company value is "give benefit of the doubt" and we don't see it in action, what taste this leave us with?

We know that we are so much bigger than just our jobs...or do we really now (hint: count the number of times per day you find yourself immersed in thoughts about the office, even during your personal time)?

It's all about the bottom line....

It's business they say, you must develop a thick skin.

New age leadership is all bullshit they say...it's capitalism and darwinism all the way man...power, politics and Machiavelli are role models of the day.

Empathy is so overrated, they say.

Empowerment? Let the team decide? What's all that fuss about? 

Humility, Modesty, Authentic, Integrity, Fairness...that's not leadership they say...but great for selling lots of books & makes for a booming consulting/coaching industry...but, kid, they won't get you through the real world...skin in the game is what you need, and be damn sure to fight to the death to protect it...

Attitude...attitude is good as long its conforms to groupthink aligned to culture (not the culture deck written down, but the real culture, yep they're different!).

...Yet knowing all of this, there are some people who still stick it out...

Wow, there walks about a man with grit & resilience they say...

...an immediate assumption is: this guy must keep a cool head, he needs the money/income, responsibilities he has to his family, etc. comes first...just see it through, it will all be okay...

Dig a little deeper, and we often realise it's usually much more than just that....it's quite personal actually, positively personal...sometimes deeply inspiring, confusing & at times bewildering...

Such people have a cause, they're fully in tune with their why, their self-worth and are completely aware of  not only themselves but of those around them. They know they stick out, are nonconformist, often mistaken as a threat to the status quo & risk being played out of the system...yet they still remain behind, firmly footed, digging their heels in - why, mostly because they take commitment seriously & sincerely. Such are those people, who believe in their craft, make their art, do things differently because they truly care deeply, and will not leave until they say "my work here is done, I've come as far as I'm willing"...they don't leave through external forces or pressure, instead they leave on their own terms, when they're ready to leave it all behind and never look back. And often to their surprise, they've built up a tribe, left a following behind...even though they didn't intentionally start out that way.

If you'd like to find out more about these people, check out Seth Godin & Simon Sinek's work...

Highly recommend getting your hands on:

What to do when it's your turn

The Infinite Game

The Courage to be Disliked

On: Never fight a battle you're not prepared to win

A topic that's been on my mind of late...

The thing with "Pick your battles"...

Everyone says, "Pick your battles," and they're right. But usually they only mean "Pick your battles based on whether or not you have a good chance to win." That's fine, as far as it goes. But we think you should be even more pickier. 

Only pick battles that are:

a) winnable

b) important

c) battles for which you're fully prepared to pay the price to win

d) battles you're damn sure you can afford to win

-- Quote from "Buck Up, Suck Up...and come back when you foul up" by Carville & Begala

So think and reflect on that deeply. Remember other anecdotes "If you want to fight, you have to get into the ring, it will get bloody messy but you can't stop until you give it your all". 

Which battles are you fighting in your head?

What's keeping you up awake at night, causing you sleepless nights?

This could be personal or professional, or a professional work scenario that's starting to negatively impact your personal & family life, possibly causing anxiety and borderline depression.

Before diving straight into battle mode, it might be prudent to find a quiet space to brainstorm.

Mind map each scenario and use the four criteria above to map pros/cons, upsides/downsides, apply some rationality to the process. 

It will be hard to fight the emotions, but you got to try.

Be critical.

Be meticulous.

Be objective.

Play devil's advocate. Is it just your ego being bruised?

It's not about being safe and taking the easy way out, nor is it about being risk averse. It's about being sensible, a matter of calculated, smart survival tactics, at the expense of giving into emotions.

Sometimes one has to lose a couple of battles to win the war.

It's about the long game - envision a future where your current troubles disappear and replaced with victory & triumph. Keep doing this as often as you can to get through the dip.

But...sometimes, if not most of the time, emotion & gut instinct are indeed right! After thousands of years, we humans still have our lizard brain, the instinctive reflex of "fight or flight" has served  and continues to serve & save us.

My gut instincts have saved me more times than I can remember, so it might be perfectly okay to react too.

Going with your gut, embracing the emotion (anger, disappointment, betrayal, rejection, doubt, etc.) can be very powerful motivators for change...

These, coupled with your closely-bound value system, can be the only key indicators for you to decide to get into battle...when you do get into it, you need to be prepared for various scenarios...especially when the impact of going into battle has far reaching consequences other than yourself: you family, friends, loved ones, colleagues, your own reputation, etc. 

Another tool is to seek out close confidants, mentors and guides - the counsel "Shura" of other trusted parties can generally help you seeing things that you might be currently blind to (since all you can think about are the battles raging in your head).

After all of that, once you've processed the noise in your head, sought counsel, go back and ask yourself: What am I willing to walk away from??

Then....

Take a deep breath...build up courage....and take that first step (battle or not) and never look back...

another #thismightnotwork post

On Leadership: Be Like Water

So I took a chance this morning and posted my first article on LinkedIn:

We talk a lot about transformation these days. Executives want to gear up for the future, speak the latest buzzwords"agile, flexible, adapt-to-change, level up for the digital world, challenge-status-quo, call-things-out" etc. All great intents I suppose, but what is sometimes ironic is that these same people are actually unwilling to let go, unwilling to adapt, maintaining the old-school mentality, staying within their comfort zone, symptomatic of being too afraid of conceding their power.

I've been in a state of continuous adaptation for as long as I can remember, my own leadership style has flexed and morphed along the way. It wasn't easy. It's actually very, very hard. Changing habits, value systems and mental models can be straining intellectually & psychologically. Practising self-awareness (i.e. embracing change in your leadership style) reminds me of the epic battle with Gandalf the Grey & the Balrog in Lord of the Rings...

Rigidity is a kin to brittleness. Brittleness leads to breakages. When things break, it's not always possible to put the pieces back together again. Fluidity is thus an important trait for today's leader. If you insist your ways don't need changing, then I'm afraid you'll soon realise "being out-of-phase, completely misaligned & out-of-sync" with the tunes of the current workplace vibe.

Sure, hierarchy will not disappear anytime soon and thus deserves respect. Sure, we need visionary leaders, but more so than ever, I believe we need execs to display courage, courage to be called out now and again, a healthy willingness to stop hiding behind positional hierarchy and instead, listen more, maybe at times be brave enough to step-aside and let things "just flow", being more like water. 

Hence, I am reminded of Bruce Lee's "be like water" teaching:

"Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.
Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash.
Be water, my friend."
- Bruce Lee

Open letter to Business & Tech Leaders

Dear Business & Technology Owners...

Have you ever stopped to reflect on why is there always tension and conflict between business stakeholders and technology providers? Instead of there being a "healthy tension" between the two partners (assuming you take the terms "partnership" seriously and not just paying lip service to the term), the relationship is often clouded with doubt, suspicion & mistrust on all sides?

I've been in this technology software business for all of my professional life (~20 years), spending the first half working on technology product & platform development (company run by engineers & not accountants), and the latter half on the other (dark?) side - the corporate business - with in-house technology / IT "service" divisions, where business (accountants mostly non-technical) people run the show - an environment where there is often just a complete lack of alignment, understanding & appreciation for what goes on in both worlds: technology-and-business-worlds alike.

[Bias disclaimer: Yes, I do I have a bias - I believe if a company thinks itself to be a technology-driven business, then I expect the CEO to at least have an engineering/science background, or the CTO/CIO must have written code & built solid (industrial-strength) products in a previous lifetime. If a CEO is not technical then at least develop a keen appreciation for the engineering challenges and then trust your technology owners to do the responsible thing & you move out the way....]

At a recent ExCo of which I'm just an observer - this lack of alignment reared it's ugly head again when "the business" could not understand how a six-month's projects wish-list from their side, translated into a two-and-a-half-year implementation estimate from the technology team, making a poor attempt at explaining, the classic "IT demand & capacity planning" challenges (what I still find quite surprising in today's time, a topic for another day, let's just say I think "IT Demand Management Process" is not relevant today, and I propose that this is just "old-school-IT" & that its days are numbered).  

What followed then from business was the typical:

• "Why don't add another 20 development teams to make the six months timeline?"
• "Why can't we have CFTs (cross-functional-teams) like the other divisions have?" 
• "Are you sure you have the right engineers? Why is the system so brittle? Why must it take so long? Should we take our business elsewhere?"
• "Why can't we have bespoke technical teams attached to each business owner?"

What also makes this quite a difficult conversation is the CULTURE - where technology teams have historically been at the receiving end as the source of all business problems (the cause of business frustration), the underdogs, just taking a beating from business, without any confidence to push back & have constructive conversations. It's a shame really that a large number of technology teams just have to "submit" and "do as you're told" by business...surely it can't go on like this??

So this is what I've reflected so far - and it calls on both Technology & Business leaders to come together to the table, for me it's simply about ALIGNMENT. In order to align, one needs to really LISTEN. I mean REALLY LISTEN and PARTICIPATE in dialogue, after-all, this is what PARTNERSHIP supposed to be about, right??

Dear Technology Leader...

I think a large part of the issue is technology leaders not doing enough to communicate and simplify the reality of their world. Assuming you're not building a greenfields stack, instead you're building on existing systems (not legacy, but still probably reaching end-of-life), more needs to be done to manage expectations. I would avoid too much abstraction & side-stepping: be open and transparent about everything, no hiding...here's some searching questions:

• Have you stopped yourself to reflect on why there is such a disconnect or lack of understanding? What are you doing wrong? Is there a fundamental issue of principle?
• Have you taken your customers through the system architecture and current challenges?
• Have you communicated your assumptions clearly? For example - does the business understand maybe you're trying to build a common platform/product stack that can support multiple business requirements (e.g. in a multi-country scenario) in one-go?
• Is this assumption valid? What if the businesses are quite divergent in terms of customer requirements?
• Why is it important to provide a common technology platform anyway? For who's benefit?
• Would it not be easier to branch the code & platform to serve individual businesses? Risk duplication but gain in business agility? 
• Who cares if the code is forked anyway, has this option ever been tabled?
• How can you explain the nuances of common stack software development to non-technical people?
• Does business understand how you've structured your delivery teams?
• For example, you might be running with component teams, specialisation instead of generalisation and not ready for cross-functional full-stack teams yet?
• Are you clear where your bottlenecks are?
• Is your software engineering principles solid - i.e. can it support multiple release streams simultaneously?
• Have you shown to business the complexities of what it means to spawn up multiple teams (i.e. this rather stupid notion of adding more people to get the job done sooner)?
• Have you established a way-of-working between business & technology that aims to at least address some of the challenges, and set forth an ultimate vision / aspiration of what ideal could look like?
• Are you doing enough to manage expectations upwards and thus protect your teams?
• Why do you have a need to insert "Business Relationship Managers (BRMs)? Are your technology teams not equipped in dealing with business stakeholders directly? Why do technology units decide that an intermediary BRM would help solve relationship problems?
• Are you empowered enough to challenge priorities & requirements if they don't make sense to you?
• Have you communicated that systems generally have to refresh every 3-5 years? Have you considered presenting a technology roadmap showing all the technical initiatives planned whilst simultaneously expected to keep the business lights on (business-as-usual) and still stay ahead of the curve to keep your stack technically relevant?

Dear Business Leader...

Just as there may be some gaps with your technology leader counterparts, you should consider what gaps are on your side. For starters, have you really invested time to LISTEN to your technology partners?

• Have you done enough to convey your business vision, strategy & goals in a clear manner that informs your technology partners of the role they play & your dependence on them for your overall success?
• Have you resisted the urge to bark orders without first trying to listen?
• Do you have an understanding of how your technology teams have built the system & components? Perhaps you had a role to play in this - i.e. ending up in the current state because of business owners?
• Did you perhaps grow up with the industrial mindset (factory methods) & expect that software systems follow similar patterns "it's just a production line outputting widgets"?
• Do you understand what it means to write common software code and deploy common  software & infrastructure to serve the needs of multiple businesses (with its own set of rules)?
• Do you have a clear picture in your mind of the distinctions and challenges of software teams: Component teams versus cross-functional teams?
• How do you as business owners come together to align on overall business requirements (assuming you're in multi-country set-up) that shares a common platform?
• Did you even agree with technology that a common platform is the way to go?
• Are you doing enough to review your own project's backlog and business requirements - by priority?
• Do you accept that your technology team would appreciate from focus - i.e. do one thing of value at a time?
• Are you doing enough to make sense of your own business priorities?
• Have you read "The Mythical Man-Month"? Do you actually believe that "adding more people to a software project will get it done sooner?" - Are you not being naive, have you stopped yourself to reflect that maybe you're just not getting it??
• What are you doing to get closer to understanding your technology provider's challenges?
• Do you use the IT/technology systems on a daily basis?
• Have you considered sitting closer to your technology team?
• What is your role in the partnership? Is it too one-sided (i.e. your side)? Do you get immense joy at squeezing your technology providers, adding pressures and artificial deadlines to make your case?
• Why do you feel you need an intermediary between yourself & technology - and insist on this concept of a BRM? Are you not interested to learn more about your technology stack or develop closer relationships with the people building your technology? 

Attention Business-and-Technology Leaders - Don't look for that Silver Bullet...you'll have to discover this for yourselves, there's nothing off-the-shelf to plug-and-play for you...

You might have attempted every fad at improving process improvement, this "agile" topic has become so misused that both parties can't really tell if agile is working for you or not - and you're quick to blame the process, or attempt to try a new way, and even get professional consultants in to help...but...as I've experienced agile in a variety of forms in the past ten+ years, I still come back to the essence - and I really feel that people have misunderstood the core. This core that I refer to, is the founding principles espoused in the Agile Manifesto. Simple statements but deeply profound, and it all starts there. I feel this essence is often just skimmed over in favour of an execution process which has led to the downfall of many IT/Business relationships, which is why we keep coming back to the rather archaic IT/Business management frameworks that calls for IT Demand/Capacity Management and Business Relationship Managers...

Go back, breakdown the silos, no pedestals or ivory towers allowed in today's age, re-align & commit to participating in respectful, sincere dialogue, meeting each other half-way. Identify the root of the pain-points, agree on sensible ways to manage classic "capacity challenges" which simply implies some focused management of priorities by business people...if after you've tried to re-align, and still there's an expectation of infinite capacity from IT delivery...then...maybe there's just no hope left...

Yours sincerely,

A weathered-and-battered-technology-leader-looking-for-hope!

Whiners never win

Whiners never win!

What simple yet powerful, three words? 

These are words my electrical engineering professor used on me back in my second year, when I challenged my paper being wrongly graded.  I remember waiting a long time at his office just to see him, the prof just gave me one minute "Mr. Khan, here's some advice for the rest of your life - whiners never win". That was it, and then he left, my paper unchanged.

This stuck with me as I completed my degree, started my first job, took a chance one year after graduating by emigrating to two countries, marriage, parenthood, etc. I keep coming back to this simple message "whiners never win" and so just get on with life or work...

Yet, coming back to South Africa, now 8 years and counting, I was surprised to learn how much whining happens in the workplace! It is emotionally draining. Almost everyone has a complaint, not happy with this or that, unable to separate personal emotions from being professional at the workplace. Just a whole lot of whining going on. I wonder if it's just the context of the nation, just whining, starting with the commute into work listening to radio stations (like 702) which I've stopped completely. I actually don't listen to such news anymore, it starts the day of on the wrong note, stepping into the office with negativity and stress. Don't forget the stress of driving on SA roads...

I was also surprised how people tend to bring their home issues into workplace as well, affecting how they show up, perform, etc. My mindfulness, listening and empathy skills have seen an accelerated growth since 2011...

Still, eight years on, I still see it a lot of whining in the workplace...come on folks, stop whining. 

Whining never wins. 

Bring your best self to work, show up and get through the struggle...

Stop whining. "Whining never wins"...

Don't get me wrong, I've got loads of empathy...but at some point, people need to step up and just stop whining as whiners never win!

On company values

"Disagree and commit"
"Embrace the elephant"
"Don't be a d!ck"
"Listen. Challenge. Commit. A good leader has the humility to listen, the confidence to challenge, the wisdom to know when to stop arguing and commit."
"We use data to drive decision making. Data-driven-decisions."

These are are just some of the catchy phrases that some "modern" workplaces aspire to implement as company culture....great words, but easier said than done in practise IMHO. There's this somewhat unreasonable expectation that human beings can just implement this stuff - but we all know too well, humans are emotional and predictably irrational...

If you're a leader...
You're bound to issue instructions, ideas or directives that are not going to sit well with your teams. You have a duty to listen to feedback, alternative points of view, and use these as inputs into your thought process and ultimately make the call. It's not about paying lip service and say "I've listened" without truly listening...what if you're wrong, and you might even be the HIPPO in the room? Even if your decision doesn't change, and you set the directive, you're ultimately responsible and accountable for the outcome.
What if the directive appears to be wrong? Do you stick it out till the end because of your ego and risk losing credibility? Some might say a real leader will step up, and own up saying "Hey, I was wrong guys, but we gained a lot of learning from this."
Still, as a leader, you then trust (expect) your team to follow-through no matter what...but is this even as simple as it seems? Probably not...how do you behave when you find out that there's still resistance? Do you flip your lid? What kind of a leader does that make you? Some might argue that being decisive, forthright, firm and tough on naysayers are great attributes for a leader...."the buck stops here!".

If you're on the receiving end of the instruction / strategic directive and you disagree...
You've said your piece, provided feedback, you may have even fundamentally disagreed with the decision...and now you're faced with understanding yourself: Can you let go, can you commit, even though you violently disagreed? Are you serious about the best outcome for the team regardless of your personal opinion? How will you stop yourself from unconsciously falling back into dissent-mode?
As a team player, your leader expects you do so. But have you prepared yourself to work towards that outcome?
How do you stop yourself from sounding like a stuck record?
My humble advice: stop being this guy. If you can't let go, then you're limiting your own growth.
BUT...ask yourself this: What am I willing to walk away from?
If the directive conflicts fundamentally with your core professional or personal value system, then what do you do?
My view: if it gets to that level of personal dilemma, and you're so sure of your value system, then leave, quit the company altogether, or change teams...it depends on how serious you are about this value system of yours.
If the conflict is not even near enough to compromising your value system, then ask yourself how can you adapt your own behaviour & approach, how can you help to solving the problem, and how can you help influence the outcome? How can you show your leader you're committed, no matter what?

This isn't always easy...the emotional forces at play can be intense, pulling you back...but once committed, your leader is expecting following through and be a team player.

Both Leader and Follower need to have a keen handle on self-awareness, "Know thyself"...some call this "mindfulness"...

Workplace 3.0

On one of the evenings last week, my sleep broke I at 1AM thinking about stuff happening at the office workplace, thoughts raced through my head about my own experiences of the workplace over the years (reflecting on working in Europe versus Africa), and reflecting on my recent transformation going back to about six years now, where I took deliberate action to focus on the deeper meaning of the workplace - i.e. keep my biases in check, resist the temptation for passing value-judgements, and stop with cloning a European/British work ethic/practices in Africa.... I reflected on my public description on LinkedIn, currently my core value system for my workplace - am I still serious about these values, and are they in conflict with the organisation?:

Delight | Engineer | Innovate | Lead | Empower | Fun 

My core principles / work ethic as a technology leader for small and large teams alike:

Aim to delight customers through my own uniqueness to handling engagements, taking pains not to force processes and practices dogmatically, instead take the time to work with customers to fully appreciate the system (cultural, people, organisational & engineering) dynamics. Delight by not being too presumptuous, always staying the humble, attentive listener. 

Engineer practical, workable solutions, avoiding complexity as far as possible, keeping it real and contextual. Innovate by expanding on the current state-of-play that happens to be as-is, in-process behaviours (focus on incremental evolutionary progress than big-bang changes).  

Continuously foster this innovation through Leading by example, taking time out to appreciate feedback and through working with people at all levels. 

Empower individuals and teams to follow-through on their own in becoming world-class, whilst overseeing their trajectory (coach, mentor, guide but never the dictator) to reach the desired goals.  

Most importantly create a workplace that makes it Fun to work, being part of a story that's much bigger than myself.

And from this, I started to think about typical conflicts in the workplace: culture clashes, mindset challenges, behavioural incompatibilities and especially the new dynamics of working with a diverse group of younger people, including the leadership & organisational transformation needed to take the workplace to the next level, given our changing modern times...where adaptation is critical to survive the next wave.

So I came up with a term "workplace 3.0" at about 2AM, jotted some notes in my journal to follow-up during the week as I thought I was onto something, and went back to sleep. Super excited about my new term, I thought of ways to describing workplace 3.0. Alas, as all bright ideas go, a quick google for "workplace 3.0" to sanity check my founding claim to the term, shows up a few results - interestingly enough, this site seems to be the one that coined the term up first, and also interesting to note that we're thinking along the same lines, whilst other sites seem to describe workplace 3.0 more from an aesthetic architectural vision of the future in terms of office layout.

I prefer to focus workplace 3.0 more on the human aspect - working with people thus creating value and getting shit done...and so wanted to explore the scenario where you might have found yourself wondering what's happening to the workplace, that you're perhaps been scratching your head wondering about how to adapt to the changing workplace, perhaps reminiscing about the good old days....and really wondering if you're a culture fit, or have become a dinosaur not fit to survive the modern workplace??

How does one describe workplace 3.0 / #wp30 / WP3.0 / #workplace3.0?

Here's my draft brainstorm attempt by highlighting conflicts arising today ...Remember my bias is technology software development in the ever changing industry of Digital Video Technologies and I've been working in Africa...

If you find yourself with at least 20 years work experience and you're often thinking back to the good old disciplined way (military) of doing things, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you love sticking to dates and deadlines and all you want is a status update from engineering, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you think software development is commodity that anyone can write code, and easily outsource to Asia/Eastern Europe, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you treat software developers as code monkeys, that you as the customer don't have time to explain or hear ideas from the techies, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you are driven by role titles and seniority and refuse to interact or come to the level of someone who's low on the org chart, then keep staying in your ivory tower because WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you the kind of manager or leader that likes to know every detail and micromanage, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If your default mode is not one of trust, but rather suspicion or doubt, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you believe you're superior to younger (inexperienced "green") people in their 20s or 30s by way of your work experience, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you prefer cracking the whip and all you care about is execution and delivery to a project plan or date, then WP3.0 is probably no place for you... 

If you find yourself uncomfortable with diversity (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, nationalities, etc.) then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you feel you own your technology development team, and not see the tech team as a vital partner & contributor to strategic outcomes, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you lose patience with empowering your people, instead taking over and just getting the job done (and have no problem with "the end justifies the means") - you reign teams in - then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If age makes you uncomfortable, that a person in his/her 20s/30s can be an inspiring leader with senior management responsibilities, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If all you want is a status update without taking time to ask nicely or care to have a conversation with your engineers, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you strongly advocate that you come to work to work and don't care about developing meaningful relationships with your peers and colleagues, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you're someone who encourages people to "stay in their lane", then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you can't seem to break the habit of referring to people as "resources" and find ways to justify calling people "resources", then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you feel insecure with the intelligence of young people being greater than yours, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you can't allow yourself to be vulnerable and expose your humanity in the workplace (let your guard down now and again, drop your shield), then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you find yourself unwilling to be candid with a dose of empathy (radical candor), then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you expect perfect planning and up-front design, you get extremely uncomfortable with waiting for the "last responsible moment" for decision-making, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If experimentation makes you nervous, or you can't embrace failure (and learning from failure), then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If "move fast and break things" just scares you, then WP3.0 is probably not for you...

If your people says "I got this" and you hesitate showing a modicum of doubt or uncertainty, then WP3.0 is probably not for you...

If asked to "embrace mess or chaos" makes your skin crawl, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If your default is "I sent the email, don't talk to me unless you read the email or document", then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If taking time out to have some fun, cut-some-slack, causes you stress about lost productivity, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you demand 100% capacity and productivity all the time, and can't come to accept the theory of constraints, or that you're working with humans and not machines, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you expect paper qualifications over experience or unwilling to take a chance on the outliers (i.e. don't fit the mould), then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you have zero tolerance with investing time, energy and emotional effort in building self organising teams, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you keep pulling your team to your past experiences, or past superstar teams or comparing with "best practices" world-class teams, instead of embracing the local culture (Africa is different, and this difference is a good thing), then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you find it hard to accept that the workplace is becoming more like the tribes from "Survivor", that people seek out tribal leaders, and that winning people's hearts is a good strategy for leadership - that natural selection can't happen in teams - then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you feel you can't allow your people to diversify, even if it means leaving your employ for something else that aligns with their own personal aspirations, then WP3.0 is probably not for you... 

If you seek out people to blame or reprimand when issues occur (written warnings favoured as actions) instead of acknowledging the issue and learning from it, impatient on building trust and commitment instead prefers  fear-mongering, then WP3.0 is probably not for you...

If you have to ask why must we celebrate accomplishments or minor achievements, give kudos and recognition to people - when it's their job and get paid for it - then WP3.0 is probably not for you...

If you value your positional authority and expect compliance, instead of taking time to listen, to really listen and solicit feedback from your people-on-the-ground - i.e. you don't have the time or inclination - then WP3.0 is probably not for you...

If you cannot admit as a leader, you've made a mistake or taken the wrong decision, for fear of embarrassment or see it as a sign of weakness (and not humility), then WP3.0 is not for you...

That's it for now....if you have some ideas or comments, please share some your examples of the behaviours in conflict with what #workplace 3.0 could be...