Minimizing mistakes under pressure

While rushing to do other things recently, I sent out an email newsletter with the wrong title on it.  It was the kind of simple mistake that can make you look bad.  Someone might think: “If they can’t something as simple as an email headline right, how can we trust them on the big issues?”

As we are pressured to work with fewer resources and more stress, we’re more likely to make mistakes.  When they happen at work and are visible to others, they tend to reflect on our departments, divisions, organizations, or even fields.

Trying to stop every mistake can be time-consuming and expensive.  Here are some tips for cost-effectively minimizing mistakes under pressure:

*When reviewing statistical information, or any document with lots of facts and figures (such as a budget), do a random check on every third or fourth fact on random pages.  If you find errors this way, there’s a good chance there are more in the document.  You might be able to also find the cause of the errors (such as calculating figures from the wrong column).

*If a “fact” doesn’t sound right, flag it.  You might be surprised by your research, but more often the data will support your intuition.

*Double-check the proper names of all places and people in documents.  Readers tend to be sensitive about these errors, and critics tend to see more than just simple mistakes in them.

*To mark that a fact has been double-checked, write CQ, ZD, <>, or some combination of characters that normally do not appear together in English.  The notation indicates to the final editor that the fact has been verified.  The notations can be easily removed through find and replace features in office programs.  Even if a notation gets published, it will look like nothing more than a harmless typographical error.

*Walk away from your document for at least an hour.  Forget about it – literally, but just for that hour.  This way you can come back to it with a fresh set of eyes.  When you have worked too hard and too long on a document, you tend to see what you expect to see, rather than what is there. 

Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Finding the right job candidate

Imagine that you are on a commission to develop a major new park in a large city. You're tasked with hiring a park superintendent to manage the creation of the park. One of the candidates for the job is a 35-year-old travel writer and farmer who is also a struggling publisher. He has no training or experience in park planning, civil engineering or architecture. Would you hire this candidate? Would you even interview him? No? Too bad - you missed out on working with Frederick Law Olmsted.

Olmsted - urban public health leader and the catalyst for landscape architecture and urban planning in the United States - was, on paper, "unqualified" to become, in 1857, the superintendent of what would become New York's Central Park. His selection, and his success, is a lesson for anyone looking to hire "the best person for the job."

A candidate's experience and training are important, of course, but they don't tell you enough about how well the candidate will do on the job. Nor do the standard answers to the standard interview questions. (Every job candidate says he or she works well in teams.)

So how do you choose the best candidate for the job, and avoid overlooking the next Olmsted?

· Decide what characteristics are most critical for the position. Is it more important that the ideal candidate be more entrepreneurial or cautious? A motivating leader of teams or a hard-nosed bottom-line manager?
· Think about how you ranked the characteristics. What is it about the job or the workplace that make these characteristics critical? How do you envision these characteristics being used on the job?
· Strive to make your preferences known as clearly as possible in your job announcements.
· Design interview questions that will help you evaluate the candidates' strengths in the key characteristics. If you are seeking an entrepreneurial candidate, ask questions about how the candidate pursued an opportunity or led a program to completion.
· Get candidates to talk about how they faced challenges. Any team leader looks great when in successful groups. What did the candidate do when a team was underperforming?
· Be specific when communicating with a candidate why a particular characteristic is critical to the success of the position. Vague comments such as "fitting in well in the organization" could be perceived by a candidate as code for "we only hire people who are like us."
· Comb through the candidate's resume or CV. Look beyond what the candidate's job responsibilities. Look for information, such as accomplishments or volunteer experience, that tells you more about the candidate. Olmsted's background as a publisher and farmer showed that he had business and management skills. His experience as a writer showed him to be thoughtful and creative. The fact that he could pursue such different professional disciplines demonstrated that he was an entrepreneurial thinker with a broad knowledge base. All this made him a good choice for the Central Park job.

For more about Olmsted, please read "How Frederick Law Olmsted Got the Central Park Job," in Planetizen
There are plenty of free Internet resources on interviewing job candidates. Start with "Interviewing Job Candidates" from Georgia State University's office of Human Resources. If you need more information, look for materials prepared by human resources professionals.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Do you have a professional development tip you would like to share? Have a question that you would like to see answered here? Please send it to Leo at vazquezl@rutgers.edu

Leadership versus management, part II

In this article, we continue describing the differences between leading and managing.

• Professionals who manage are afraid of making mistakes.
• Professionals who lead see mistakes as learning opportunities.
  
  
• Professionals who manage seek validation.
• Professionals who lead seek understanding.
  
  
• Professionals who manage see diversity as a threat to the pursuit of the harmonious and orderly development of plans.
• Professionals who lead see the zealous pursuit of the harmonious and orderly development of plans as a threat to building great communities.
  
  
• Professionals who manage tell and sell.
• Professionals who lead explore and influence.
  
  
• Professionals who manage think cultural competency is about "being nice to people different than you."
• Professionals who lead know it's much more complex than that.
  
  
• Professionals who manage think emotions get in the way of good planning.
• Professionals who lead know that how people feel about places, planning and the professionals who make the plans impact the quality and success of plans.
  
  
• Professionals who manage assign blame.
• Professionals who lead assign responsibility.
  
  
• Professionals who manage direct and command.
• Professionals who lead persuade and support.
  
  
• Professionals who manage need the power of their positions to persuade.
• Professionals who lead can persuade from anywhere in an organization or community.
  
  
• Professionals who manage take credit.
• Professionals who lead share credit.
  
  
• Professionals who manage are usually ignored after they leave the room.
• Professionals who lead have lasting impacts on others and the communities they serve.

For more on leadership, check out:
Learning to Lead, by Warren Bennis
Good to Great, by Jim Collins
John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do, by John P. Kotter

Leadership versus management, part I

One of the keys to being an effective leader is to understand the difference between leading and managing. The differences can be subtle, but profound. Experts have used many ways to explain the difference. Warren Bennis says that managers do things right, while leaders do the right things. Edgar Schein says that leaders build and change cultures, while managers sustain them.

Many professionals in planning and public affairs manage groups, projects and organizations. What's the difference between a professional who leads and one who manages? I hope this listing helps shed some light.

• Professionals who manage follow agendas and scopes of work.
• Professionals who lead make strategic choices that most effectively further goals and missions.
  
  
• Professionals who manage are cautious and worried.
• Professionals who lead are careful and thoughtful.
  
  
• Professionals who manage are scared that "someone is going to say something."
• Professionals who lead welcome the opportunity to hear different perspectives.
  
  
• Professionals who manage prepare plans and studies.
• Professionals who lead pursue positive growth and development using plans and studies.

• Professionals who manage avoid conflict and risk.
• Professionals who lead manage conflict and risk.
  
  
• Professionals who manage do things a certain way because "that's how it's done."
• Professionals who lead do things that will best achieve lasting results.