"‘Cramer’s Cube’ offers a diversity fix for corporations"

REPRINT THE WINCHESTER STAR • THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2003
BY KRISTINA ARVANITIS, STAFF WRITER

A model for collaboration
‘Cramer’s Cube’ offers a diversity fix for corporations

Vincent Cramer is looking to change the way corporate employees collaborate.

Cramer – a 25-year Winchester resident and educated as an electrical engineer – spent most of his profession-al career in semiconductor sales, working for both Fortune 500 and start-up companies. But when his last place of employment, a high- tech start-up, went out of business, Cramer decided to set to work on his manual for what he calls “diversity asset management.”

“I was cranking out resumes and I got to thinking, ‘let me start writing and see where this goes,’” Cramer said. And the result was “Cramer’s Cube,” which was published this year by 1stBooks.

Although the appendix of the book offers instructions about how to make pyramids using construction paper, the exercises offered are not for children, but rather for business professionals. Cramer’s hope is that his manual will allow companies to tap the viewpoints and ideas that their own employees offer, eliminating the need for costly consultants.

However, according to Cramer, what is needed in order to achieve a range of opinions and solutions is diversity, something that is sorely lacking in most companies. He hopes that his book will convince corporations that diversity that differentiates based on individual uniqueness rather than that based on a common thread such as race or gender is the key to creative solutions to problems.

His theory is that collaborative workgroups often forsake diversity in favor of simply expanding on the first idea that is presented to the group by the individual that he refers to as the “straw man.” He calls this the “illusion of inclusion,” and that once that first individual takes it upon himself to offer the first possible explanation, other workers’ contributions to the problem are limited. In this scenario, usually the “loudest or brightest” rule.

“In a collaborative group, someone usually will step forward and provide a solution that is reasonable, but that the other individuals in the group would modify somewhat,” Cramer said. “And everyone feels like they contributed to that. The problem is that the person who started led the group down a different path than any others that could be considered. The contributions are limited because they’re working on the straw man’s idea.”

So, Cramer proposed a new starting ground that he calls the R.E.D. Zone, where working groups first consider ideas from both extremes. As an example, he offers the problem of buying a car. Instead of merely looking at vehicles in a certain price range, Cramer would ask groups to start by thinking about not buying a car at all or looking at the possibility of buying a plane instead.

Now that the book has hit the stands, Cramer’s next step is to try to sell his theory to corporations, human resource management organizations and universities, rather than going the usual route of book tours and signings. He now hopes to offer keynote presentations, executive seminars, training sessions and coaching to both managers and employees.

“The feedback I’ve gotten is very enthusiastic,” he noted.

But will he ever go back to semiconductors? Or is his new calling to spread the word about his team strengthening methodology?

“This will be what I do forever and ever now,” Cramer stated emphatically.

Official “Cramer’s Cube” Web site: www.cramerscube.com

"Winchester author weaves diversity into the bottom line"

REPRINT - DAILY TIMES CHRONICLE - FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2003

WINCHESTER – Corporate executives and stockholders are looking for a return on their investment in diversity programs, like the return they realized with quality programs. They can!

Cramer’s Cube (now available through 1stBooks), by Winchester resident and businessman Vincent M. Cramer, asserts that thinking out of the box and giving 110 percent are not conducive to meeting that expectation.

The full potential of an individual, a team and a corporation lies in the powerful group dynamics that take place inside the box, or in this case, inside Cramer’s Cube. Corporations, universities and government agencies will use Cramer’s Cube to tap the unique talents of their people to drive Diversity Asset Manage-ment™ and develop a comprehensive Total Diversity Management™ program.

Organizations will have an effective, even fun, decision-making method-ology that focuses the power of diversity on the individual and is managed as a strategic corporate asset, says Cramer. Cramer’s Cube addresses the diversity of the individual,as opposed to that of an affinity group. Its methodology is applied to the mix of individuals in the setting of an operational group, which is the actual environment for addressing corporate objectives.

Within the Cramer’s Cube methodology, diversity does not need to be discussed. Rather, it is applied. Hyperbole and trite platitudes such as giving 110 percent are removed from the team’s vocabulary.

Cramer’s Cube provides a standard for collaborative decision-making. It has clear and measurable benefits and is easily understood and enthusiastically applied by all personnel.
The five most important aspects of Cramer’s Cube, according to Cramer are:

• It moves diversity from potential to kinetic to bottom line results.
• It is the engine that drives Diversity Asset Management™.
• The methodology is easily learned and readily applied by all team
  members.
• Individuals apply their unique essence to achieve important objectives.
• Corporations maximize their return on diversity (ROD) and determine their destiny.
  

The most noteworthy legal brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of diversity came from a group of former leaders of the U.S. military. They argued that a diverse officer corps is essential to national security. In essence, they have deemed diversity to be a critical asset.

Cramer’s Cube is the engine that maximizes the potential of that asset. It moves diversity from a “program” to a critical asset that is woven into the operational fabric to impact the bottom line. Cramer has successfully applied the principles of Cramer’s Cube to the development of dynamic sales organizations during his career in the semiconductor industry.

For more information, visit www.cramerscube.com

---

ABOUT 1STBOOKS
The oldest and most successful print-on-demand and eBook publishing company of its kind, 1stBooks was founded in 1997 and has helped more than 13,000 people worldwide realize their dreams of becoming published authors. For more information, visit www.1stBooks.com

"Rethinking Diversity Training"

Boston Herald
By Paul Restuccia
Published: April 14, 2008

Rethinking Diversity Training
Consultants say programs need greater results

Studies show training often fails to change minority mix

With major studies showing that diversity training is having little positive impact, a growing number of diversity consultants are saying that it’s time to rethink how it’s being done by major companies.

Corporate America spends upwards of $300 million a year on diversity training but seem to be getting little out of it.

New research led by Professor Alexandra Kalev of the University of Arizona that looked at 30 years of data from 830 American companies showed that ― after diversity training ― the number of black male executives actually fell by 12 percent, the number of black female executives fell by 10 percent and the number of white female executives dropped by 7.5 percent.

A 2006 study by Kalev and Harvard sociology professor Frank Dobbin also found little or no benefit to diversity training.

“Often the training lasts for a day and is forgotten,” says Tim Wilson of T.A. Wilson & Associates, a Northboro-based management consultant who now shies away from doing diversity programs because he sees the source of many problems as poor management.

“Typically, a manager does something stupid and they call for some diversity training,” Wilson says. “It often becomes an exercise in political correctness where everyone is overly sensitive and afraid to say anything.”

Fred Smith, vice president of Brighton-based Novations Group, one of the country’s largest providers of diversity consulting, is also a vocal critic of the way a lot of diversity training is conducted.

Smith helped devise survey questions for a recently released Novations diversity study that polled 2,500 senior human resources executives. Many HR chiefs said there were serious flaws in their diversity programs ― that they lacked clear objectives, did not address development and advancement issues and that the content was trite. And almost a third said there was no way to measure if the training was even effective.

A study of 63 diversity programs led by Professor Susan E. Jackson of Rutgers University concluded that diversity programs’ effectiveness could not be quantifiably measured by a common corporate analysis tool called SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and tactics).

“My reaction to those consultants who say you can measure the effect of diversity is ‘show me the numbers’ ” Wilson says. “And you need some kind of reinforcement ― to bring back people to see what kind of progress is being made. Diversity has to be part of the strategic plan of the company to have any impact.”

These academic studies have produced a backlash within companies and the business-as-usual diversity consultant community.

Smith says “diversity fatigue” occurs because the high turnover of diversity chiefs produces a stop-and-start approach. He says companies often choose diversity chiefs from executives near the end of their corporate careers and do not provide them with training or certification.

“Many companies have no real commitment to a diverse work force, but seek the positive public relations value of appearing to do the right thing.” Smith says, “I tell companies that, if you are not able to measure the return on investment you put into diversity training and initiatives, then you shouldn’t do it.”

Smith also decries some of the typical training program content such as the “blame and shame: where you call people in and make them feel bad.”

“Many consultants who sell diversity training aren’t concerned about whether or not it accomplishes anything,” Smith adds. “They collect their fee and have no desire to change their business models. But it casts a bad shadow on those of us who do really care.”
Other consultants see typical training themes such as “celebrating diversity” and “ethnic dinners” as having little value in addressing issues of discrimination.

“There’s too much focus on celebrating diversity rather than more direct talk about gender, race and racism,” said Carmen Van Kerckhove, who started her own alternative to diversity training called New Demographic, a New York-based company which has done many presentations to colleges, companies and nonprofits in the Boston area.

“The entire setup of typical diversity training is not conducive to learning,” Van Kerckhove said. “Attendance is mandatory while your work piles up. And you’re sitting there with people you work with and don’t want to endanger your relationships with them by speaking up.”
Van Kerckhove, who is a mix of Chinese and Belgian, uses a lot of humor in her presentations as well as provocative insights on race and gender issues that she says open up participants to really speak their minds.

“A lot of companies’ primary objective in doing this is liability protection,” Van Kerckhove said. “In case they get sued, they can say they have diversity training once a year to get them off the hook.”

Some consultants say that to be successful, diversity training has to move out of the realm of human resources.

“Diversity training has to move into the operational side of business,” says diversity consultant Vincent Cramer of The Winchester Consulting Group. “Diversity, like quality, should be ingrained in everything a company does ― it’s not about inclusion, but about impact, how it affects the bottom line."

Cramer says diversity needs to be seen as a major company asset, which has to be managed effectively. And that instead of telling a diverse work force that getting along is a prerequisite for accomplishing anything as a team, the focus ought to be on accomplishing something first, which will then lead to mutual appreciation.

“People hear the “d” word and their eyes glaze over, thinking about going to talk about sensitivity, relating, understanding each other,” Cramer says. “We need to move the training from the people-to-people focus to one of getting things done. The approach to diversity training should be, “How do we make our business successful in a way that makes the best use of all our people?”

"Functional Diversity Primer, Multicultural Competencies"

REPRINT 2003 Functional Diversity Primer

1.4 Multicultural Competencies

Vincent M. Cramer of Cramer’s Cube, a development and training company specializing in diversity asset management, talks about multicultural competencies:

Diversity programs must change and grow: For maximum effectiveness, diversity leaders need to recognize and understand where they are in their program development. Cramer says that “Achieving the proper degree of diversity, referred to as Diversity Attainment, has no finish line because the dynamic changes in the world’s diversity, mobility, and communications will never end.”

Diversity, the business bottom line, community, and philanthropy can go hand-in-hand. Cramer says, “Being socially fair and fiscally astute are not diametrically opposed. They are symbiotic. Historically, corporations have taken on many tasks that are peripheral to their core mission … make money…. If a corporation’s philanthropy and generosity can coexist with the primary mission, it usually results in receiving the unofficial title of Good Corporate Citizen.

“Corporations with a high level of civic-mindedness are usually held in high esteem by all, but it could all come crashing down if the company fails in its capitalist mission. It is a tremendous challenge to create and sustain a company in robust economic times. It is nearly impossible today. Corporations have a large enough challenge trying to sustain growth, profits, and market share while increasing productivity and innovation. How can corporate leaders be expected to be Good Corporate Citizens? Once they realize that their social and fiscal strategies can be joined they will be able to operate and invest with a focus on only one objective…fiscal success…. The value to the individuals and the groups will be significant, but corporations can reach the same result if they simply focused on diversity’s fiscal value to the corporation.”

Human capital is an asset: Cramer adds, “Human capital has taken on a profoundly new meaning. The bricks and mortar infrastructure of the manufacturing age was considered to be a major asset of the corporation as well as a competitive advantage and differentiator. Many economists have moved these assets to the liability side of the ledger. Since the end of the Cold War, it seems that everything has changed. Warfare is now based on adaptability, mobility, and intelligence, having replaced the model based on size and strength. The paradigm shift for the military followed the lessons learned from what its leaders had seen taking place in the industrial sector. Instead of utilizing humans to optimize the function of machines, the two were reversed. Human capital is what will drive armies, agencies, and economies in the millennial age.”

Diversity as a competitive advantage: Cramer says, “A corporation should accumulate assets that it feels have the greatest possibility of providing competitive advantage. It should then maximize the contribution of the assets and measure the results. This statement is so simple that it should be viewed as insulting to everyone’s intelligence. But, it is relevant when the definition of an asset is not apparent…. A corporation’s greatest asset is not in the R&D lab or on the manufacturing floor. The asset is walking the halls, working in cubicles, and collaborating in conference rooms.

“The asset valuation that can be applied is dependent on the talent, inspiration, and diversity of the team. Since it is impossible to foresee the business challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, it is prudent for corporations to develop a team that possesses the best potential. In the criteria that we have established, diversity is of equal importance with talent and inspiration. As with the other two, diversity must be acquired, cultivated, and applied. To ensure that it receives the focus and support it needs, commensurate with its potential for impact, it should be proclaimed as the greatest corporate asset. Treat it as such.”

Cramer continues, “Rather than documenting an already well-documented topic, it is practical to derive the pertinent lessons that are common to ‘quality’ and diversity.’ What began as a corporate capability, or incapability, evolved into a Quality Program, then a differentiator, evolving to a bottom-line contributor, and finally becoming a critical corporate asset. Within one generation, we no longer need to look for quality in the goods we purchase. We expect all products to have quality. The definition of quality is simply conformance to specification. It is not synonymous with reliability. That’s another topic…. Corporations which have been committed to diversity and have developed comprehensive Diversity Programs are now at the juncture of strategic advantage.”

The United States, the Melting Pot, is not only the land of opportunity, it is the land of diversity. Cramer says, “The time is now for corporations to take the next step in the evolution and maturity of their Diversity Programs. Heed the words of George Santayana, ‘Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ Redefine your diversity effort. It has gone well past the point where it should be described as a ‘program.’ It is an asset, a critical asset. As with quality, it is a tactical and strategic asset.”

The chart below is an illustration provided by Cramer’s Cube of a complete diversity management system:

"Lack of Ideas, Diversity Bring More to the Team’s Table"

Chief Learning Officer
Executive Briefings
February 2005
By Kellye Whitney, Managing Editor

Diversity means different things to different people, and the word often comes with very strong opinions, judgments and historical viewpoints attached to its use. Imagine cutting those opinions out of the learning equation and using diversity to create objective-driven training where leaders eschew ideas and still get the results they want. No ideas? It sounds strange, but there may be a nugget of information here worth exploring.

"Diversity, to me, is really about individuality," said Vincent M. Cramer, founder of Winchester Consulting Group and author of "Cramer's Cube." An electrical engineer by trade, Cramer has spent a good portion of his life in sales in the semiconductor industry. He rose through the management ranks until he found himself leading others and was taxed with the challenging job of pulling the best from his team. "Initially, it was very easy because everyone was pretty much like me. We were all white, male, middle-class geeks, and the management challenges were straightforward. Over time, the organizations changed. Organizations became more multicultural, and the management challenges got more complex."

Many learning professionals take a myriad of approaches to handle these challenges. One way to help diverse teams function is to focus on overcoming language barriers. But sometimes, it's cultural issues that stand in the way of a smooth-running team. "I needed the people on my team to really contribute to what we were doing. I needed to have a working environment for my team that was very contributory, and I encountered challenges because I wasn't really getting the most out of all of the people on the team. As the organization became mixed gender, multicultural, I thought maybe it was a language issue. English was the second language. But over time I found out it was more a cultural reluctance to put themselves out, and in a benign way, challenge what someone else on the team was putting forward."

Some of Cramer's diverse team members had a high regard for people of a certain age, title or position, and he had a difficult time breaking down their barriers and predispositions to get them to offer criticism. He had to come up with a different, collaborative working environment that would get people to contribute. To create this team or objective-driven workgroup environment, Cramer focused learning on insights, not ideas.

"We don't need to change each other, we just need to extract the contributions each person can uniquely provide to the workgroup, such that people of age have contributions they can make, recent grads from college end up making their unique contributions, and people that have been in the industry for a long time and have a great deal of work experience have a great deal that they could provide," Cramer said. "I want to utilize diversity and provide its asset value as opposed to focusing on the inclusion aspect of diversity. I'm more focused on, now that the inclusion is there, how do we move that dynamic to facilitate individual and collective contributions on the operational side?"

You do that by creating a symbiotic work dynamic. There are many ways to get people to want to understand and appreciate one another through psychometrics or sensitivity training, but this can take on a lot of different manifestations, said Cramer. Instead, one can channel contributions by focusing on communications and collaboration in the workgroup. "The group has to achieve something," Cramer said. "Focus on the objectives. It's about individuals collectively, collaboratively working on achieving an objective to the best of their ability."

Leaders can extract full-bodied, insightful contributions and use diversity to ensure that objective-driven work groups are as productive as possible by employing a methodology that creates the workgroup environment and doesn't judge the contributions that people make. "Just enable them to make the contributions," Cramer said. "Most corporations are striving to advance their diversity initiatives and also be more innovative. Getting leaders to advance both of those programs is based on ideas. Ideas are not as grounded as insights. Ideas are somewhat boundless. You don't know when you should stop looking for ideas, and at some point in time, someone steps forward and judges those ideas. Insights have more tangibility. They have the transferability for a person to say here's something I'd like the group to consider."

"For example, an African-American woman puts forth an idea and people view that idea as coming from that influence of her cultural background, gender background or whatever, but the insight might come from the fact that the woman grew up on a farm and other people didn't. She might have insights that came about because of that life experience that people can appreciate. You can share that insight with people, share its roots, and have people say, 'OK, I understand that,' as opposed to an ideas-based environment, which fosters more ideas. It's cumulative, as opposed to staying focused on the objective. Insights foster communication and collaboration and lead toward the solution to the objective that they've been assigned."

To encourage insight-driven contributions in your workgroups and leaders, give them a mental image of the operating environment, Cramer said. "Where are we? How does the operating environment look and feel? Rather than throwing ideas around, the solution is start with the group focusing on where the solution is, not what the solution is," he explained. "What are the three most critical success parameters that define that objective? You literally surround the potential solution before you pinpoint precisely what the solution is. You're inside the cube, and it facilitates a coalescing of thoughts and insights as opposed to everybody in the group vectoring off in different directions in an idea-based environment."

"Realize that everybody has the ability to contribute to the process," Cramer added. "It's not about judging a person's input; it's about evaluating its efficacy and encouraging insight. Insights are non-prejudicial. There's luggage and prejudice that goes along with an idea-based environment. It's about asset utilization. It's the difference between diversity potential and diversity kinetic, which is really taking the diversity and infusing it operationally into the fabric of the corporation."

Using Diversity to Ignite Team Performance (interview)

“Using Diversity to Ignite Team Performance”
Diversity Trends LLC and Tracy Brown Presents
Conversation with ― Vincent M. Cramer
Transcript, July 21, 2005

TB - Tracy Brown opening remarks
VC - Vincent M. Cramer opening remarks

TB - Could you tell us a little about yourself and why you wrote Cramer’s Cube?

Tracy, as you mentioned, I am an Electrical Engineer. I spent my career in the semiconductor business, in sales. I enjoyed Sales but my greatest satisfaction came from developing teams and building organizations.

It was rather easy for me to be a good leader and an effective manager because everyone was just like me… a white, male, middle class, geek.

When the bubble burst in hi-tech a few years ago, I was the VP of Sales and Business Development for a startup company. The market crashed, we crashed and soon we were out of business!

I used this time to write a book about the 3 keys to team success – Communication, Collaboration and Decision Making. While I was writing Cramer’s Cube something very surprising dawned on me.

I realized that it wasn’t until I had a diverse team that I truly learned about team communication, collaboration and decision-making.

TB - Your book describes the Cramer’s Cube MODEL and how to apply it. Since there are people listening who have never been exposed to the model, can you quickly summarize it?

Yes. Here are the bullets:

• Cramer’s Cube is a 3D decision-making process, used by teams to meet clearly stated objectives.
• Team members collaborate and build a Cube that encloses WHERE THE SOLUTION IS.
• Then the team goes inside the Cube to figure out WHAT THE SOLUTION IS.
• The team actually generates 3 solutions that will meet their objective.
• Those 3 decisions are then presented to management for final selection.

TB - On the cover of the book (Cramer's Cube) it says “Diversity + Decision Making = Destiny.” That’s a powerful statement! How did an engineer working in technology environments arrive at that insight?

The chip companies that I worked for were startups. Startup chip companies not only develop new technology and innovative products, they actually create new industries, like cell phones and wireless networks, satellite radio and GPS.
Since most startups are going into unknown territory we can’t rely on traditional sales and marketing methods. We need to figure it out for ourselves as we go along.

When I created my first organization from scratch, I was not looking for diversity, but that is what I got.

I was actually looking to assemble a team that had

• Fresh viewpoints
• New insights
• Talent
• Commitment
• Experience and IN-EXPERIENCE

That is how I created a diverse organization without really trying to.

TB - I have not heard of a leader who intentionally recruited inexperienced people. Most managers want the most experienced people that they are able to hire. Could you explain this?

I needed a team that would take a fresh look at the customer, the competitors, the market and the opportunities. Together, we needed to figure out how we could be successful by helping the client to be successful.

I recruited outstanding individuals! I assembled a very motivated team. Everyone was bright and dedicated. Eventually, we were very successful and everyone in the organization contributed to that success.

TB - You said that eventually you were successful. Does that mean that you had problems with this approach?

Yes, I had one major problem. I wasn’t getting the full participation that I needed from everyone on the team. Unless I did, we would fail.

The problem was most apparent in our decision-making and strategy meetings. I needed their input and perspective, but they weren’t giving it to me. For some people there were cultural obstacles because they had a deep respect for people of age, rank or position.

For some, there were personal obstacles because they weren’t as aggressive as others. I needed a decision-making process that would empower everyone to FULLY participate and contribute. However, I couldn’t find a method that met my needs, the needs of the organization and the needs of the individuals.
I tried them all:

• The Straw Man approach was not a solution.
• Soliciting ideas was not the solution.
• Providing them with solutions was not the solution.

So I developed my own process that relied on two core elements:
First: To clearly define objectives
Second: Give the team the ability and the freedom to make decisions and solve problems.

We were very successful with that approach. That process is what became Cramer’s Cube.

That is why I feel that “Diversity + Decision Making = Destiny.”

TB - If the team collaboratively made decisions and solved problems, what did you do? Some might think you were abdicating your leadership and management to the team.

No, I believe that I was abdicating my ego to the team. I had a wealth of experience, but I didn’t have their experience, their customer knowledge and most importantly, I didn’t have their insight. It was their insight that I needed.
Telling the team what to do would have been easy, and everyone would probably be comfortable with my decisions and my leadership, but I couldn’t be confident in my decisions because I didn’t know what I didn’t know.

I didn’t abdicate my leadership. It was exactly the opposite. The methods of Cramer’s Cube enabled me to be a more effective leader. I didn’t create diverse teams in order to be a benevolent boss. I suppose that I did it for selfish reasons. I wanted to be successful, but I couldn’t be unless everyone in the organization was successful.

For that to happen, everyone person needed to be an impact player, not just execute my directives.

TB - You mentioned that the 3 keys to success are communication, collaboration and decision- making. How did you begin to change the way people communicated with each other?

First, we cleaned up the language that we used. No… not crude language - - imprecise language. We could only use language that everyone understood. No words or phrases could be ambiguous.

We eliminated meaningless phrases that seemed to be popular in corporations. We decided that our language needed to be effective, not popular. We eliminated phrases such as “Give 110%”, “Failure is not an option.” and “Think Outside of the Box” Those phrases, and more like them, added nothing to the process, so they weren’t used.

TB - How did you begin to change the way people collaborate and make decisions?

Not only didn’t we Think Outside of the Box, I actually eliminated Ideas and Opinions from our deliberations. That might sound very strange to most people because most corporations encourage ideas. They even train their employees to learn how to generate ideas. We didn’t.

I had 3 reasons for eliminating ideas and opinions from our discussions.

1st... Ideas and Opinions are very personal to people. When you attack a person’s ideas or opinions, you are attacking the person. That rips a team apart.

2nd... Ideas generate more ideas, which generate more ideas, and so on and so on. The visual that I have of ideas is that they are like the finale at a 4th of July fireworks display. Countless and all over the place!

3rd... If we generated ideas, who would make the judgment on what ideas are the best ideas?

I would! But how could I know that my judgment was right?
Judgment is very subjective. I wanted to make decisions… not judgments.

TB - Can you give us an example of making a decision instead of a judgment?

Yes. I will give you an example that most people can relate to. Do you remember the Apollo 13 crisis? Three astronauts were on their way to the moon when there was an explosion that crippled their spacecraft. Not only was the mission-to-the-moon in danger, three lives were hanging in the balance.

Ron Howard directed a very popular movie titled Apollo 13 and two famous quotes came from that movie.
“Houston, we have a problem!” AND “Failure is not an option!” These quotes are still frequently repeated thirty-five years after the event. The drama and suspense of the movie focused on the way the NASA engineers and controllers in Houston handled the crisis.

• Gene Kranz,, the NASA Flight Director set a clear objective for his support team in Houston: Get the crew back to earth alive.
• Jerry Bostick, was an engineer on that team. He indirectly provided the famous quote by Ed Harris, who played the role of Gene Kranz…”Failure is not an option.” However, what he actually said to the researcher who wanted to know the panic level of the engineers trying to solve the crisis. Jerry Bostick said, “We just calmly laid out all the options, and failure wasn’t one of them”
• At first, the team spent a few minutes throwing around ideas about what the solution to the problem is. They quickly realized that they were wasting precious time. Then they changed their approach.
• The team first determined WHERE THE SOLUTION IS by deciding what would enable them to meet their objective. They decided that it was Fuel, Guidance, and breathable air.
• The team was then able to decide WHAT THE SOUTION IS. As you will see in the movie, it was the right solution because it was an effective solution.
• The solution was effective because it utilized the insight of absolutely everyone on the team.
• Instead of throwing around ideas, they were guided by a clear objective (Return this crew safely to earth) and they had the freedom to collaborate and create the best solution.
• This Apollo 13 example is explained more fully in the September 2005 issue of Chief Learning Officer Magazine. The title is: Leaderless Teams Achieve More.

TB - Now I need to watch Apollo 13 again. That is very dramatic example of Igniting Team Performance, but it appears to be a long process. I have a feeling that you will tell us that it isn’t.

Yes I will. If diverse teams use the Cramer’s Cube process, they will always be moving toward a decision and a solution. It is a convergent decision-making process because it uses insights instead of ideas. Ideas are countless and they diverge, plus someone needs to sort through all of the ideas and choose the “best” one.

That takes a lot of time. AND you don’t even know that you are moving in the right direction. As a friend from Texas is fond of saying, “There is a lot of circlin’ around and barkin’ at it.”

Even after an idea is selected, can you really say that everyone on the team fully contributed? No! A decision based on ideas is more like a winner-take-all process.
Of course there is discussion and agreement, but was there reaaaaly full participation by everyone in the group? The answer is NO.

That is why I needed to create a decision-making process that allows everyone to contribute her or his insights without constraint. Once I did, decisions were better; innovation was achieved and creativity was not stifled.

There are two reasons why we were more effective, innovative and creative:

• Everyone was guided by the objective.
• 2nd Together, they determined Where the Solution Is (just like Apollo 13) and then they decided What The Solution Is.

TB - Okay . . . so how does the typical manager take the Apollo 13 example and apply it to their own team if they want to “Use Diversity to Ignite Team Performance”?

The path is very easy to travel. Gene Kranz of Apollo 13 claimed, “This will be our finest hour.” well before he could be confident that his team would succeed. He feared for the lives of the astronauts, but he remained confident throughout the crisis, because he set a clear objective for the team and then he gave them the freedom to use their insights and judgment to solve the problem. He believed in his team. He had confidence in his team, so he had confidence in their decisions.
That is what all individuals are looking for …the opportunity to contribute and to be valued.

With the diversity in our corporations, there is richness of insights that are valuable to the company.

But people must be given the opportunity to apply their insights. Don’t give people Predicaments-to-ponder; Give them Problems-to-Solve.

TB - Most diversity initiatives are trying to create an environment that does just that but it often doesn’t work. So what are they doing wrong?

I wouldn’t say that they are doing anything wrong. I might say that they are focused too narrowly in one area. Many corporations have built their diversity training programs on the premise that:
“If we can understand and appreciate each other, we can accomplish something.”
There is nothing wrong with that concept. However, I approach training and organizational effectiveness from the opposite direction. I believe that “if organizations can accomplish something, people can understand and appreciate each other.” People who demonstrate their ability to have an impact are valued and appreciated. That can only happen if they are given the opportunity to be a member of the team, with equal power and influence.

So, in order to “Use Diversity to Ignite Team Performance.” You need three things:

• You need the fuel, which is diversity
• You need the oxygen, which is insight
• You need the spark, which is collaborative decision-making.

TB - Aren’t Insights and Ideas the same thing?

At first glance, that is what you would think, but they’re not. Insights have tangibility that ideas don’t have. Not only can we talk about our insights, we can demonstrate them. Let me explain.

I mentioned that I am skeptical of Thinking Outside of the Box. However, I am in awe of the abilities that some people have to come up with innovative ways and unique views…but they don’t come from ideas. They come from insight.
Corporations are looking for a competitive edge, which means that they are striving to be innovative.

Encouraging people to Give 110% or to Think Outside of The Box doesn’t accomplish that.

The Cramer's Cube process is more practical and more effective than having a room full of people thinking really, really, really, really hard hoping for that comicstrip light-bulb to appear over their heads.

Using an insight-based process instead of an idea-based process allows everyone in the organization to make dramatic contributions.

I discussed the topic of Insights vs. Ideas in an interview with Chief Learning Officer Magazine. The interviewer, Kelley Whitney published an article that contained the interview in the February 2005 issue of CLO Magazine.

TB - I think I understand your point. Are you saying that each of us is very unique and that we can have a huge impact on team performance, but in order for that to happen corporations must change the way teams collaborate and make decisions?

YES!
In order to make that happen, organizations should focus on insights instead of ideas. Give people clear objectives. Then, give teams a decision-making process that will draw upon all of the team’s insight. Allow them to make decisions and solve problems. That is how Diversity can be used to Ignite Team Performance.

TB - Obviously, you’re not a big supporter of the box, but you use a Cube. What is the difference?

As Twyla Tharp, the famous dance choreographer, said, “In order to Think Outside of the Box, you Have to Start With a Box.” I believe that each of us is a unique box. We cannot go outside the limits of what we are, but we can go toward those limits and we can demonstrate the uniqueness that we have.

There are people who have demonstrated their uniqueness and altered the way we see the world. Some people might say that they were Thinking Outside of the Box. They weren’t. They were simply being themselves. What appears to be outside the box for some is actually obvious to someone else. That is why I refer to people as BOXers. Every individual is unique, with unique insights. The objective is to draw on those insights and use them to make better decisions and facilitate innovation.

The goal of corporations should be to utilize their diversity and allow the BOXers to have an impact on the organization. Don’t tell them to Think Outside of the Box. Instead, give them a clear objective and allow them to be themselves, work together and get the job done.

TB - Vince, we have about five more minutes. So, let’s go back to the foundation . . . the Cramer’s Cube model. You were able to capture your experience leading sales teams in high tech environments and translate the successful behaviors into a geometric model. To explain the different elements of the model you ended up creating a variety of proprietary terms that really help differentiate your approach from others. Before we close can you review a few of those terms so people listening in can have a sense of the steps in the process?

Not only did I want Cramer’s Cube to be effective, I wanted it to be easy to use and fun to use. So, some unique vocabulary was created along the way. Here are a few that you will never hear from someone who is trying to Think Outside of the Box.

First I want to tell you about BOXers. I have identified some people, both famous and unknown, who have changed the way we view the world because they shared their unique insight and dramatically impacted the rest of us. People such as Mahatma Ghandi, Dick Fosbury, Mary-Ellis Bunham, Brownie Wise, Martin Luther King, Eunice Kennedy Shriver changed our world forever because they saw the world differently than the rest of us. Then they acted on their unique insight and altered our world in the process.

Blind Vision is a phrase that I am especially fond of. Some people have such clear vision that you can think of it as having laser precision. They are so focused that they literally blind themselves to the distractions and the obstacles that the rest of us might notice.

Then we have Faux Factor. No! not Fear Factor. Faux as in the French word that means fake. I use Faux Factor as a warning to people working together in teams. The greater a person’s reputation and integrity, the more believable they are, and the more confidence that we have in that person. That confidence can be a warning sign that we may be allowing someone to influence the team more than they should.

You will see that I still have that engineering streak in me when you read…The Power of Diversity is in Dark Energy. Dark Energy is a term used by astrophysicists to describe the indescribable. Dark Energy comprises 73% of the Universe, but scientists can’t figure out what it is. BUT…they know what it does and they can observe what it does. I believe that people are mostly Dark Energy. We can never expect to truly understand ourselves, or each other, but we can work together effectively and we can be affected by each other’s Dark Energy. Let’s not overanalyze it, let’s just utilize it and we will all be the better for it.

Finally, let me mention Dèjả versity™. It means: Diversity training that feels like dèjả vu. We can break out of that box, no pun intended, and move diversity programs to the impact level as corporate processes, just as quality programs did. That is the reason why Diversity Trends produced the conversation that is taking place today. Paraphrasing Yogi Berra, This Diversity Trends conversation is NOT…. dèjả vu all over again!

TB - Vince that’s very helpful because in our conversation today we have primarily focused on the concept. But I also want people to understand that the model can actually provide them with the language and the process steps they can use to transition their work groups into collaborative decision-making teams. Now we are just about out of time. Would you like to make a closing comment?

Tracy, I want to thank you again for this opportunity. Also, I want to thank the attendees for investing their time in what I hope was a valuable discussion.

I would like to conclude by saying that people do not fully understand how unique and valuable they are. Also, corporations do not yet realize the value that is locked inside its corporate diversity. In order for diversity to ignite team performance, corporations will need to implement a collaborative decision-making process that will fulfill everyone’s expectations. Just as Quality Programs changed the way corporations operate, I believe that Diversity Programs will do the same, but with even greater impact.

I would like to work with corporations to move diversity programs from Inclusion to Impact and the journey goes through the highway of collaborative decision-making. Thank you.

TB - Vince, thanks for being with us today. I believe the Cramer’s Cube model can really help to unlock the potential of diversity in intact work teams. And to those of you on the line, or listening to the recording, thank YOU for participating in CONVERSATIONS ABOUT DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION.
For information about other conversations in the series, visit www.diversitytrends.com/conversations.

Leadership Challenges in the Age of Diversity

Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM Online
December 2004
By Vincent M. Cramer

Leadership Challenges in the Age of Diversity
Diversity Asset Management™ Expands the Leader’s Role

In a world of instantaneous communication, intercontinental transportation and global migration, we have entered the Age of Diversity. The dynamics of diversity have redefined the corporate landscape. In turn, the methods that are employed in leadership and team collaboration must be reassessed and redefined. The greatest Organizational Development challenge of the new millennium is leadership and leadership training.

In the past twenty years corporations, government agencies, universities and the military have increased the degree of diversity within their organizations. We refer to this process as Diversity Attainment. These organizations have also strived to increase the influence and impact of that diversity through the efforts of their Diversity Officers, Diversity Councils and Affinity Groups. From this initiative has come the realization that the traditional methods of Organizational Development and workgroup behavior must be reanalyzed and updated. At the Organizational Development epicenter is the challenge of leadership training.

Leadership provides guidance and direction to a team and is comprised of both personal qualities and acquired skills. The dynamics of diversity does not change these core elements, but it does require that leaders acquire additional skills.

From a historical perspective, leaders have the ability to assess the team, focus its energies, execute a plan and accomplish an objective. That remains the same. Once it becomes apparent that diversity is not a program, but an asset, it is incumbent upon a leader to maximize the return on that asset. The means by which the leaders can reach maximum asset realization is through the creation of a dynamic environment within which the leader can evaluate asset potential. Through these new skills, the leader can then apply those assets to refine the team’s focus, sharpen the plan, or even alter the objective. One process for accomplishing this is to employ Diversity Asset Management™. This is a comprehensive program with Cramer’s Cube as its embedded engine that enables an organization to communicate, collaborate and contribute—thus manifesting all of the assets embodied in its organizational diversity.

By supplementing leadership skill training, organizations add a degree of team dynamics not normally associated with firm and decisive leadership. The leader strives to ascertain and leverage the team’s assets in the execution of his or her duties. This approach might appear to be more circumspect than one would expect of a leader. The reason is that the assessment of these assets and the subsequent leverage of the assets may not be obvious or observable. The asset potential is embedded in the individual team members and the leader must create an environment that will reveal the individual assets and potential contributions of each member of the organization.

Since we are claiming that leaders must develop additional skills, you can conclude that we are putting forth an initiative that is evolutionary and additive. The qualities and skills that traditionally define leadership remain intact.

Knowing a Great Deal About Relatively Little

Leadership ability has been valued for centuries. For that reason, Leadership Skill Training is probably just as long in the tooth. It would appear that the qualities and skills required for effective leadership are universally known and recognized. Simply studying the great leaders of the ages would seem to provide us with a composite of all that needs to be known about leadership and leadership development. That assumption is valid, but the conclusion is unfounded. New leadership requirements are constantly emerging. How can it be said that subject matter as mature as leadership requires reassessment when it is understood in such detail and depth? The possible answer can be illustrated with a couple of analogies from two very mature fields - medicine and astronomy.

DNA is where the detailed information of an individual resides. Ironically, every human on the planet shares more than 99% of DNA. As the Genome Project attempts to pinpoint the commonality of qualities, characteristics and dispositions of humans, scientists are more intrigued by what DNA is not telling them than what it is revealing.

The study of the cosmos is generating the same type of intrigue. The body and the cosmos are both universes, but of a different magnitude. With advances in space probes, telescopes and precision measurement devices, scientists have made quantum leaps in astronomy and astrophysics. However, the universe for which scientists have deep knowledge is defined as the Observable Universe. Recent studies have informed us that it only comprises 4% of the total universe. Another 23% is composed of Dark Matter, and the remaining 73% has been given the name Dark Energy. Therein lies the intrigue and mystery. Scientists cannot actually define Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but they do have a clear understanding of their effects. The database of knowledge that deals with the observable universe is a natural extension of the knowledge passed down from the scientists of previous generations.

If scientists focus only on the observable 4% of the cosmos, the knowledge gained will be limited. Scientists must pursue the study of the Observable Universe without losing “sight” of the unobservable 96%. Measuring effects, in addition to observing causes, will accomplish this. This same premise applies to leadership training and the dynamics of diversity.

Humanity’s Dark Energy

It is refreshing to see that we no longer fear the unknown. In fact we are intrigued by it. Medicine and astronomy will leap to the next plateau by gaining insight into what is beyond our ability to define or even imagine. This contrasts sharply from the historical advancement of knowledge whereby we would build on the previous knowledge base. Knowledge is no longer separated into descriptions of the “known” vs. the “unknown.” The cosmological “unknown” now has categories, such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Just as the precision of mathematics is complemented by the apparent imprecision of chaos theory, one must have knowledge of both, to have an understanding of either.

Follow these analogies from the “exact sciences” of medicine, mathematics and astronomy to the “inexact science” of human behavior. Anthropologists tell us that even the most primitive of men attempted to create order and logic out of the universe, principally because it is the human thing to do. Humans are curious, but also intellectually tidy. That predilection motivated mankind to constantly create order from chaos. Whether it be the creation of astrology or pop-up menus, humans feel comfortable with organization, classification and compartmentalization. Astrology is the ultimate in human tidiness because it contains 12 classifications and everyone belongs in one of those 12 groupings. The common traits aid astrologers in defining the entire species by grouping individuals into a finite number of predefined classifications.

Humans never truly accept imprecision, disorder or ignorance. Even when we go into such chaotic waters, the first tendency is to take what is observed and put it in an acceptable order and genus. We cannot help it. We are only being human! Humans even go to the level of cataloguing themselves. So that we can understand ourselves, others and our interpersonal behavior, we tend to create groups of commonality based on characteristics or behavior. After all, we are only being human!

Drawing upon the insight of DNA and astrophysics, just suppose that classifying humans only dealt with a small percentage of the totality of the person. It would be incumbent upon us to investigate the unknown regions for they may contain deeper human insight and understanding. As with astronomy, what we learn will come from the observation of human kinetics as opposed to the typecasting of human potential.

Behavioral Typecasting

As we enter the Age of Diversity, the dynamics are such that we can no longer feel secure and confident that we have “typed” people correctly and grouped them precisely. Such typecasting may only accommodate a small percentage of the known universe of human individuality. The true measure of individual uniqueness may lie in areas where we have yet to look. The insight to this statement comes from our recent understanding of diversity and the deployment of Diversity Asset Management™.

If a cataloguing is done on anything, or anyone, it not only defines the parameters as to what it is, but also what it is not. A Capricorn cannot also be an Aquarius. An extrovert is unique from an introvert and a left-brainer is quite different from a right-brainer. There is really no problem in classifying people by type, but if that is where the journey ends, then typing becomes typecasting and the classifications become very limiting. What is required to better understand human behavior and interpersonal dynamics is the addition of kinetic diversity. If all individuals are predefined and catalogued, then there is a channeling of our observations, analysis and judgments. We begin to move in the direction of predetermination and its ugly byproduct…predestination. It may be a slope that is just as slippery as the one that takes us from judgment, to pre-judgment to prejudice.

What makes us the same is our humanity and what makes us unique is our individuality. Behavioral scientists and anthropologists will continue to advance our knowledge of what makes us similar, but leaders in Organizational Development may have the greatest practical insight to what makes us the unique individual that we are. The arena where this will most likely take place is in Leadership Skill Training.

From Leader to Navigator to Leader

Leadership provides guidance and direction. That sounds simple enough, but whose guidance and what direction? Leadership in a hierarchical and autocratic organization is quite simple and straightforward. The military and organized religions are both examples of this structure. Leaders lead and subordinates follow. Period. It is a command-based structure. In a less autocratic organization, there is a softer side to the leadership. The strength of leadership is tempered by the skill to influence and gain acceptance, in contrast to a command and control structure. These leaders posses the requisite leadership qualities and are schooled in leadership skill development. Paramount to a leader’s success is the ability to establish group identity, exert influence and build confidence. That will facilitate the completion of the objective. To reduce the complexity of that task, a leader must have knowledge of his or her personal traits as well as the traits of the groups of individuals that are being led.

The interpersonal dynamics in this setting can be quite stifling. Since the leader intends to lead, he or she has a game plan, which requires deployment. Inputs are solicited for the purpose of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the leader. The more that a leader knows about the type of people on the team, the greater will be his or her ability to guide and direct them.

This form of leadership presumes that the requisite information, strategy and objective reside with the leader. In most situations that is the case. In today’s dynamic and challenging world, the information may be lacking and the strategy may not be optimum. As a practical matter, even the objective may be open to revision. In such cases, leadership ability may require the addition of navigation skills. A navigator is always in pursuit of data, information and perspective. In this Age of Diversity, there may be a vast amount of data, information and perspective embodied in the members of the team. The leader could gain significant advantage if that data could be captured and applied. A dynamic environment and an applicable methodology are required to facilitate the process and maximize the contributions from each team member. Cramer's Cube is the embedded engine within Diversity Asset Management™, which generates the dynamics required by the leaders.

An individual can possess the qualities of a leader and acquire the skills to become an effective leader. However, an individual cannot possibly possess the vast potential that exists within the ranks of the organization. One can learn the skills, but one cannot possess all of the team’s attributes and insights. Therefore, the leader must learn additional skills that will enable him or her to extract the potential that resides in the team and transform it into a kinetic force. The process for doing this will not convert the current leadership process into a democratic process. The leader still leads and the team still follows the guidance and direction of the leader. The difference lies in the formulation of the objective and the strategies. This is the result of Communication, Collaboration and Contribution.
Diversity Asset Management™

Leadership training must now expand its scope and curriculum. Leadership skills must be augmented in order to focus on the vast assets and potential that lie within diverse organizations. Diversity must be recognized and leveraged as a tactical and strategic asset.

As illustrated above, Cramer's Cube is the embedded engine that drives the dynamics of diversity, within the Operational Groups. Each individual is no longer behaviorally typecast into a predefined group but is given the power of Involvement. Groups that operate using the methodology of Cramer's Cube have the ability, rather the responsibility, to provide his or her unique Insight and Influence. Capturing those results will assist in the formulation and execution of the assignment.

The objective of all organizations should be to maximize the contribution and impact of its key assets. With the adoption and deployment of Cramer's Cube, corporations will leverage those assets and gain significant competitive advantage, under the guidance and direction of its leader(s).

---

Vincent M. Cramer is the author of Cramer’s Cube. He is also the founder of The Winchester Consulting Group, an Organizational Development and Training Company specializing in the principles of Cramer's Cube and its application to Leadership, Innovation and Diversity Asset Management™. www.cramerscube.com

Mobilize Your Refrigerator Magnets - Release the Energy and Innovation in Your Organization

Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM Online
December 2004
By Vincent M. Cramer

Mobilize Your Refrigerator Magnets
Release the Energy and Innovation in Your Organization

Corporations Are Like Refrigerators

There may be tens of thousands of companies, but they can be grouped into a manageable number of industry categories. Likewise, there are tens of millions of refrigerators and they can also be grouped into specific categories. Within a category − top freezer, bottom freezer, side-by-side—most refrigerators look the same. Yet while refrigerators lack diversity, once they arrive in a household they do not lack individuality. If you took a photo of your refrigerator and combined it with photos of 99 similar refrigerators, the probability is likely 100% that you could correctly identify your own. Like a mother knows her child, we know our refrigerators. That is because we have littered the door with our unique brand of graffiti.

Snowflakes, Humans and Refrigerator Magnets

We are steadfast in our knowledge that no two snowflakes are identical. It sounds preposterous when you consider that all snowflakes have the same general characteristics and that each and every one is a six-sided ice crystal. Although snowflakes can be grouped by similar characteristics, individual uniqueness is based in fact. Another fact is that no two individuals are identical, including identical twins and triplets. That is the epitome of diversity and individuality.

Refrigerator magnets may lack the degree of diversity and uniqueness possessed by snowflakes and humans, but they possess many similarities. At its core, the magnet has a force that it exerts on the things around it. It attracts some and repels others. It is attracted to some and repelled by others.

After acquiring various magnets, we don’t give much thought to how they came to reside on our refrigerator. They are simply MY refrigerator magnets. Building an organization is quite similar to acquiring refrigerator magnets. Employees join a corporation through various means, but once an individual is on the team, the relevance and importance of the how and why the employee came into the organization fades away. The important point is that they are in MY organization.

More Than Just a Smiley Face

All refrigerator magnets are not created equal. Some are large while others are quite small. Some have a strong magnetic field while others are weak. Some are utilitarian while others are purely decorative. Some refrigerator magnets are complete by themselves—they may contain a phone number, emergency information or a memento. Some magnets have supportive roles and are associated with other items. Other magnets require additional elements in order to achieve their value, such as an attached clip that enables the magnet to hold other materials. Some possess qualities not normally expected of a refrigerator magnet, such as a magnetic force strong enough to hold a heavy object or many sheets of paper against the door.

Depending on the attributes of the refrigerator magnet, the expected benefit will vary significantly, and that will determine its position and purpose. The subjective judgment of the person placing the magnet will also define its position. The person who puts the magnet on the refrigerator decides where it will look the best, do its job and not get in the way when the door is opened. Unless the refrigerator magnet falls off, it is reasonable to expect that its location will be relatively fixed for a long period of time. In a similar manner, employees are given functional positions within a corporation and assigned responsibilities and duties. Some magnets look good together and their relative positions are established to make them visually appealing and functionally beneficial. Once the objects are placed, the refrigerator door enforces their positions.

Immobilization

When placed on the fridge, magnets are not demagnetized; rather, they are immobilized. They retain all of their magnetic properties, but they are unable to fully utilize them. You have heard of animal magnetism; well, there is also appliance magnetism. If two magnets are placed on a kitchen table in close proximity, there will be a reaction of attraction, repulsion and realignment. At some point the magnets will determine where they like to be relative to each other. But when magnets are placed on the refrigerator door, the reaction is somewhat different. The magnets are immediately attracted to the door’s metal, where they immediately stick. The refrigerator is so massive that it exerts its overbearing influence on its porcelain parasites. The refrigerator magnet is no longer capable of exerting its force on any object other than the fridge. No matter what you do to entice the magnets to interact, they cannot. The refrigerator door has sapped their forces and defined their position. The refrigerator magnets’ forces are controlled and are rendered door-mant.

Magnetic Mobilization

Corporations can benefit greatly from the unique abilities and talents embodied in the individuals within the organization. In order to leverage these attributes, individuals must be given the opportunity to move from the “refrigerator door” and interact with others, without the oppressive pull of the Corporate Ice Box. The refrigerator does not intend to immobilize the magnets. It is simply being what it is: a refrigerator. A corporation does not intend to immobilize its individuals, but it is unaware of the oppressive force that it exerts. Corporations have their history, culture and tradition. They also have hierarchy and structure. Finally, there are the documented corporate policies and procedures for all to follow. The company wants its employees to operate in a supportive and interactive environment, and it believes that they are. Regrettably, its vision is clouded and it may have the eyesight of a refrigerator. Try as the corporate leaders may to exhort the greatest value and maximum potential from all individuals and teams, expectations are limited.

If the employees come “off the refrigerator door,” so to speak, where should they go? For maximum contribution to the others, the team and the corporation, they should be provided with an operating environment that is dynamic and will yield the desired results. Cramer’s Cube provides both the methodology and the operational environment that enables individuals to apply their unique capabilities and talents. In the process, team members are given the ability to work collaboratively within a framework that is both passionate and considerate.

Moving The “Magnets” to Cramer’s Cube

The full potential of an individual, a team and a corporation lies in the powerful group dynamics that take place inside Cramer’s Cube. Its collaborative decision-making methodology enables a corporation, university or government agency to define a group dynamic that is easily learned and enthusiastically applied, with measurable benefits to the individual and the organization.

As the diagram conveys, when placed in the energized environment of Cramer’s Cube, each person’s individuality is liberated from immobilizing corporate forces. The methodology guarantees that every individual is fully included in the team’s collaboration and decision process, ensuring that each team member has the opportunity as well as the responsibility to participate in and contribute to the team effort. The influence of each team member is realized, and the contribution of each individual’s unique insight, talent and perspective yields innovative and extraordinary results. Leveraging the power and potential of the individual in this manner results in maximum impact.


Utilizing Cramer’s Cube throughout the organization, executives provide all team members with an effective, even fun, operating methodology that is easily learned and quickly applied—mobilizing and leveraging the power of the corporation’s diversity in the process. The collaborative team environment of Cramer’s Cube provides each member with the opportunity to mobilize his or her individuality and apply its distinctive power, free of the immobilizing presence of corporate structure, culture and tradition. Individuals achieve a sense of pride and satisfaction, seeing that their talents and insight are being applied to practical and important assignments.

The refrigerator and the refrigerator magnets have provided us with a Metaphorical Magnetic Methodology that has great visual impact. The collaborative methodology of Cramer’s Cube provides us with great individual and organizational impact. It enables a corporation, university or government agency to standardize on a methodology that has clear and measurable benefits to the executives. Individuals are liberated and mobilized to freely communicate, collaborate and contribute. Corporations, universities and government agencies can use Cramer’s Cube as the engine to tap the distinctiveness and uniqueness of their people and drive Diversity Asset Management™. The results will have a profound impact on the bottom line.

---

Vincent M. Cramer is the author of Cramer’s Cube. He is also the founder of The Winchester Consulting Group, an Organizational Development and Training Company specializing in the principles of Cramer's Cube and its application to the deployment of a Diversity Asset Management™ program.

Generational Diversity... Are We Communicating Effectively?

Managing Diversity – Information for People Managing a Diverse Workforce
December 2004
By Vincent M. Cramer

Generational Diversity… Are We Communicating Effectively?
We are ALL Members of This Diversity Group

All of us are quite aware of the fact that diversity is a topic of ongoing and deep discussion. Most often the mind reflexively thinks of diversity in light of ethnicity, gender or culture. They are surely elements of diversity. However, in this discussion of diversity our focus will be on generational diversity.

Corporations and organizations benefit greatly from having a spectrum of employees that span generational lines. Most of them already have Baby Boomers, Gen-Xers and N-Gens interacting on a daily basis in the execution of their responsibilities. This melting pot of generational diversity impacts group dynamics and affects the contributions and work product of a workgroup, task force, or committee. The expectation of senior management would be that the individuals would work congenially and productively, reach consensus, and deliver the expected results.

Generational diversity is often blended into the organizational structure or the workgroup to resolve issues, generate strategies, and develop plans that are important to the corporation. But, are they really prepared to interact in a productive way? If one observes the daily communication dynamics within a company, one would tend to believe that individuals are relating well despite their generational separation. On closer examination, one would discover that this is more illusion than reality.

Where Is the Disconnect?

In order to understand this a bit more, let’s look into a setting that has entrenched generational separation. It combines a wide range of communication practices in an environment that has been created for learning and in which the goal is the acquisition of knowledge. It is college! It is obvious that the deeper the communication link between teacher and student, the greater the benefit to both. There will typically be at least one, most likely two, and sometimes three generations of separation between them. Professors are obviously aware of this generational separation because it can be measured with a calendar. It is a different matter to quantify the separation in terms of communication, comprehension, and understanding. In general, professors begin to realize that the dynamics with their students have changed. To what degree, they can’t quite put their finger on it.

Having instructed for many years on subjects about which they have great knowledge, insight and passion, the professors have honed their teaching skills to the point at which they operate very efficiently and creatively. But even operating on autopilot, at some point they realize that something has changed. The analogies that they have sprinkled into their presentations are being received differently with each passing year. The anecdotes that have proven so effective for so many years yield only blank faces staring back toward the front of the room. Jokes don’t get a laugh. Knowing that they have a responsibility to effectively communicate with these young minds forces many instructors to look inward as well as outward to find an answer. What, and where, is the disconnect?

Beginning just before the turn of the century, a list was developed and widely circulated to all members of college and university teaching staffs to provide awareness of the generational background of the incoming freshman class. It was, and continues to be, quite enlightening. We tend to forget to which generation we belong because we live in a world of high-speed communications and infinite multimedia.

How many of us have heard someone be described as being in his or her forties, fifties, or sixties, but with a quick mention that these ages are not the same today as when your parents were that age. The message is that in today’s world, people are effectively and operationally younger than people of previous generations were at the same age. In effect, the older generation isn’t as old as it had historically been. Therefore, they are effectively younger and can thus relate better to those who haven’t seen as many sunsets in their lives.

At the other end of the generational spectrum, the youth of today does not need to rely on a word-of-mouth history from their parents for insight into their generation. They simply have to turn on the TV, pop a disk into the CD player, download an MP3 song, or surf the Web. There are more than just footprints in the sand from their parents’ generation; there is a treasure trove of media content at their fingertips. This incredible source of information allows us to cross the generational lines more easily and vividly than our ancestors were able to do. We can relate more effectively based upon this capability.

For the purpose of serious activity and goal-driven objectives, is this enough? Are the older amongst us really younger in spirit, and are the younger actually wise beyond their years? Does the phenomenon of twenty-first-century multimedia communication close the generation gap, thus the communication gap? Is communication truly effective? I propose that the answer is…No! Having the ability to interact with anyone, anywhere, anytime is not a measure of the effectiveness of communication.

It is important that we make the distinction between interaction and communication. Increasing the frequency of interactions and exponentially transmitting greater amounts of data does not automatically yield an increase in communication effectiveness. For example, I am sure that you have seen two speakers of different languages trying to communicate despite the fact that neither can understand the spoken word of the other. For whatever reason, people seem to feel that saying the same thing louder or more often will result in comprehension by the other. Observing people in the throes of this predicament is quite laughable. It is so obviously futile, but we all seem to have the tendency to do it.

Consider that this year’s incoming freshman class, graduating class of 2007, has grown up in a world that has always included video recorders, the Internet, web surfing, instant messaging, and cable TV. In their experience, TV has always had four major networks: NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox. It is not possible for them to imagine a world that doesn’t include CNN, ESPN, MTV, and the space shuttle. The U.S.S.R. is a place the Beatles sang about, not a superpower that waged a Cold War against the U.S. for fifty years. This list gives those of us who are older pause to reflect. Our first reaction is usually one of amazement that so many years of our lives have gone by when we don’t really feel much older. We may realize that we are staring at an hourglass that is showing much more sand on the bottom than we had realized—an hourglass that is becoming as pear-shaped as our physiologies.

“Lead, Follow, Or Get Out of The Way”

In the corporate setting, most individuals are very cognizant of the fact that they will be scrutinized and evaluated as to how effectively they work in a team. Each member of the workgroup will be judged by how productive he or she is in terms of individual contribution plus team success. The desire to be viewed and measured as an exemplary employee in this setting provides the motivation for each member to adapt quickly to the dynamics of the group. Each member must attempt to make contributions to the creation of plans and proposals in a very limited amount of time. Those contributions might come in the form of leadership or possibly abdication. If a member is not in a position to contribute to the team in a proactive manner, it might be best for all that the individual instead be a witness, lest he or she detract from the effort. Most people appreciate the wisdom of the simple mantra “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” There are dichotomies at work here.

Viva le difference!

Corporations have endeavored to implement every program that will enable the company to unleash the creative potential that lies within the ranks of its employees. Only the brightest, most talented and highly motivated people have been recruited. Each is talented, considerate, and works well in team settings. Added to that impressive list of credentials is the fact that the team possesses great diversity. Harmony is felt at all levels throughout the company. The company is well on its way to implementing its corporate objectives and establishing industry leadership. All of the elements for success appear to be there.
Beware! The process is flawed and expectations are nebulous. Realistically achievable goals cannot be set for the team, unless a productive working environment is created for the workgroup. The first priority must be to increase the effectiveness of the team’s communication. Once it has been established that communication across generational lines is very difficult, we then have the ability to formulate a solution. “Lead, follow, or get out of the way” is definitely not one of the potential solutions.

It might appear obvious that the cornerstone of such a framework should be the improvement of communication. What a wonderful environment it would be if each person could communicate with all the others and each of them would functionally comprehend what had been said. For the sake of time, let’s just say that this cannot be achieved in our lifetime.

The alternative approach is to create a working environment that will blend the generations for the simple purpose of working and collaborating effectively. We must be pragmatic in setting our objective. Outside of the need for effective team dynamics let us accept the fact that each of us is forever imprinted by the unique forces and experiences of our generation. Viva le difference!

Creating a Generational-Friendly Framework

An operating framework, which meets this sensible objective, is Cramer's Cube. It is structured in a manner that enables everyone to maintain his or her uniqueness and individuality without feeling the pressure to accommodate the others on the team. Each person’s generational uniqueness is not tempered. It is not allowed to be. The uniqueness of each person, which is embodied in his or her diversity and individuality, is the greatest asset that each will bring into the team. This includes generational diversity.

In the operating environment of Cramer's Cube generational diversity does not need to be discussed. It need only be applied. Some people may feel that this simply avoids a topic that needs to be discussed and resolved. However, think of it in a different context. When groups of people begin to work as a team they avoid discussing many topics that provide no value. If discussed, some of these topics may prove to be distracting or destructive. For example, do we need to put our intellectual credentials on the table so that the rest of the team knows how much credence to give to our inputs? No. Our intellect will be manifested in a pragmatic manner. A person’s ideas and observations will be evaluated on their own merits, not the intellectual credentials of the presenter. In a similar manner, the unique qualities embodied in generational diversity can be effectively and dramatically applied without needing to resolve the generation gap. The methodology of Cramer's Cube makes that requirement moot.

---

Vincent M. Cramer is the author of Cramer’s Cube. He is also the founder of The Winchester Consulting Group, an Organizational Development and Training Company specializing in the principles of Cramer's Cube and its application to Leadership, Innovation and Diversity Asset Management™. www.cramerscube.com

Diversity Wins the 2004 World Series

Managing Diversity – Information for People Managing a Diverse Workforce
January 2005
By Vincent M. Cramer

Diversity Wins the 2004 World Series
Utilizing the Power and Potential of Diversity

The Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees are playing baseball at midnight in October, battling for the American League pennant. The year is 2003, and as this chapter of a Modern Greek Tragedy unfolds, the Yankees deliver another fatal dagger to the heart of Red Sox Nation, in the form of Aaron Boone’s bat. In the 11th inning of Game 7, he connects on a knuckleball from Tim Wakefield and launches a missile out of the park. The Yankees begin a phrenetic celebration, while the Red Sox walk off the field…dejected. Their 85-year journey of broken dreams continues without interruption.

Yogi Berra’s words, “déjà vu all over again,” never resonated more than at that moment. It seems that every year, the Red Sox are one-inning, one-out or even one-strike away from victory. Somehow, and in some way, it eludes their grasp. In 2003 it appeared that the outcome would be different. This team had rallied around the mantra of “Cowboy Up” to unite the team in its quest of a World Series title, but to no avail.

Assembling a Winning Team

More often than not, it has been the New York Yankees who beat the Red Sox in October, breaking the hearts of Sox fans in the process. So, it would have seemed logical that the formula for change would be to build and manage a team just as the Yankees had done. For those not familiar with this Greatest of Sports Rivalries, let me tell you, that would be heresy.

In the off-season, the Red Sox made a few key acquisitions, in the hope of providing the team with the talent it needed to prevail over the Yankees, and a World Series opponent, in 2004. There is nothing revolutionary in that approach. That is what EVERY major league team does during baseball’s winter months. The Red Sox went a step further and replaced the manager. The team’s owners and general manager had a very disciplined and analytical approach to baseball and they were hopeful that they had assembled the right mix of talent and experience to be a champion, if guided by a manager with the right skills, style and philosophy.

The Boston Red Sox have a history of eccentricity. Through the decades, probably beginning with Babe Ruth himself the team has had many colorful personalities. They flourished in Boston because the fans were focused on results, nothing else. If a member of the team had certain idiosyncrasies or eccentricities, they were irrelevant when compared to performance. The 2004 team not only accepted eccentricity and individuality, they encouraged it and embraced it.

Looking at the 2004 Boston Red Sox, it would be easy to describe them as a Team of Diversity, and historically, a Team of Destiny. However, the diversity of this team is more than meets the eye. The ’04 BoSox can best be described as having diversity of individuality. Management assembled a team of individuals covering the richness and spectrum of age, culture, experience, ethnicity, religion, personality, temperament, lifestyle, attitude, behavior and education.

The first casualty of the 2003 season was the rallying cry to “Cowboy Up”. No longer did the team need to be unified by this chant. They were now unified by the heartbreaking loss delivered by the Yankees in October 2003. These 25 men now had a unity of purpose to win the World Series and they were bonded by the heartbreak of defeat and a winter of reflection. Out of that shared heartbreak, each player developed a deep respect for, and appreciation of, his 24 teammates. They decided to encourage each other to expand and demonstrate their individual uniqueness and to share it with the fans and the media. What developed was the self-deprecating moniker of “A Bunch of Idiots”.

Thinking Outer the Box

An organization is usually encouraged to change its destiny by Thinking Outside of the Box. The Red Sox did not embrace that approach. I would describe their strategy as Thinking Outer the Box. They allowed, and encouraged, each member of the team to be himself, to relax and to expand themselves to the OUTER limits of their individuality and uniqueness. The team’s management was very comfortable and confident in taking such an unorthodox approach because everyone knew that the team was passionately unified by its objective to return to the postseason in 2004 and to win it ALL. To them, ALL meant only one thing: winning the World Series.

As the expressions of individuality were manifested, it became apparent that the 2004 Boston Red Sox was a truly unique team. Even their uniforms weren’t uniform. Some players wore their pants long and others’ short, with socks and without socks, tight fitting or loose. Some had a disheveled look, with the shirt hanging outside the pants. Batting practice took place with the players wearing loose sweatshirts, looking like a company softball team. During the game, some players wore sweat-stained hats and helmets covered in pine tar. We have yet to discuss the subject of hair… facial hair, long hair, no hair and braided hair. It appears that anything goes!

Individually, they were stating their uniqueness. They were also communicating what they were as a team and what they were not as a team. They wanted the world to know that they were not conforming to the pinstripe fashion of a Wall Street executive, or the pinstripe conformity of the New York Yankees.

IMI — Out of this environment of individual expression came a team that was comfortable and relaxed about the job that was before them. Each of them truly valued the others because they took the time to truly understand and appreciate each other. One result was a team that led the major leagues in hugs. They demonstrated a never-ending parade of creative handshakes, head butts and forearm smashes. The gestures of solidarity and brotherhood were specific to the celebratory pair. One size did not fit all.

October 2004 proved to be a complete reversal of the previous year. Rather than being on the doorstep of victory, this Red Sox team was 3 outs away from an embarrassing four-game-sweep by the New York Yankees. From that precipice of annihilation, what developed has been described as the Greatest Comeback in Baseball History. In 100 years of baseball, no team had ever recovered from a 0-3 game deficit to prevail in a best-of-seven playoff series. No team had ever won the next three games, so winning the next four games must be placed in the category of impossibility. This 2004 Boston Red Sox team never stopped winning. That meant winning eight consecutive games and the title of World Series Champions.

Team of Destiny — Team of Diversity

Not having won the World Series in 86 years and finally winning in the fashion that they did, surely earned the Red Sox the title of Team of Destiny. However, why should we call it a Team of Diversity, and why should that description be given any credit for the teams ultimate success?

Every one of us who has played an organized sport has been told that in order to excel, one must stay relaxed, stay focused and execute. That is simple to say, but difficult to do. It is almost impossible to do when that focus is obliterated by the image of immediate failure. How can a person prevent dire thoughts from infiltrating the brain when defeat is just a few heartbeats away?

This year, the team’s objective to win the World Series was not heartbeats away. Visualizing victory was nearly impossible. It lay on the other side of many layers of ominous images that the mind cannot seem to dispel.

Because the 2004 Red Sox team was given the freedom to create an environment that was best suited to them, team members were able to stay in the moment, for a marathon of moments. Each player focused on the contribution that he could make at each moment of the game. They only needed to be what they were, stay relaxed, stay focused and perform to the level of their ability. Knowing that each one of the 25 “idiots” was doing the same, gave the team a collective sense of confidence, despite impending doom. On a team of 25 baseball players, each member does not own 4% of the responsibility for success. Each player owns 100% responsibility at the instant and the moment that his contribution can be made. Not only did each player know what was expected of him, each knew what to expect of the others.

Had not the Boston Red Sox of 2004 created an environment that facilitated diversity and expressions of individuality, the players would not have possessed the insight and confidence in each other to enable the team to face down adversity, deploy their diversity and become the champions of baseball. This team created a working environment that worked for everyone on the team…the players, the manager, the executives and the owners. If they had not created this working environment over the course of the year, it would not have been possible to stay relaxed and focused over the final 44 do-or-die innings with the Yankees and prevail. That is why this collection of “idiots” was able to do what no other baseball team could even comprehend as possible.

In this Age of Diversity, the 2004 Boston Red Sox have shown Corporate America what it takes to thrive and succeed:

• Create a diverse organization.
• Create an environment to facilitate maximum contribution by every individual.
• Establish a clear objective.
• Allow the group to utilize its individual and collective talents to achieve the objective.

These are the lessons to be learned from the 2004 Boston Red Sox. This will be the Formula for Success in the Age of Diversity. It is called Diversity II (Diversity to the 2nd Power).

---

Vincent M. Cramer is the author of Cramer’s Cube. He is also the founder of Winchester Consulting Group, an Organizational Development and Training Company specializing in the principles of Cramer's Cube and its application to Leadership, Innovation and Diversity Asset Management™. www.cramerscube.com