5 Ways organizations get stuck
I’ve had a little writer’s block lately and it got me thinking. Just like a writer, sometimes a company gets stuck. Here’s a short list of how an organization gets stuck. I think I’m setting myself up for my next post where I might detail how to get unstuck.
5 ways an organization gets stuck:
1. Be overconfident industry trends are fads that won’t threaten revenue.
2. Be satisfied with PowerPoint innovation where ideas stay on the slide never making it to your products and services.
3. Fail to do everything you can to scale.
4. Under appreciate the negative influence of dysfunctions in the top management team on the rest of the organization.
5. When talented people underperform, assume it’s because of their shortcomings and not something in the culture.
How do you think organizations get stuck?
Dysfunctional evolution
We’re all familiar with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and many summarize the theory by saying the ‘strong will survive,’ or ‘survival of the fittest.’ Well, that’s not completely accurate. Darwin said the species that best adapts to it’s environment will survive.
So, to evolve means to adapt and change. In very fast-paced workplaces, change is a constant and sometimes we need to change so fast we make a temporary workaround. And because there are so many things going on, the temporary isn’t replaced with a more effective solution. That’s how organizations evolve dysfunctionally. It’s when we get used to the temporary adaptation. We pass the workaround down through our training, so it becomes habit until finally it’s internalized, institutionalized, and blended into the culture.
So, we know your organization is changing fast, but how have you evolved dysfunctionally? Which workarounds need to be fixed?
What if we treated employees like revenue?
I believe people are an organization’s most important asset, but leadership struggle to act that way. So, I’d like to suggest that we start treating employees like revenue. At first blush this sounds harsh and that employees will become just a ‘number.’ This mental shift, however, might help us better align our beliefs with our actions.
If we treated employees like revenue we would:
1. Grow employees or go out of business.
2. Hold every manager accountable for developing their people or find new management.
3. Hold our L&D team accountable or find a new one.
4. Discuss professional development daily rather than once a year.
5. Listen to each employee then help them overcome their challenges.
6. Share what’s going on at work so everyone feels in on things.
7. Track learning in our LMS like Accounting tracks each dollar.
8. Replace quarterly business reviews (QBR’s) with quarterly people reviews (QPR’s).
9. Replace the Earnings Call with the Learnings Call.
10. Work closely with leaders on developing their employees.
How can you change your organization so people are treated more like revenue.
Strategic wakamole
Strategic wakamole is the ultimate disengagement strategy. There are few things a leadership team can do that kills engagement more than frequent and abrupt changes in strategy. One month it’s efficiency, and the next it’s global expansion. Or today we’re a food company and tomorrow we’re an agricultural company. Strategic wakamole punctures motivation for a simple and under appreciated reason: Employees actually want their work to help the company succeed. The greater the chance an employee’s work will make a contribution to the company’s success the more engage they will be. But, if they believe their work won’t make that impact, then they will be more likely to mail it in. It’s just that simple.
Tell your story or it will be written for you
We are message interpretation centers.
Let me explain. We observe and then spend lots of time making sense of our observations. For example, let’s say someone gets an email about a leadership change in the organization, and 30 minutes later a maintenance crew delivers 20 boxes outside the elevator. What are the possible interpretations of these events? For sure, there are many, but one interpretation is that 20 people are going home today with a pink slip. This really happened, but the boxes had new equipment for everyone and no one went home with pink slips! Because people will draw their own conclusions about organizational events you have a choice: Tell your story or have others write it for you.
On the one hand, you can make it easy for yourself and under communicate the business rational behind your strategic decisions. In the absence of communication people will devise their own account of events likely drawing upon stock discourse prevalent in the occupy movement. (Think dido-head regurgitation in the absence of critical thinking.) This will lead to people telling their own story about the organization. And, more importantly, their own story about your intentions and how much you care about them. I don’t know about you but I’d rather tell people what I’m like than them telling others what I’m like.
On the other hand, you can take the time to develop a multichannel communication strategy that details the advantages of your actions. Successful execution of your communication plan will instil renewed optimism and confidence in your company’s strategic direction.
Who do you want to tell YOUR story?
How not to talk like a politician at work
Whatever your political slant, most people agree that the negativity in political campaign communication is driving a wedge in our culture. And, it’s starting to find its way into our workplaces. The technique is familiar.
First, talk in general about what bad people do, and exaggerate the effects of their behavior. Use stereotypical labels to let the audience’s mind fill in the blanks with prejudices.
Second, distort facts of opponent’s past actions to make it sound like opponent is a member of that stereotyped bad group.
Third, raw ridiculous exaggerated conclusions about the harms of opponent’s supposed behavior and make a vague reference that opponent does it all the time.
Communication professionals call this altercasting. This political communication strategy is shaping how we talk about each other at work jeopardizing true breakthroughs that require deep collaboration. In our public and professional lives we should not only critically analyze inferences presented as facts, but also the exaggerated claims extrapolated from those fact. Remember: it’s not just their facts that we need to dispute, but their conclusions.
Triple-click through project details to influence
I was charged up yesterday…in a good way. But, when I explained my brilliant plan to a leader, they weren’t nearly as excited. After a couple minutes (maybe it was a couple seconds) they asked, “how will this change things?”
*dope* rookie mistake
A nice reminder that I should detail the benefits of the plan first. In fact, I believe explaining an OD project’s relevance means you need to triple-click through the details and get quickly to how your intervention solves problems standing between the business and it’s success.
Here’s my triple-click influencing strategy:
Single-click: explain the project features.
Double-click: explain the benefits of the features.
Triple-click: explain how the beneficial features solve for barriers to business success.
That third step is where we need get get more often.
Survey: What leadership competency will be most important in 2012?
Last week I asked this simple question to my Linkedin network and it generated a decent response. One of the respondents suggested I create a poll with the responses. Below is a poll I created with the results from Linkedin.
After you vote you’ll see the results. Feel free to check back often.
What about 2012 do you think will make these competencies important?
Listen like you’re wrong; Argue like you’re right
It’s not the presence of conflict that’s a sign of problems. Instead, it’s dysfunctional communication that should worry us. I’ve seen disconfirming communication fuel the flames of modest disagreements too many times. So, in this way communication both creates and can solve conflict in our workplaces. One way to improve our conflictual communication is to remember that it’s ok to argue like your right as long as you listen like your wrong.
We’ve got to get together like this more often
I work at a global company and most people I work with readily admit how difficult it is to work with people you don’t physically see very often. About half of our workforce is outside our world headquarters. Now, I don’t work in a results only work environment, but isn’t one of ROWE’s downsides a decrease in face-to-face communication?
One thing we know is that groups make better decisions than individuals, but only if certain conditions exist: a) the group has competent members, b) the task requires a novel solution, and c) there is time for group communication. Seems to me that ROWE jeopardizes the benefits derived from working in teams because there is less time for the team to communicate as a group. Yes, computer-mediated communication helps fill the gaps but it’s a lean medium lacking the richness of in-person interaction.
