Are you familiar with FOCUS? Focus provides millions of professionals with the expertise they need to make better business decisions. At the heart of Focus is a network of world class business and technology experts. These experts power the real time Q&A, world class research, and personalized support that so many businesses now depend on. Best of all, Focus is free and available to anyone who wants to make better business decisions, faster.
I am a frequent contributor to discussions on FOCUS. My comments are featured in two recent customer service best practice white papers. Check them out:
1. Best Practices for Customer Service Recovery
2. Best Practices for Delivering a Great Customer Experience
Measure What Matters
by Eric Britten
It’s 2010 and most organizations have begun to enter the 21st Century. They understand that metrics are the cornerstone (or foundation) of a well managed operation. KPIs (Key Performance Indicators), when properly developed and managed, measure both strategic and operational performance. Many managers understand the concept of cascading metrics and keep their eye on the key operating metrics day-to-day and week-to-week and key strategic metrics month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter. They monitor their KPIs regularly, using secondary and tertiary indicators (not KPIs) to help them identify where irregularities are occurring when the key indicator moves outside of acceptable parameters.
There’s an art to developing KPIs. It’s important that organizations understand how to identify or develop key performance indicators. The saying, “what gets measured gets managed”, is quite true, so organizations need to be sure their key indicators are the right ones.
Here are some pointers about KPIs:
1. KPIs are like the dashboard in your car. They provide essential information required to control the vehicle safely and efficiently. They do not provide all of the information on all of the aspects of the vehicle that could be measured.
2. A KPI is most effective when it tells a story. In other words, a good KPI should be a ratio, percentage, or a balanced combination indicating effectiveness or efficiency rather than just a raw number.
3. A KPI should be accurately defined so that others can understand what it measures, what data feed it, and how it is calculated.
4. A KPI should be capable of being influenced by the person monitoring it.
5. There should be a manageable number of KPIs at any level of the organization.
6. KPIs should have a base, a plan and a target.
7. The trend line of a KPI should also tell a story.
8. KPI targets should be S-M-A-R-T. (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time Related)
9. KPIs are a tool that should be used to improve performance, not to punish poor performance.
10. Organizational KPIs should be displayed on a common dashboard.
11. Managers and supervisors should be trained in the use of various tools used to analyze and improve KPI performance.
What tactics foster collaboration and cooperation?”
by Eric Britten
From a Q&A on FOCUS.
The original question had specifically to do with issues between the sales and marketing functions within an organization. But, sales and marketing are not the only two functions that suffer from a lack of understanding, teamwork and cooperation. My response is applicable to any areas in an organization where these issues exist. Here's the post and my response:
"Sales and Marketing Alignment: What tactics foster collaboration and cooperation? What do you do or have you seen done that works?"
There are two activities that have been successful for me in situations like this.
First, a strategy planning session composed primarily of sales and marketing staff (but including other stakeholders also) serves to get both groups focused on the same corporate goals. Once the common goals and vision are established, the group can then begin to discuss strategies. Often the discussion unveils the dysfunction between the groups. But, good facilitation can help the group work through their divergent perspectives and begin building a collaborative environment. Once the groups are working together, ongoing effective communications and teamwork toward executing the plan can keep the synergies in place.
From a Q&A on FOCUS.
The original question had specifically to do with issues between the sales and marketing functions within an organization. But, sales and marketing are not the only two functions that suffer from a lack of understanding, teamwork and cooperation. My response is applicable to any areas in an organization where these issues exist. Here's the post and my response:
"Sales and Marketing Alignment: What tactics foster collaboration and cooperation? What do you do or have you seen done that works?"
There are two activities that have been successful for me in situations like this.
First, a strategy planning session composed primarily of sales and marketing staff (but including other stakeholders also) serves to get both groups focused on the same corporate goals. Once the common goals and vision are established, the group can then begin to discuss strategies. Often the discussion unveils the dysfunction between the groups. But, good facilitation can help the group work through their divergent perspectives and begin building a collaborative environment. Once the groups are working together, ongoing effective communications and teamwork toward executing the plan can keep the synergies in place.
A second effective activity that I have used is process improvement. Engaging either the sales or marketing group in process improvement requires that their internal stakeholders/customers be involved in the activity, so you can start with either group. Mapping out the sales and/or marketing process will lead to the identification of pain points and problems within the process, which will point to the dysfunction between the functions/departments. Employing normal process improvement procedures will get the groups engaged in working together to resolve the issues.
I have found both of these practices effective in starting a collaboration, but the key to sustainability is in not letting procedures revert to the old ways. Collaboration is everyone's responsibility, so everyone from the exec's on down need clear direction that retreat is not an option. Adding a couple of items in everyone's annual performance plan that addresses this is also helpful in motivating the groups to keep working together and working to resolve problems, issues or conflicts when they occur.
Some Q&As from FOCUS
If you're not familiar with it, FOCUS (www.focus.com) is a business social media site where owners, entrepreneurs, managers, executives and others share their experience with each other. Here are a few of the recent Q&As that I have participated in:
Adam asked: "How can you train employee empowerment? It is important for employees to feel ownership and empowerment in their jobs, but can you train those traits? If a new employee is meek, can I train them to be a confident salesperson?:
My response: Empowerment isn't something you train an employee to do. It is something their boss, organization and organizational culture allows and encourages. As others have pointed out, there are activities that can encourage and enhance it.
Elements in an organizational culture that help instill and reinforce empowerment are things such as rewarding risk taking, leadership development, openness, encouragement, rewards, recognition, teamwork, incentives, and continuous process improvement. The list goes on.
You digressed a bit from empowerment when you asked, "If a new employee is meek, can I train them to be a confident salesperson?" Confidence is one of the things that can come from empowerment, but empowerment is not what makes a good salesperson. Empowerment is a state that, if in place, allows a salesperson to be successful.
Craig asked: How can I effectively drive people to myblog?” In addition to search engine traffic, how can I effectively drive people to my blog/content in my day to day marketing activities?"
My response:
1. Be sure there is a link to your blog from your website
2. Include your blog URL as well as your website URL in your email signature.
3. Make your blog, website and electronic newsletter interactive and share content.
4. Put your blog URL on your business card and other POS material
5. Advertise your blog on the back of your business card
6. Refer to items you have posted in your blog when using social media (and give the URL for it)
Bill asked: “What are some of your strategies for retaining customer loyalty?” Customer loyalty is definitely a necessity in order to get a competitive advantage. What are some things that you do to retain customers?
My response: Your profile doesn't tell us what business you are in, so I can't target my response to your particular situation. But, I'd like to point out a few things that many folks might not consider under the heading of "building a relationship".
2. Include your blog URL as well as your website URL in your email signature.
3. Make your blog, website and electronic newsletter interactive and share content.
4. Put your blog URL on your business card and other POS material
5. Advertise your blog on the back of your business card
6. Refer to items you have posted in your blog when using social media (and give the URL for it)
Bill asked: “What are some of your strategies for retaining customer loyalty?” Customer loyalty is definitely a necessity in order to get a competitive advantage. What are some things that you do to retain customers?
My response: Your profile doesn't tell us what business you are in, so I can't target my response to your particular situation. But, I'd like to point out a few things that many folks might not consider under the heading of "building a relationship".
When you place an online order with a company you have not done business with before, how does that company build a relationship with you? Well, you're not talking with anyone, so there's no relationship building going on there. You haven't asked any questions, so it's not that they're building a relationship there. But they are building a relationship with you. How?
They build a relationship with you in a number of ways:
1. They make your online experience pleasant. By that, I mean it's a user-friendly experience.
2. They make it easy to find the information you're looking for quickly.
3. The price is probably reasonable.
4. They tell you if what you want is in stock or if it's on back order.
5. They make the checkout experience as fast and efficient as they can.
6. They probably don't gouge you with their shipping & handling costs.
7. You receive a prompt order confirmation and a thank you note for ordering.
8. You are notified when your order will ship and when you can expect it to arrive.
8. You are notified when your order actually does ship.
1. They make your online experience pleasant. By that, I mean it's a user-friendly experience.
2. They make it easy to find the information you're looking for quickly.
3. The price is probably reasonable.
4. They tell you if what you want is in stock or if it's on back order.
5. They make the checkout experience as fast and efficient as they can.
6. They probably don't gouge you with their shipping & handling costs.
7. You receive a prompt order confirmation and a thank you note for ordering.
8. You are notified when your order will ship and when you can expect it to arrive.
8. You are notified when your order actually does ship.
..... and all this without anybody talking with anyone else or even exchanging email messages. But, your experience can make you a loyal customer - or send you to another company the next time you want the same item.
Now think about these same type of attributes in a situation where the customer is physically in your place of business. All of the points are not applicable, but most of them are - and you can build customer loyalty by just running a "heads up" business. John (the previous poster) has a good point, too - know what "heads up" means to your customers.
Making Cost Cuts Stick
I have previously posted some perspectives about the ineffectiveness of many cost cutting programs. Many organizations fail to realize that, in order to be sustainable, cost reductions need to be planned and they need to be aligned with company strategy. Willy-nilly cost cuts will not last and they threaten the very core of an organization.
In a recent white paper, three McKinsey & Company associates take a hard look at what it takes to make meaningful and sustainable cost reductions. In part, they write, "Why is it so difficult to make cost cuts stick? In most cases, it’s because reduction programs don’t address the true drivers of costs or are simply too difficult to maintain over time. Sometimes, managers lack deep enough insight into their own operations to set useful cost reduction targets. In the midst of a crisis, they look for easily available benchmarks, such as what similar companies have accomplished, rather than taking the time to conduct a bottom-up examination of which costs can—and should—be cut. In other cases, individual business unit heads try to meet targets with draconian measures that are unrealistic over the long term, such as across-the-board cuts that don’t differentiate between those that add value or destroy it. In still others, managers use inaccurate or incomplete data to track costs, thus missing important opportunities and confounding efforts to ensure accountability."
The entire white paper, "Five Ways CFOs Can Make Cost Cuts Stick", is available in our resource library. Click here to go there.
In a recent white paper, three McKinsey & Company associates take a hard look at what it takes to make meaningful and sustainable cost reductions. In part, they write, "Why is it so difficult to make cost cuts stick? In most cases, it’s because reduction programs don’t address the true drivers of costs or are simply too difficult to maintain over time. Sometimes, managers lack deep enough insight into their own operations to set useful cost reduction targets. In the midst of a crisis, they look for easily available benchmarks, such as what similar companies have accomplished, rather than taking the time to conduct a bottom-up examination of which costs can—and should—be cut. In other cases, individual business unit heads try to meet targets with draconian measures that are unrealistic over the long term, such as across-the-board cuts that don’t differentiate between those that add value or destroy it. In still others, managers use inaccurate or incomplete data to track costs, thus missing important opportunities and confounding efforts to ensure accountability."
The entire white paper, "Five Ways CFOs Can Make Cost Cuts Stick", is available in our resource library. Click here to go there.
Taking Advantage of "Good Conflict"
In an October 25, 2010 post on AMA's Thinking Management Blog, there's a short blurb about good conflict:
What Is "Good" Conflict? How Can I Take Advantage of It?
Conflict is natural. However, a lot of the time when individuals clash, they can become so concerned with defending their turf that mutual distrust replaces basic communication techniques like “listening”.
Many people don’t realize that conflict can be an excellent way to find effective, efficient solutions. Here are some quick and easy ways to turn a potentially volatile situation into a “good conflict”:
Identify common goals. As differences arise, remind the parties of their common goal or mission. Ask them to review their goals to focus solely on shared or compatible ones. Once the goals have been identified, the group can move on to discuss how these goals can be shared. Make sure to keep the conflict away from personal issues.
Clarify, sort, and value differences. While contrasting viewpoints will surface, so will evidence that the participants have much in common. This commonality should be emphasized.
Gain commitment to change. Goals may be shared but the means of reaching them may vary. You want to reach consensus on the best way to reach a shared goal. Reconciling conflicting visions forces people to think creatively and put everyone in a position to move forward.
Your goal as a manager is to prevent a conflict from becoming a disruptive force, not to prevent conflicts. Whereas positive conflict can come up with new solutions to existing problems, disruptive conflict can create problems.
Business Intelligence Data & Metrics, A Focus Experts Briefing
by Eric Britten
If you're not familiar with FOCUS as a resource for business information, you should check it out. (Click here to go there.) Here's the introduction from the site:
Focus provides millions of professionals with the expertise they need to make better business decisions. At the heart of Focus is a network of world class business and technology experts. These experts power the real time Q&A, world class research, and personalized support that so many businesses now depend on. Best of all, Focus is free and available to anyone who wants to make better business decisions, faster.
Recently, Focus published an expert's briefing on business intelligence (BI) and key performance indicators (KPIs). Contributing authors to the briefing are Kirsty Lee, Wayne Kernochan and myself. You can view the briefing in our Article Library. Click here to go there.
If you're not familiar with FOCUS as a resource for business information, you should check it out. (Click here to go there.) Here's the introduction from the site:
Focus provides millions of professionals with the expertise they need to make better business decisions. At the heart of Focus is a network of world class business and technology experts. These experts power the real time Q&A, world class research, and personalized support that so many businesses now depend on. Best of all, Focus is free and available to anyone who wants to make better business decisions, faster.
Recently, Focus published an expert's briefing on business intelligence (BI) and key performance indicators (KPIs). Contributing authors to the briefing are Kirsty Lee, Wayne Kernochan and myself. You can view the briefing in our Article Library. Click here to go there.
The Top 3, 5, 7 or 10 Reasons Why Businesses Fail
by Eric Britten
OK. So, I Googled "why small businesses fail". My screen filled with links to sites across America and around the world explaining the top 3 or the top 5 or the top 7 or the top 10 reasons why small businesses fail. Well, management professionals are like everyone else - they all have their opinion. In general, all the lists were variations on most of the same reasons.
One post said that Dun & Bradstreet said 88.7% of businesses fail due to management mistakes. Now there's a truly erudite explanation. Actually, it's probably a true statement, but the lack of detail renders it fairly useless when trying to understand anything that might help a small businessperson. So, I dug deeper and found there were three groups of causes that made it to most everyone's list:
Thinking about the list some more, I also realized it was the answer to a question that I've been wrestling with for a while. Alaska Business Monthly recently asked me if I would write a column for them next year. They have named it "Business Basics". They left it up to me to decide what to write about. Now I know what I will write about. I'll write about management, marketing and customer management, and business planning. I'll work hard to develop some unique and interesting approaches to these subjects. If you want to see if I can do that, check out the column. It will run in the January, March, May, July, September and November issues of ABM next year.
Meanwhile, you can check out two articles in the management library on my website: (1) The Seven Pitfalls of Business Failure, and (2) Top 5 Reasons Why Small Businesses Fail. Click here to go there.
OK. So, I Googled "why small businesses fail". My screen filled with links to sites across America and around the world explaining the top 3 or the top 5 or the top 7 or the top 10 reasons why small businesses fail. Well, management professionals are like everyone else - they all have their opinion. In general, all the lists were variations on most of the same reasons.
One post said that Dun & Bradstreet said 88.7% of businesses fail due to management mistakes. Now there's a truly erudite explanation. Actually, it's probably a true statement, but the lack of detail renders it fairly useless when trying to understand anything that might help a small businessperson. So, I dug deeper and found there were three groups of causes that made it to most everyone's list:
- There was the largest bucket of all, poor management. Within that category were specifics such as lack of experience and knowledge about procurement, finances, hiring and firing, managing employees, internal controls, etc.
- Next was the bucket we could call marketing and customer expertise. Those reasons had to do with issues such as not knowing how to market their product or service, not being able to define their market segment, not understanding their customer's needs, and being out of touch with their customers.
- Finally, there was the bucket we'll call lack of planning. That covers lack of a basic business plan, creating strategic and annual operating plans, and, in general, setting aside time to think about the business, how to manage it, and where it's headed.
Thinking about the list some more, I also realized it was the answer to a question that I've been wrestling with for a while. Alaska Business Monthly recently asked me if I would write a column for them next year. They have named it "Business Basics". They left it up to me to decide what to write about. Now I know what I will write about. I'll write about management, marketing and customer management, and business planning. I'll work hard to develop some unique and interesting approaches to these subjects. If you want to see if I can do that, check out the column. It will run in the January, March, May, July, September and November issues of ABM next year.
Meanwhile, you can check out two articles in the management library on my website: (1) The Seven Pitfalls of Business Failure, and (2) Top 5 Reasons Why Small Businesses Fail. Click here to go there.
Since When Is Strategy Development Only The Domain of The C-Suite?
by Eric Britten
A recent article in the Harvard Business Review, Can You Open-Source Your Strategy, by Barry Newstead and Laura Lanzerotti, describes how The Wikimedia Foundation (the non-profit that operates Wikipedia) open-sourced a good part of its strategy development between 2009 mand 2010. Senior executives ultimately set the priorities and synthesized the final initiatives into a business plan, but their customers, suppliers and colleagues contributed a significant amount of the input up to that point.
That may be a radical approach for many traditional planners, but it seems to me that it's just a continuation of the philosophy that has opened many corporate plannng processes to the rank and file, customers, suppliers and even other organizations in the same industry group.
True strategy development that takes a hard look at the future landscape has to be driven by ideas, perspective and opinions of those that are often external to the organization. Why would you engage in strategic planning if you weren't attuned to what your customers were thinking about the future, particularly as it relates to your products or services? The same goes for your suppliers and other partners. Gathering that data is a critical initial phase in a modern day heads up planning process. Letting others munch the data and begin to think about where that might take an organization is a natural next step in the evolution of planning.
Strategic planning processes that incude external data gathering and interpretation are scenario, mission-based , and outcome-based planning. Even in more traditional planning processes, these outside resources could add dynamic ideas to the S-W-O-T analysis. Those who think strategy development is a secret process that only the top echelon should dabble in probably should keep their VCR players and Selectric typewriters. A CEO I once worked for had it right when he said, "I don't care who knows our strategy. Only we can execute it."
You can read Can You Open-Source Your Strategy in our business article library. Click here to go there.
A recent article in the Harvard Business Review, Can You Open-Source Your Strategy, by Barry Newstead and Laura Lanzerotti, describes how The Wikimedia Foundation (the non-profit that operates Wikipedia) open-sourced a good part of its strategy development between 2009 mand 2010. Senior executives ultimately set the priorities and synthesized the final initiatives into a business plan, but their customers, suppliers and colleagues contributed a significant amount of the input up to that point.
That may be a radical approach for many traditional planners, but it seems to me that it's just a continuation of the philosophy that has opened many corporate plannng processes to the rank and file, customers, suppliers and even other organizations in the same industry group.
True strategy development that takes a hard look at the future landscape has to be driven by ideas, perspective and opinions of those that are often external to the organization. Why would you engage in strategic planning if you weren't attuned to what your customers were thinking about the future, particularly as it relates to your products or services? The same goes for your suppliers and other partners. Gathering that data is a critical initial phase in a modern day heads up planning process. Letting others munch the data and begin to think about where that might take an organization is a natural next step in the evolution of planning.
Strategic planning processes that incude external data gathering and interpretation are scenario, mission-based , and outcome-based planning. Even in more traditional planning processes, these outside resources could add dynamic ideas to the S-W-O-T analysis. Those who think strategy development is a secret process that only the top echelon should dabble in probably should keep their VCR players and Selectric typewriters. A CEO I once worked for had it right when he said, "I don't care who knows our strategy. Only we can execute it."
You can read Can You Open-Source Your Strategy in our business article library. Click here to go there.
Citizen-Driven Budgeting
Katherine Barrett & Richard Greene ((In "Governing")
September 23, 2010
People talk about "citizen-driven" budgeting. It's certainly a phrase that's hard to argue with, at face value. Who better than the citizens to decide where their money is spent? But life is complicated. How many married couples have difficulties coming to a meaningful consensus about how to spend their income? (Years ago, we wrote an article for Ladies' Home Journal that argued that money, not sex, was the single biggest cause of marital discord.)
All that said, Larisa Benson, director of performance audit in Washington, shared some thoughts about the subject with us, and we think she makes a whole lot of sense. Here, some excerpts:
"I believe in citizen-driven budgeting for outcomes, but I remain convinced that posing the 'what should we cut?' question to citizens will never work. It's impossible to have a 'tradeoffs' discourse if you start with the cutting proposition. Is $4 billion too much to spend on Medicaid? What would be the right amount to cut (or add?). Who can answer that question?! Even among the Medicaid budget experts, I find few who can wrap their mind around that question (much less the $4 B figure — it's enough to blow anyone's fuse).
"By contrast, engaging citizens in a dialogue of contrasting priorities is not only effective, it's wondrously fun. Those hard-boiled government types who think 'the average citizen can't grasp the complexity of government' are seriously underestimating just how smart and caring most citizens really are. I have found 'regular Joe' citizens are quickly and constructively engaged if you pose the right questions and provide enough summarized concise results data to spark their natural curiosity. I think this question/frame works equally well in good revenue and bad economic times."
September 23, 2010
People talk about "citizen-driven" budgeting. It's certainly a phrase that's hard to argue with, at face value. Who better than the citizens to decide where their money is spent? But life is complicated. How many married couples have difficulties coming to a meaningful consensus about how to spend their income? (Years ago, we wrote an article for Ladies' Home Journal that argued that money, not sex, was the single biggest cause of marital discord.)
All that said, Larisa Benson, director of performance audit in Washington, shared some thoughts about the subject with us, and we think she makes a whole lot of sense. Here, some excerpts:
"I believe in citizen-driven budgeting for outcomes, but I remain convinced that posing the 'what should we cut?' question to citizens will never work. It's impossible to have a 'tradeoffs' discourse if you start with the cutting proposition. Is $4 billion too much to spend on Medicaid? What would be the right amount to cut (or add?). Who can answer that question?! Even among the Medicaid budget experts, I find few who can wrap their mind around that question (much less the $4 B figure — it's enough to blow anyone's fuse).
"By contrast, engaging citizens in a dialogue of contrasting priorities is not only effective, it's wondrously fun. Those hard-boiled government types who think 'the average citizen can't grasp the complexity of government' are seriously underestimating just how smart and caring most citizens really are. I have found 'regular Joe' citizens are quickly and constructively engaged if you pose the right questions and provide enough summarized concise results data to spark their natural curiosity. I think this question/frame works equally well in good revenue and bad economic times."
The Boss As Human Shield
Robert I. Sutton is a professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University, where he cofounded the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design and the Stanford Technology Ventures Program. He is the author of Good Boss, Bad Boss (Business Plus, 2010), on which this article is based.
William Coyne, head of research at 3M, knew that the performance of his employees—as well as his career and the company’s success—depended on shielding them from threats. This notion that management “buffers” the core work of the company from uncertainty and external perturbations is an old theme in organizational theory, going back at least to James D. Thompson’s 1967 classic Organizations in Action. The best bosses are committed to letting their workers work—whether on creative tasks such as inventing new products or on routine things such as assembling computers, making McDonald’s burgers, or flying planes. They take pride in being human shields, absorbing or deflecting heat from inside and outside the company, doing all manner of boring and silly tasks, and battling idiots and slights that make life harder than necessary on their people.
Read the full text of this illuminating article (The Boss As Human Shield) in our business library. Click here to go there.
William Coyne, head of research at 3M, knew that the performance of his employees—as well as his career and the company’s success—depended on shielding them from threats. This notion that management “buffers” the core work of the company from uncertainty and external perturbations is an old theme in organizational theory, going back at least to James D. Thompson’s 1967 classic Organizations in Action. The best bosses are committed to letting their workers work—whether on creative tasks such as inventing new products or on routine things such as assembling computers, making McDonald’s burgers, or flying planes. They take pride in being human shields, absorbing or deflecting heat from inside and outside the company, doing all manner of boring and silly tasks, and battling idiots and slights that make life harder than necessary on their people.
Read the full text of this illuminating article (The Boss As Human Shield) in our business library. Click here to go there.
Seven Myths About Nice Teams
Posting Date: August 07, 2010
By: Brian Cole Miller
Nice teams mistakenly believe that playing nice is what cooperation and teamwork are all about. They believe that getting along requires people to be nice to each other—all the time. They collectively believe the seven most common myths about nice teamwork.
Read the Seven Myths. Then read the sad truth about each of the myths in the full article available in our publication library. Click here to go to our library.
Myth 1: We only praise each other, and we do it often! We have nothing but positive, uplifting things to say to each other. We don't waste time and energy criticizing each other or finding fault. Constructive feedback and developmental feedback are negative, and we don't need that stuff pulling us down.
Myth 2: We stay focused on the task and don't get sidetracked by talking about things that aren't directly related to the task that needs to get done! Positive and optimistic, we come to agreement quickly and efficiently. We don't let negative thinking get us down. We are quick to take action!
Myth 3: Our clients love us because we always find a way to say "yes!" We're not here to say "no" to them. It may be tough, but we'll find a way to include everyone's request on our master work plan. We'll do anything to keep them happy!
Myth 4: We respect each other and the strengths each team member brings to the team! As acknowledged professionals, we don't doubt, challenge, or second-guess each other. Our leader is especially revered and respected. When our team leader makes a decision, we are saved the time and trouble of working out which way to go.
Myth 5: We refrain from unnecessary conflict and confrontation! There's no place here for fighting and arguing. We get along well, and we all play NICEly together. Everyone likes each other and cooperates for the good of the team!
Myth 6: We are open and flexible and freewheeling! We are always open to new information whenever it is available. We don't allow ourselves to be tied to agendas and timelines in meetings. We don't bind each other with roles and responsibilities but remain flexible in how each of us approaches work.
Myth 7: We are efficient! We don't waste time talking about feelings and emotions. We focus on the task, not on each other. When interpersonal relationship issues come up, we move to resolve them as quickly as possible so that they don't get in the way of the real work we're doing.
Excerpted, with permission of the publisher, from Nice Teams Finish Last by Brian Cole Miller. Copyright 2010, Brian Cole Miller, 2010. Published by AMACOM, American Management Association. www.amacombooks.org
About the Author(s): Brian Cole Miller is the principal of Working Solutions. Inc. He’s author of Nice Teams Finish Last, published by AMACOM.
Read the Seven Myths. Then read the sad truth about each of the myths in the full article available in our publication library. Click here to go to our library.
By: Brian Cole Miller
Nice teams mistakenly believe that playing nice is what cooperation and teamwork are all about. They believe that getting along requires people to be nice to each other—all the time. They collectively believe the seven most common myths about nice teamwork.
Read the Seven Myths. Then read the sad truth about each of the myths in the full article available in our publication library. Click here to go to our library.
Myth 1: We only praise each other, and we do it often! We have nothing but positive, uplifting things to say to each other. We don't waste time and energy criticizing each other or finding fault. Constructive feedback and developmental feedback are negative, and we don't need that stuff pulling us down.
Myth 2: We stay focused on the task and don't get sidetracked by talking about things that aren't directly related to the task that needs to get done! Positive and optimistic, we come to agreement quickly and efficiently. We don't let negative thinking get us down. We are quick to take action!
Myth 3: Our clients love us because we always find a way to say "yes!" We're not here to say "no" to them. It may be tough, but we'll find a way to include everyone's request on our master work plan. We'll do anything to keep them happy!
Myth 4: We respect each other and the strengths each team member brings to the team! As acknowledged professionals, we don't doubt, challenge, or second-guess each other. Our leader is especially revered and respected. When our team leader makes a decision, we are saved the time and trouble of working out which way to go.
Myth 5: We refrain from unnecessary conflict and confrontation! There's no place here for fighting and arguing. We get along well, and we all play NICEly together. Everyone likes each other and cooperates for the good of the team!
Myth 6: We are open and flexible and freewheeling! We are always open to new information whenever it is available. We don't allow ourselves to be tied to agendas and timelines in meetings. We don't bind each other with roles and responsibilities but remain flexible in how each of us approaches work.
Myth 7: We are efficient! We don't waste time talking about feelings and emotions. We focus on the task, not on each other. When interpersonal relationship issues come up, we move to resolve them as quickly as possible so that they don't get in the way of the real work we're doing.
Excerpted, with permission of the publisher, from Nice Teams Finish Last by Brian Cole Miller. Copyright 2010, Brian Cole Miller, 2010. Published by AMACOM, American Management Association. www.amacombooks.org
About the Author(s): Brian Cole Miller is the principal of Working Solutions. Inc. He’s author of Nice Teams Finish Last, published by AMACOM.
Read the Seven Myths. Then read the sad truth about each of the myths in the full article available in our publication library. Click here to go to our library.
Ever Get That Sinking Feeling?
Bill Bott
August 13, 2010
Earlier this week, the Department of Defense quietly announced the impending closure of the Business Transformation Agency. Yes, you heard it right, the office that opened with the mission of fostering efficiency is closing its doors due to cuts. Ironic, sure. But it's also completely predictable.
This post is not intended to make light of the growing number of public servants who have lost their jobs in this economy. But these things do have a life cycle all their own, and an early demise is as easy to predict as the end of the movie Titanic. (Spoiler alert: The ship sinks.)
All Aboard!
When the Business Transformation Agency opened in 2006, I'm sure it was with a lot more fanfare than the closing announcement on page 9 of the Federal Times. Like the Titanic, there was a lot of enthusiasm for the journey ahead, people vying for tickets for the 360 seats and a $340,000,000 budget aimed at the promise of modernization and a bright future of continuous improvements.
Smooth Sailing
When the ship left the dock, it seemed to have all the comforts and amenities needed for an adventurous trip. From a budget estimate report in 2007, officials at the Business Transformation Agency described their open waters like this: "As the single agency responsible for DoD Enterprise business transformation functions, the BTA will establish and enforce requirements, principles, standards, systems, procedures, and practices governing business transformation."
Not quite a successories poster, but we've all seen these mission-type statements in the past. They seem air-tight, like a double-bottomed ship that "God Himself could not sink." The engineers had designed an office that combined functions from across the Department of Defense. The new agency had congressional mandates and an acronym. People were happy, the sea was calm. All was good.
Of course, improvements — real changes — don't happen in the engineering of new offices, or in mandates. They happen in the pipes, and it's rare that the pipes can all be managed by a centralized office. Even one that gets to play with the most powerful weapons mankind has ever known.
Bill Bott is a GOVERNING contributor. Best known for his work consolidating the IT functions and staff in Missouri, he was recognized as a GOVERNING Public Official of the Year in 2007, and one of Government Technology's 2008 Doers, Dreamers, and Drivers.
Read the entire article in our article library.
August 13, 2010
Earlier this week, the Department of Defense quietly announced the impending closure of the Business Transformation Agency. Yes, you heard it right, the office that opened with the mission of fostering efficiency is closing its doors due to cuts. Ironic, sure. But it's also completely predictable.
This post is not intended to make light of the growing number of public servants who have lost their jobs in this economy. But these things do have a life cycle all their own, and an early demise is as easy to predict as the end of the movie Titanic. (Spoiler alert: The ship sinks.)
All Aboard!
When the Business Transformation Agency opened in 2006, I'm sure it was with a lot more fanfare than the closing announcement on page 9 of the Federal Times. Like the Titanic, there was a lot of enthusiasm for the journey ahead, people vying for tickets for the 360 seats and a $340,000,000 budget aimed at the promise of modernization and a bright future of continuous improvements.
Smooth Sailing
When the ship left the dock, it seemed to have all the comforts and amenities needed for an adventurous trip. From a budget estimate report in 2007, officials at the Business Transformation Agency described their open waters like this: "As the single agency responsible for DoD Enterprise business transformation functions, the BTA will establish and enforce requirements, principles, standards, systems, procedures, and practices governing business transformation."
Not quite a successories poster, but we've all seen these mission-type statements in the past. They seem air-tight, like a double-bottomed ship that "God Himself could not sink." The engineers had designed an office that combined functions from across the Department of Defense. The new agency had congressional mandates and an acronym. People were happy, the sea was calm. All was good.
Of course, improvements — real changes — don't happen in the engineering of new offices, or in mandates. They happen in the pipes, and it's rare that the pipes can all be managed by a centralized office. Even one that gets to play with the most powerful weapons mankind has ever known.
Bill Bott is a GOVERNING contributor. Best known for his work consolidating the IT functions and staff in Missouri, he was recognized as a GOVERNING Public Official of the Year in 2007, and one of Government Technology's 2008 Doers, Dreamers, and Drivers.
Read the entire article in our article library.
Creating Results Culture Change
By Mark Friedman, originator of Results Based Accountability
People talk about culture change the way they talk about magic. We know this wonderful transformation is needed and will somehow happen, but we're not sure how.
Let's take a shot at a definition of organizational culture. Organizational culture is the range of accepted norms of for what people in an organization think and how they act. An organization might have a dominant culture and numerous subcultures. Subcultures might vary by program, profession, or organizational role. Organizational culture also includes a story line or mythology about why the norms exist the way they do.
Culture change then is any significant variation in or deviation from organizational culture or subculture. Culture change can be positive or negative. Sustained culture change is any culture change that survives some defined degree of turnover in key positions. It is worth noting that culture change is not a smooth transition. There are holdouts. Some parts of the organization go ahead of others. Some people never get it.
It is arguable that there are three elements needed for culture change to take place. This is a kind of hypothesis that might be tested with regard to creating a results culture.
1. Leadership: No culture change happens without leadership. It may be possible to talk about the evolution of organizational culture without leadership direction. But any form of deliberate change requires leadership.
2. Vision and small steps: Culture change requires the odd combination of vision and small steps. First, a vision of what the organization culture should be, that is a picture of destination. Deliberate or directed change also requires a well defined series of small steps that can begin the process and move it forward. Massive overhauls are often not practical and usually don't work. So culture change requires a pathway of small steps that lead to bigger change. One guide to these small steps is the RBA Self Assessment Questionnaire new version (available on resultsaccountability.com). Start with one supervisor identifying and using performance measures. Then two supervisors, and so forth. After the accumulation of enough small steps, it is possible to reach a tipping point where change happens much more rapidly. It is worth noting here that among the seemingly small steps to take is the change in forms and formats for strategic plans, budgets, RFP's and contracts. Forms are the skeleton of any organizations culture. They can live for decades. And if you can change them the change can last for decades.
3. Finally, feedback. Any change process requires a feedback loop to see if you are making progress. Two types of feedback are needed. Information is needed on the extent of implementation. One can use the RBA Self Assessment Questionnaire to calculate a score on the extent of implementation. The second type of feedback is on whether curves are turning on key measures.
People talk about culture change the way they talk about magic. We know this wonderful transformation is needed and will somehow happen, but we're not sure how.
Let's take a shot at a definition of organizational culture. Organizational culture is the range of accepted norms of for what people in an organization think and how they act. An organization might have a dominant culture and numerous subcultures. Subcultures might vary by program, profession, or organizational role. Organizational culture also includes a story line or mythology about why the norms exist the way they do.
Culture change then is any significant variation in or deviation from organizational culture or subculture. Culture change can be positive or negative. Sustained culture change is any culture change that survives some defined degree of turnover in key positions. It is worth noting that culture change is not a smooth transition. There are holdouts. Some parts of the organization go ahead of others. Some people never get it.
It is arguable that there are three elements needed for culture change to take place. This is a kind of hypothesis that might be tested with regard to creating a results culture.
1. Leadership: No culture change happens without leadership. It may be possible to talk about the evolution of organizational culture without leadership direction. But any form of deliberate change requires leadership.
2. Vision and small steps: Culture change requires the odd combination of vision and small steps. First, a vision of what the organization culture should be, that is a picture of destination. Deliberate or directed change also requires a well defined series of small steps that can begin the process and move it forward. Massive overhauls are often not practical and usually don't work. So culture change requires a pathway of small steps that lead to bigger change. One guide to these small steps is the RBA Self Assessment Questionnaire new version (available on resultsaccountability.com). Start with one supervisor identifying and using performance measures. Then two supervisors, and so forth. After the accumulation of enough small steps, it is possible to reach a tipping point where change happens much more rapidly. It is worth noting here that among the seemingly small steps to take is the change in forms and formats for strategic plans, budgets, RFP's and contracts. Forms are the skeleton of any organizations culture. They can live for decades. And if you can change them the change can last for decades.
3. Finally, feedback. Any change process requires a feedback loop to see if you are making progress. Two types of feedback are needed. Information is needed on the extent of implementation. One can use the RBA Self Assessment Questionnaire to calculate a score on the extent of implementation. The second type of feedback is on whether curves are turning on key measures.
Scenario Planning
by Eric Britten
“Scenario planning is a discipline for rediscovering the original entrepreneurial power of creative foresight in contexts of accelerated change, greater complexity, and genuine uncertainty.” —Pierre Wack, Royal Dutch/Shell, 1984
Scenario planning is a process in which managers develop and then consider, in depth, several varied scenarios of equally plausible futures. The scenarios are based upon substantive information gathering and data development. The objective is to bring forward surprises and unexpected leaps of understanding. Scenario planning derives from the observation that, given the impossibility of knowing precisely how the future will play out, a good decision or strategy to adopt is one that plays out well across several possible futures (scenarios). To develop that "robust" strategy, several scenarios are created such that each scenario diverges markedly from the others. Strategies are then developed from identifying similarities or trends within or among the scenarios.
The most significant concept is not whether the planning team is "right" or "wrong". Rather, it is that the team digs deeply down to understand and remove the artificial constraints and limitations that affect their assumptions and perceptions about the future. Then they can objectively evaluate the plausibility and exponential relationships of the elements that comprise each of the scenarios.
No matter what future takes place, a company and its management team is much more likely to be ready for it and influential in it, if it has engaged in serious discourse and discovery surrounding possible situations or environments in which the organization may find itself.
In brief, the steps of the scenario planning process are:
• Develop the information that will drive the process
• Identify external factors that can significantly influence the industry
• Bring the issues and influencers together into a viable framework
• Produce multiple initial mini-scenarios; reduce to 2 or3
• Analyze the scenarios for the most important connections and relationships
• Determine what actions will be taken to address the most significant issues discovered
Read more interesting and helpful business articles in our article library. Click here.
“Scenario planning is a discipline for rediscovering the original entrepreneurial power of creative foresight in contexts of accelerated change, greater complexity, and genuine uncertainty.” —Pierre Wack, Royal Dutch/Shell, 1984
Scenario planning is a process in which managers develop and then consider, in depth, several varied scenarios of equally plausible futures. The scenarios are based upon substantive information gathering and data development. The objective is to bring forward surprises and unexpected leaps of understanding. Scenario planning derives from the observation that, given the impossibility of knowing precisely how the future will play out, a good decision or strategy to adopt is one that plays out well across several possible futures (scenarios). To develop that "robust" strategy, several scenarios are created such that each scenario diverges markedly from the others. Strategies are then developed from identifying similarities or trends within or among the scenarios.
The most significant concept is not whether the planning team is "right" or "wrong". Rather, it is that the team digs deeply down to understand and remove the artificial constraints and limitations that affect their assumptions and perceptions about the future. Then they can objectively evaluate the plausibility and exponential relationships of the elements that comprise each of the scenarios.
No matter what future takes place, a company and its management team is much more likely to be ready for it and influential in it, if it has engaged in serious discourse and discovery surrounding possible situations or environments in which the organization may find itself.
In brief, the steps of the scenario planning process are:
• Develop the information that will drive the process
• Identify external factors that can significantly influence the industry
• Bring the issues and influencers together into a viable framework
• Produce multiple initial mini-scenarios; reduce to 2 or3
• Analyze the scenarios for the most important connections and relationships
• Determine what actions will be taken to address the most significant issues discovered
Read more interesting and helpful business articles in our article library. Click here.
The Pros and Cons of Six Sigma
ANALYSIS BY: Eric Britten, President, Britten & Associates, LLC, Anchorage, AK.
PUBLISHED: Jun 02 2010 .
AUDIENCE: Operations professionals, ERP professionals, Six Sigma professionals, Enterprise decision makers .
Introduction
It's difficult to have an objective discussion about about something unless we can definitively state what that "something" is. So, let's understand what Six Sigma is.
Motorola, the company who pioneered Six Sigma in 1981, says that Six Sigma is three things: a metric, a methodology and a management system. At different times in varying contexts, Six Sigma is all three. As a metric, Six Sigma is a measure of defects per million opportunities, a statistical measure that focuses on nearly error-free results. As a business improvement methodology, Motorola says it focuses an organization on understanding and managing customer requirements, aligning key business processes to meet those requirements, using hard data to analyze and minimize errors in those processes, and driving rapid and sustainable improvement to those processes. Finally, as a management system, Motorola says it is a high performance system for executing business strategy that enables organizations to align their strategy, mobilize to attack high impact projects, accelerate improved results and sustain those improvements.
With this three-in-one concept in mind, let’s now take a look at the pros and cons of Six Sigma.
Analysis
Pros
Research shows that firms who successfully implement Six Sigma typically deliver better return on investment, return on sales, employment growth, stock growth and value growth. General Electric executives report that their company realized approximately $8 billion in savings through its Six Sigma program from 1999 to 2002. I participated in a series of linked Six Sigma projects in 2007-2008 that netted $15 million in savings over 18 months.
Thomas Pyzdek, Author of The Six Sigma Handbook, says, “Estimated savings per project varies from organization to organization. Reported results average about US$150,000 to US$243,000. My experience is that the average Six Sigma Black Belt project will produce a net benefit of around $200,000 in mature programs, but I have seen a single project in a new Six Sigma program net as much as $2.5 million.”
Michael Marx, research manager for iSixSigma, tells us "About 53 percent of Fortune 500 companies are currently using Six Sigma, which has resulted in an estimated $427 billion of savings over the past 20 years. Utilization rises to 82 percent when you look at just the Fortune 100."
In addition to the financial benefits, Six Sigma implementation can also improve an organization’s ability to deliver value to their customers, create competitive advantage, improve job satisfaction, increase teamwork and communications, improve strategic alignment, improve systems performance and simplify process and workflow.
If implementing a Six Sigma environment in an organization can deliver so many benefits, why then isn’t every company doing it?
Cons
The reasons why every company doesn’t implement a Six Sigma program are varied. Yet, when we think about it, all the reasons can be reduced to three primary factors. First, Six Sigma implementation requires many organizations to completely change the way the company does business, and, in the judgment of leadership, that may just not always be in the best interests of the company or their customers. Second, it’s just plain hard work. Even if a company does decide to embark upon the Six Sigma path, it’s not an easy process, and some companies may only achieve limited or unsustainable gains. I’ll point out the third factor shortly.
Dr. Jiju Antony of Glasgow Caledonian University writes, “When Six Sigma was introduced to many organisations , the initial reactions varied from a lot of enthusiasm to an absolute skepticism. The latter mood reflected incomments such as:
•It is another quality improvement initiative or flavour of the month
•There is nothing really new in Six Sigma compared to other quality initiatives such as TQM we have witnessed in the past.
•This too shall pass like others
•This won’t work in our business
•It is nothing more than a hype
•It is not for us as Six Sigma requires complicated statistical methods”
Those types of opinions and perceptions usually are self-fulfilling prophesies. If a Six Sigma implementation is going to be successful, it has to be embraced by everyone at all levels of the organization. And it is within this context that the primary difficulties of implementation lie.
Forrest W. Breyfogle III, American Society for Quality Crosby Medal 2004 recipient, and David Silverstein, managing partner at Breakthrough Management Group, list what they see as the primary Six Sigma pitfalls:
•Not building an effective Six Sigma implementation strategy
•Trying to implement a one-size-fits all metric within Six Sigma (Organizations should choose the best metric for each project situation.)
•Trying to "go it alone," using their own training material when implementing Six Sigma
•Having weak, uncommitted leadership
•Failing to recognize the need for a supporting infrastructure
•Not committing Black Belts 100 percent of the time
•Pursuing poorly defined projects that are too broad in scope
I mentioned earlier that there was one more reason that an organization might not decide to embark on a Six Sigma implementation. Frequently, when thinking about Six Sigma, organizations either know or quickly realize that they already have many Six Sigma programs, practices and systems already in place. Their company has adopted these various elements as parts of their company management and operating system over time and they simply don’t call them Six Sigma.
Conclusion
If an organization is considering a Six Sigma implementation, their time will be well spent learning about the discipline, analyzing the expected benefits versus the costs, and thinking long and hard about how well the system will fit within their organization.
Read more interesting and helpful business articles in our article library. Click here.
PUBLISHED: Jun 02 2010 .
AUDIENCE: Operations professionals, ERP professionals, Six Sigma professionals, Enterprise decision makers .
Introduction
It's difficult to have an objective discussion about about something unless we can definitively state what that "something" is. So, let's understand what Six Sigma is.
Motorola, the company who pioneered Six Sigma in 1981, says that Six Sigma is three things: a metric, a methodology and a management system. At different times in varying contexts, Six Sigma is all three. As a metric, Six Sigma is a measure of defects per million opportunities, a statistical measure that focuses on nearly error-free results. As a business improvement methodology, Motorola says it focuses an organization on understanding and managing customer requirements, aligning key business processes to meet those requirements, using hard data to analyze and minimize errors in those processes, and driving rapid and sustainable improvement to those processes. Finally, as a management system, Motorola says it is a high performance system for executing business strategy that enables organizations to align their strategy, mobilize to attack high impact projects, accelerate improved results and sustain those improvements.
With this three-in-one concept in mind, let’s now take a look at the pros and cons of Six Sigma.
Analysis
Pros
Research shows that firms who successfully implement Six Sigma typically deliver better return on investment, return on sales, employment growth, stock growth and value growth. General Electric executives report that their company realized approximately $8 billion in savings through its Six Sigma program from 1999 to 2002. I participated in a series of linked Six Sigma projects in 2007-2008 that netted $15 million in savings over 18 months.
Thomas Pyzdek, Author of The Six Sigma Handbook, says, “Estimated savings per project varies from organization to organization. Reported results average about US$150,000 to US$243,000. My experience is that the average Six Sigma Black Belt project will produce a net benefit of around $200,000 in mature programs, but I have seen a single project in a new Six Sigma program net as much as $2.5 million.”
Michael Marx, research manager for iSixSigma, tells us "About 53 percent of Fortune 500 companies are currently using Six Sigma, which has resulted in an estimated $427 billion of savings over the past 20 years. Utilization rises to 82 percent when you look at just the Fortune 100."
In addition to the financial benefits, Six Sigma implementation can also improve an organization’s ability to deliver value to their customers, create competitive advantage, improve job satisfaction, increase teamwork and communications, improve strategic alignment, improve systems performance and simplify process and workflow.
If implementing a Six Sigma environment in an organization can deliver so many benefits, why then isn’t every company doing it?
Cons
The reasons why every company doesn’t implement a Six Sigma program are varied. Yet, when we think about it, all the reasons can be reduced to three primary factors. First, Six Sigma implementation requires many organizations to completely change the way the company does business, and, in the judgment of leadership, that may just not always be in the best interests of the company or their customers. Second, it’s just plain hard work. Even if a company does decide to embark upon the Six Sigma path, it’s not an easy process, and some companies may only achieve limited or unsustainable gains. I’ll point out the third factor shortly.
Dr. Jiju Antony of Glasgow Caledonian University writes, “When Six Sigma was introduced to many organisations , the initial reactions varied from a lot of enthusiasm to an absolute skepticism. The latter mood reflected incomments such as:
•It is another quality improvement initiative or flavour of the month
•There is nothing really new in Six Sigma compared to other quality initiatives such as TQM we have witnessed in the past.
•This too shall pass like others
•This won’t work in our business
•It is nothing more than a hype
•It is not for us as Six Sigma requires complicated statistical methods”
Those types of opinions and perceptions usually are self-fulfilling prophesies. If a Six Sigma implementation is going to be successful, it has to be embraced by everyone at all levels of the organization. And it is within this context that the primary difficulties of implementation lie.
Forrest W. Breyfogle III, American Society for Quality Crosby Medal 2004 recipient, and David Silverstein, managing partner at Breakthrough Management Group, list what they see as the primary Six Sigma pitfalls:
•Not building an effective Six Sigma implementation strategy
•Trying to implement a one-size-fits all metric within Six Sigma (Organizations should choose the best metric for each project situation.)
•Trying to "go it alone," using their own training material when implementing Six Sigma
•Having weak, uncommitted leadership
•Failing to recognize the need for a supporting infrastructure
•Not committing Black Belts 100 percent of the time
•Pursuing poorly defined projects that are too broad in scope
I mentioned earlier that there was one more reason that an organization might not decide to embark on a Six Sigma implementation. Frequently, when thinking about Six Sigma, organizations either know or quickly realize that they already have many Six Sigma programs, practices and systems already in place. Their company has adopted these various elements as parts of their company management and operating system over time and they simply don’t call them Six Sigma.
Conclusion
If an organization is considering a Six Sigma implementation, their time will be well spent learning about the discipline, analyzing the expected benefits versus the costs, and thinking long and hard about how well the system will fit within their organization.
Read more interesting and helpful business articles in our article library. Click here.
Are Your Administrative Costs Slicing Into Your Profits?
By Eric Britten
What a preposterous question! Obviously, if your administrative expenses (G&A) were eating your profits, you’d be doing something about it, wouldn’t you? Or would you? Maybe you’ve watched your administrative expenses rise as your sales and revenues have risen and you just figured that was inescapable. Or, worse, maybe you watched your sales and revenues decline during the recent recession while your admin expenses remained relatively level. Or, equally worse, as revenues fell, maybe you just sliced expenses in your administrative areas and watched backlogs and employee frustration build and services levels and customer satisfaction fall.
Administrative expenses as a percentage of revenues seems to be one of those vexing business indicators that owners and managers struggle with. While the concept of scalability makes sense, it’s very common to find businesses that cannot get their arms around sustainable techniques for controlling their administrative costs.
Enter two business tools: process improvement and lean engineering. While lean process improvement may seem cumbersome and complicated at first, practitioners quickly become skilled in using the tools. The outcomes from lean process improvement are numerous. Customer satisfaction increases. Morale quickly improves. With process waste and inefficiencies reduced, capacity increases and cost per transaction decreases. Cash flows are positively impacted. Other costs decrease. Management gains a dashboard that enables them to watch key financial and productivity indicators.
And, finally, lean process improvement is scalable and adaptable. It works for small and large businesses alike. Very small business owners can do the work themselves. And lean process improvement is readily adaptable for non-profits and the public sector.
Read the full article posted in our Article Index here.
What a preposterous question! Obviously, if your administrative expenses (G&A) were eating your profits, you’d be doing something about it, wouldn’t you? Or would you? Maybe you’ve watched your administrative expenses rise as your sales and revenues have risen and you just figured that was inescapable. Or, worse, maybe you watched your sales and revenues decline during the recent recession while your admin expenses remained relatively level. Or, equally worse, as revenues fell, maybe you just sliced expenses in your administrative areas and watched backlogs and employee frustration build and services levels and customer satisfaction fall.
Administrative expenses as a percentage of revenues seems to be one of those vexing business indicators that owners and managers struggle with. While the concept of scalability makes sense, it’s very common to find businesses that cannot get their arms around sustainable techniques for controlling their administrative costs.
Enter two business tools: process improvement and lean engineering. While lean process improvement may seem cumbersome and complicated at first, practitioners quickly become skilled in using the tools. The outcomes from lean process improvement are numerous. Customer satisfaction increases. Morale quickly improves. With process waste and inefficiencies reduced, capacity increases and cost per transaction decreases. Cash flows are positively impacted. Other costs decrease. Management gains a dashboard that enables them to watch key financial and productivity indicators.
And, finally, lean process improvement is scalable and adaptable. It works for small and large businesses alike. Very small business owners can do the work themselves. And lean process improvement is readily adaptable for non-profits and the public sector.
Read the full article posted in our Article Index here.
How do I create a good team?
This question was recently posted on one of the business networks I subscribe to (http://www.focus.com/). Here's the question in its entirety:
I run a small PR firm where teamwork plays a substantial role. While everyone has their own particular job assignment (Strategist, Media Liaison, etc), we do frequently come together as a team to discuss how to handle particular clients and situations. This is especially true when one of our clients is involved in a major scandal. However, it is during these high stress times when my team simply falls apart. Several of these instances have resulted in employees leaving the company because they "simply can't work with these people", which takes my attention off of whatever issue is at hand to finding a replacement (one position has been occupied by three different people in the past year).
Some of the answers are quite interesting. Here are parts of a few:
1. " ....... it is important to focus time on building trusting relationships. Having people learn about one another's strengths and how they can optimally contribute to the team and developing respect and appreciation for those strengths will help a you retain talent and build a high performing team."
2. "I have had individuals not working together, yet they will band together against another department when it suited! True. I begin the process by having weekly “Team” meetings with all my direct reports (I usually have less than 12). The first thing I do is to set the rules – everyone can and should speak, there are to be NO personal attacks or bullying. Plus people losing control is not an option. We all discuss and if there is dissention then my diplomacy skills are critical, But whatever happens, the final decision is mine."
3. " ..... so why not collect the inputs separately and then make the final decision based on an aggregate of opinion? While it sounds like more work, it's not. Without the fighting, tantrums, drama etc. you can hold a series of very short meetings, aggregate the content and make a decision in a much shorter time frame."
4. "To make your team gel for action when required you just don’t need a “star” hire to replace a team member, you may have to start with the basics. I strongly recommend you first find out how to put in place a coherent team."
5. "One thing that I will suggest is reading the book "Fierce Leadership" by Susan Scott. A major component in there is the "Smart + Heart". I simply adore this ideology. Hopefully you have set a certain culture within your organization, and you and the others within your organization foster, build, and grow it daily."
My response was: "I am a strong proponent of using functional and cross-functional teams in order to develop strong integrated solutions. Often it takes the leader to step up and call the foul when individuals say they just can't work with other individuals. Rarely have I found that to be true. It's determining why one or more team members are saying that and using good team building practices to get the team through the four phases: forming, storming, norming and performing ......... I'd also recommend the well known resource, "The Wisdom of Teams" by Katzenbach and Smith, to you."
I thought it was particularly interesting that one of the posts suggested the the manager meet separately with each of the individuals to get their input. I didn't post my specific sentiment because there already had started to be a bit of discord (parts of responses I didn't post above), but it struck me that question is exactly one reason why it makes sense to meet in teams - to save time.
As a collaborative type, I have rarely found that you can't make a team function. But, often it does take a skilled team leader to get the team formed and through its "storming" phase. One practice that often works well for me is to get the team focused on the problem as quickly as possible. Focusing on the problem leads the team to think about what I call "a common enemy" - something they all agree needs to be fixed - as opposed to thinking about themselves or their individual roles.
Read more interesting and informative business articles in our article library. Click here.
I run a small PR firm where teamwork plays a substantial role. While everyone has their own particular job assignment (Strategist, Media Liaison, etc), we do frequently come together as a team to discuss how to handle particular clients and situations. This is especially true when one of our clients is involved in a major scandal. However, it is during these high stress times when my team simply falls apart. Several of these instances have resulted in employees leaving the company because they "simply can't work with these people", which takes my attention off of whatever issue is at hand to finding a replacement (one position has been occupied by three different people in the past year).
Some of the answers are quite interesting. Here are parts of a few:
1. " ....... it is important to focus time on building trusting relationships. Having people learn about one another's strengths and how they can optimally contribute to the team and developing respect and appreciation for those strengths will help a you retain talent and build a high performing team."
2. "I have had individuals not working together, yet they will band together against another department when it suited! True. I begin the process by having weekly “Team” meetings with all my direct reports (I usually have less than 12). The first thing I do is to set the rules – everyone can and should speak, there are to be NO personal attacks or bullying. Plus people losing control is not an option. We all discuss and if there is dissention then my diplomacy skills are critical, But whatever happens, the final decision is mine."
3. " ..... so why not collect the inputs separately and then make the final decision based on an aggregate of opinion? While it sounds like more work, it's not. Without the fighting, tantrums, drama etc. you can hold a series of very short meetings, aggregate the content and make a decision in a much shorter time frame."
4. "To make your team gel for action when required you just don’t need a “star” hire to replace a team member, you may have to start with the basics. I strongly recommend you first find out how to put in place a coherent team."
5. "One thing that I will suggest is reading the book "Fierce Leadership" by Susan Scott. A major component in there is the "Smart + Heart". I simply adore this ideology. Hopefully you have set a certain culture within your organization, and you and the others within your organization foster, build, and grow it daily."
My response was: "I am a strong proponent of using functional and cross-functional teams in order to develop strong integrated solutions. Often it takes the leader to step up and call the foul when individuals say they just can't work with other individuals. Rarely have I found that to be true. It's determining why one or more team members are saying that and using good team building practices to get the team through the four phases: forming, storming, norming and performing ......... I'd also recommend the well known resource, "The Wisdom of Teams" by Katzenbach and Smith, to you."
I thought it was particularly interesting that one of the posts suggested the the manager meet separately with each of the individuals to get their input. I didn't post my specific sentiment because there already had started to be a bit of discord (parts of responses I didn't post above), but it struck me that question is exactly one reason why it makes sense to meet in teams - to save time.
As a collaborative type, I have rarely found that you can't make a team function. But, often it does take a skilled team leader to get the team formed and through its "storming" phase. One practice that often works well for me is to get the team focused on the problem as quickly as possible. Focusing on the problem leads the team to think about what I call "a common enemy" - something they all agree needs to be fixed - as opposed to thinking about themselves or their individual roles.
Read more interesting and informative business articles in our article library. Click here.
Must Process Improvement Be Tied to Strategy?
Recently, a member of the Lean and Six Sigma Global Network on LinkedIn posted a discussion item about the first of the seven deadly process improvement sins: Sin #1: Process improvement is not tied to the strategic issues the business faces.
Group members from across the continent opined pro and con. It's an excellent ongoing discussion. Here is my post from that discussion: Can we look at it this way? (1) The very fact that process improvement exists within an organization is the result of a strategic decision. (2) Does that, then, mean anything that process improvement is applied to must inherently be strategic? As a body of knowledge, methodology or discipline, I don't think process improvement is a candidate to be labeled strategic. It is simply a tool or process. (3) But, the projects to which the tool, BOK, methodology or discipline are applied very probably should be aligned with the company's strategy. In my experience, I have always worked to tie project selection to organizational strategy. In that sense or context, I then think that Sin #1 would be correct.
The vision statement of my business states "Everything Begins With A Plan". I don't mean a single plan. I mean a plan, as in a business plan, a strategic plan, an annual operating plan or a marketing plan. Planning is central to a successsful business enterprise. The key is how well developed is the plan. If it's worth the time to develop the plan, then ensuing activities and plans must link to it.
Read more interesting and informative business articles in our article library. Click here.
Group members from across the continent opined pro and con. It's an excellent ongoing discussion. Here is my post from that discussion: Can we look at it this way? (1) The very fact that process improvement exists within an organization is the result of a strategic decision. (2) Does that, then, mean anything that process improvement is applied to must inherently be strategic? As a body of knowledge, methodology or discipline, I don't think process improvement is a candidate to be labeled strategic. It is simply a tool or process. (3) But, the projects to which the tool, BOK, methodology or discipline are applied very probably should be aligned with the company's strategy. In my experience, I have always worked to tie project selection to organizational strategy. In that sense or context, I then think that Sin #1 would be correct.
The vision statement of my business states "Everything Begins With A Plan". I don't mean a single plan. I mean a plan, as in a business plan, a strategic plan, an annual operating plan or a marketing plan. Planning is central to a successsful business enterprise. The key is how well developed is the plan. If it's worth the time to develop the plan, then ensuing activities and plans must link to it.
Read more interesting and informative business articles in our article library. Click here.
WBFP, RBA & AI - Keeping The Tools Sharp
by Eric Britten
Keeping up to date on the various planning tools, methods and techniques seems like a slalom down the alphabet slopes sometimes. But, knowing about the tools, when to use them and how to combine them is critical to delivering what clients need and expect.
WBFP (Working Backwards From Perfect) is one of the tools employed when using the Hoshin (or hoshin kanri) approach to strategic planning. WBFP is a very useful technique in which the ultimate goal or future state (perfect) is visioned; then the gap between current state and future state is closed with as few steps as possible. This is a tool that is used when incremental change just isn't going to deliver the bacon and transformational change is what is needed.
RBA (Results Based Accountability) is a planning technique used often in the public and not-for-profit sectors. This approach focuses on determining what the desired outcomes are for an agency, program or organization and then agreeing on what resources need to be integrated to deliver the improved state. Very often this results in several agencies or groups working together toward improving the outcomes as rarely is there a single cause to a social issue.
A.I. (Appreciative Inquiry) takes a different approach to developing strategy for an organization. Rather than focusing the organization on what is not working, A.I. first looks at what is working. These elements constitute the positive core that give the organization its vitality, success and effectiveness. Focusing on what works builds energy and inspiration for then looking at visioning and planning.
Keeping up to date on the various planning tools, methods and techniques seems like a slalom down the alphabet slopes sometimes. But, knowing about the tools, when to use them and how to combine them is critical to delivering what clients need and expect.
WBFP (Working Backwards From Perfect) is one of the tools employed when using the Hoshin (or hoshin kanri) approach to strategic planning. WBFP is a very useful technique in which the ultimate goal or future state (perfect) is visioned; then the gap between current state and future state is closed with as few steps as possible. This is a tool that is used when incremental change just isn't going to deliver the bacon and transformational change is what is needed.
RBA (Results Based Accountability) is a planning technique used often in the public and not-for-profit sectors. This approach focuses on determining what the desired outcomes are for an agency, program or organization and then agreeing on what resources need to be integrated to deliver the improved state. Very often this results in several agencies or groups working together toward improving the outcomes as rarely is there a single cause to a social issue.
A.I. (Appreciative Inquiry) takes a different approach to developing strategy for an organization. Rather than focusing the organization on what is not working, A.I. first looks at what is working. These elements constitute the positive core that give the organization its vitality, success and effectiveness. Focusing on what works builds energy and inspiration for then looking at visioning and planning.
Your Organization’s Path to Success
By Eric Britten
Four basic elements will help private sector, public sector and non-profit organizations steer toward success.
1. Develop clear goals. Experts have noted that organizational success happens when everyone is focused on the same goals. There are several important elements that must be present to enable this focus. First of all, everyone needs to hear what the organization's mission, vision and goals are...and hear about them repeatedly. The second part includes a plan for everyone in the organization to follow so that they understand how performing their job successfully helps the organization meet its objectives. Everyone from top to bottom should feel like they own a piece of the process. Finally, employees need regular feedback about how the organization is doing and about the contribution of their efforts to organizational success.
2. Create accountability. Linking employees to organizational goals through their job function and providing them with periodic updates on progress toward those goals builds an atmosphere of accountability. Accountability is a critical key to success, not just in the private sector, but in both the public and non-profit sectors as well. Private sector organizations work toward their goals to deliver results to their customers and to the company’s owners. Public sector organizations deliver results to the public, but are also responsible for delivering those services in a cost effective manner consistent with their organization’s mission and goals. Non-profits serve their own constituencies. Like the public sector, they are responsible for delivering those services in a cost effective manner consistent with their organization’s mission and goals.
3. Measure progress. In order to know how a particular organization is progressing toward fulfilling their mission and meeting their goals, clear measures and milestones need to be in place. Creating the right metrics and milestones is more easily said than done. They need to be more qualitative than quantitative. They must pass rigorous tests to ensure they are aligned with desired outcomes. They need to be meaningful, not only to program owners, but to customers as well. They should not consume extensive resources just to generate the results.
4. Make adjustments. If the milestones and metrics indicate that acceptable progress is not being made toward mission and goals, leaders need to search for systemic reasons for this. They should adjust the tactics, activities and processes they are using to achieve their goals and meet their mission. Adjustments should not be made to the metrics or milestones themselves.
Four basic elements will help private sector, public sector and non-profit organizations steer toward success.
1. Develop clear goals. Experts have noted that organizational success happens when everyone is focused on the same goals. There are several important elements that must be present to enable this focus. First of all, everyone needs to hear what the organization's mission, vision and goals are...and hear about them repeatedly. The second part includes a plan for everyone in the organization to follow so that they understand how performing their job successfully helps the organization meet its objectives. Everyone from top to bottom should feel like they own a piece of the process. Finally, employees need regular feedback about how the organization is doing and about the contribution of their efforts to organizational success.
2. Create accountability. Linking employees to organizational goals through their job function and providing them with periodic updates on progress toward those goals builds an atmosphere of accountability. Accountability is a critical key to success, not just in the private sector, but in both the public and non-profit sectors as well. Private sector organizations work toward their goals to deliver results to their customers and to the company’s owners. Public sector organizations deliver results to the public, but are also responsible for delivering those services in a cost effective manner consistent with their organization’s mission and goals. Non-profits serve their own constituencies. Like the public sector, they are responsible for delivering those services in a cost effective manner consistent with their organization’s mission and goals.
3. Measure progress. In order to know how a particular organization is progressing toward fulfilling their mission and meeting their goals, clear measures and milestones need to be in place. Creating the right metrics and milestones is more easily said than done. They need to be more qualitative than quantitative. They must pass rigorous tests to ensure they are aligned with desired outcomes. They need to be meaningful, not only to program owners, but to customers as well. They should not consume extensive resources just to generate the results.
4. Make adjustments. If the milestones and metrics indicate that acceptable progress is not being made toward mission and goals, leaders need to search for systemic reasons for this. They should adjust the tactics, activities and processes they are using to achieve their goals and meet their mission. Adjustments should not be made to the metrics or milestones themselves.
Collaboration By Any Other Name
by Eric Britten
This morning, I read an article that was an early introduction to a local group describing AoH (Art of Hosting) of which World Café is an element. The article was titled “Conversational Leadership: Thinking Together For A Change”, written by Thomas Hurley and Juanita Brown. The article described how a senior manager for H.P. was able to bring about substantial change in one particular area (safety) by visiting plants around the world and sitting down with the workers to discuss the problem and potential solutions. This was as opposed to H.P.’s normal top-down approach.
I realized quickly that I was reading about a process that has been successful in the field of process improvement for some time – empowering the people who actually do the work to identify the process weaknesses and then develop the best solutions for improving the process. This process can certainly be classified as a “conversation” as, in this case, skilled facilitators help the workers hold their conversations so that they remain focused and productive. Whether called conversational leadership or process improvement, the approach is the same; getting those who do the work engaged in developing the solution. Process improvement actually takes the sequence one step farther in that after the workers identify the problem and work together to develop the best solution, they then actually implement that solution. They feel involved, empowered and successful.
While there may be other elements of AoH and process improvement that are not the same, it is interesting to note that the approach is consistent – engage those who are most affected in discussing an issue or problem and then help them evolve and implement best possible solutions.
As all of us in various worlds and disciplines become more focused on evolving solutions by engaging those most conversant with the issues in a dialog about problems and solutions, we should celebrate that we are all recognizing that top-down isn’t working these days in an ever growing list of processes. Business, government, community and social leaders are all recognizing the power of communication, collaboration and group solution generation regardless of what they call it.
This morning, I read an article that was an early introduction to a local group describing AoH (Art of Hosting) of which World Café is an element. The article was titled “Conversational Leadership: Thinking Together For A Change”, written by Thomas Hurley and Juanita Brown. The article described how a senior manager for H.P. was able to bring about substantial change in one particular area (safety) by visiting plants around the world and sitting down with the workers to discuss the problem and potential solutions. This was as opposed to H.P.’s normal top-down approach.
I realized quickly that I was reading about a process that has been successful in the field of process improvement for some time – empowering the people who actually do the work to identify the process weaknesses and then develop the best solutions for improving the process. This process can certainly be classified as a “conversation” as, in this case, skilled facilitators help the workers hold their conversations so that they remain focused and productive. Whether called conversational leadership or process improvement, the approach is the same; getting those who do the work engaged in developing the solution. Process improvement actually takes the sequence one step farther in that after the workers identify the problem and work together to develop the best solution, they then actually implement that solution. They feel involved, empowered and successful.
While there may be other elements of AoH and process improvement that are not the same, it is interesting to note that the approach is consistent – engage those who are most affected in discussing an issue or problem and then help them evolve and implement best possible solutions.
As all of us in various worlds and disciplines become more focused on evolving solutions by engaging those most conversant with the issues in a dialog about problems and solutions, we should celebrate that we are all recognizing that top-down isn’t working these days in an ever growing list of processes. Business, government, community and social leaders are all recognizing the power of communication, collaboration and group solution generation regardless of what they call it.
The Three Core Processes of Execution
By Eric Britten
Being a process person, “Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done” (Bossidy and Charan, Crown Business, 2002, 288 pages, ISBN-10: 0609610570) grabbed my attention when the authors outlined what they believe are the three core processes of execution:
1. The people process: Linking strategy and operations
2. The strategy process: Linking people and operations
3. The operations process: Linking strategy and people
“The strategy process defines where a business wants to go and the people process defines who is going to get it there. The operating plan provides the path for those people.”
Execution is at the heart of a successful business. Its implementation is achieved through the effective integration of people processes, strategy processes, and operational/budgeting processes. Leaders have to master each process, understand their synergies and know how to change them. This can only be done by the leader’s day to day immersion in the processes, particularly the people processes.
Any organization can be broken down into core and subordinate processes. Once that’s done, it’s a fairly simple task to determine where the weaknesses are. But, it’s the successful implementation of the change that delivers results. As a boss I once had said, “Execution! Execution! Execution!”
Being a process person, “Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done” (Bossidy and Charan, Crown Business, 2002, 288 pages, ISBN-10: 0609610570) grabbed my attention when the authors outlined what they believe are the three core processes of execution:
1. The people process: Linking strategy and operations
2. The strategy process: Linking people and operations
3. The operations process: Linking strategy and people
“The strategy process defines where a business wants to go and the people process defines who is going to get it there. The operating plan provides the path for those people.”
Execution is at the heart of a successful business. Its implementation is achieved through the effective integration of people processes, strategy processes, and operational/budgeting processes. Leaders have to master each process, understand their synergies and know how to change them. This can only be done by the leader’s day to day immersion in the processes, particularly the people processes.
Any organization can be broken down into core and subordinate processes. Once that’s done, it’s a fairly simple task to determine where the weaknesses are. But, it’s the successful implementation of the change that delivers results. As a boss I once had said, “Execution! Execution! Execution!”
What Creates Value For Americans Now?
By Eric Britten
So, how are your company’s sales doing? Still waiting for things to pick up? Well, if you have traditionally dealt in relatively inexpensive lower quality products that can be thrown away and easily replaced, your wait may be a bit longer – like forever. Similarly, if you needed to be able to offer 100% financing, or anything close to it, to move your inventory, that inventory could become a lead weight around your neck.
The economy’s changing a lot more that some folks realize. Many consumers suddenly found themselves upside down in the debt – value equation. That is, they found they owed more than the things they owned were worth. This clearly was the case with many homeowners, even if they thought they had a reasonable amount of equity in their home. It just plain evaporated. The same was the case with other items, like cars, boats, investment property, high end electronics – anything that people could get nearly 100% financing for or just put on a credit card. At the same time, people’s security was threatened. Companies’ sales were dropping, layoffs were rampant, hours were being cut, and jobs became extremely hard to find.
While it sometimes may be difficult to get the public’s attention, the sudden change in people’s financial situations woke them up like a fire bell. Saddled with substantial debt and an unsure future, consumers just plain stopped buying. Credit dried up, so even if people wanted to borrow, they couldn’t. Now Americans are hunkering down for the long haul. They know they have to pay down their debt. So, that’s one place dollars are being directed.
On top of that, people are now focusing on how they spend the disposable dollars they do have. Indications are that consumers are redefining value. They are focusing on how well a product is made; how long it will last. This not only is true for high end items such as cars, appliances, and electronics. It carries through to clothing, household goods and how many loads a box of laundry detergent will wash.
Companies may well follow consumers’ new buying habits as they look for increased longevity, higher quality, and upgradability in the assets they procure.
Companies that sell products and services will need to take note of these new spending habits. Their strategies will need to focus on meeting the demands of the customer, not convincing the customer that they need something they don’t nor convincing them that a cheaper alternative is just as good as a higher priced one. Consumers are going to become more savvy buyers. Retailers and service providers who understand the new definition of value will find life a lot easier than those who do not.
So, how are your company’s sales doing? Still waiting for things to pick up? Well, if you have traditionally dealt in relatively inexpensive lower quality products that can be thrown away and easily replaced, your wait may be a bit longer – like forever. Similarly, if you needed to be able to offer 100% financing, or anything close to it, to move your inventory, that inventory could become a lead weight around your neck.
The economy’s changing a lot more that some folks realize. Many consumers suddenly found themselves upside down in the debt – value equation. That is, they found they owed more than the things they owned were worth. This clearly was the case with many homeowners, even if they thought they had a reasonable amount of equity in their home. It just plain evaporated. The same was the case with other items, like cars, boats, investment property, high end electronics – anything that people could get nearly 100% financing for or just put on a credit card. At the same time, people’s security was threatened. Companies’ sales were dropping, layoffs were rampant, hours were being cut, and jobs became extremely hard to find.
While it sometimes may be difficult to get the public’s attention, the sudden change in people’s financial situations woke them up like a fire bell. Saddled with substantial debt and an unsure future, consumers just plain stopped buying. Credit dried up, so even if people wanted to borrow, they couldn’t. Now Americans are hunkering down for the long haul. They know they have to pay down their debt. So, that’s one place dollars are being directed.
On top of that, people are now focusing on how they spend the disposable dollars they do have. Indications are that consumers are redefining value. They are focusing on how well a product is made; how long it will last. This not only is true for high end items such as cars, appliances, and electronics. It carries through to clothing, household goods and how many loads a box of laundry detergent will wash.
Companies may well follow consumers’ new buying habits as they look for increased longevity, higher quality, and upgradability in the assets they procure.
Companies that sell products and services will need to take note of these new spending habits. Their strategies will need to focus on meeting the demands of the customer, not convincing the customer that they need something they don’t nor convincing them that a cheaper alternative is just as good as a higher priced one. Consumers are going to become more savvy buyers. Retailers and service providers who understand the new definition of value will find life a lot easier than those who do not.
The Most Abused And Misunderstood Process
Recently I read a question on one of the online management forums I frequent that made me stop and laugh out loud. It was from a CEO, and it read: "I'm having a hard time with some of my HR staff. They're not executing their jobs effectively and are slacking off. I think they need more effective management in their department. How do I implement better management strategies in a department where the staff is supposed to know everything about that?" It seems the fox is in the henhouse.
Performance management remains one of the most misunderstood and abused processes in business today. And even when all the right elements are in place, its techniques remain elusive. Strategically, performance management is a way to align an organization behind its goals, values and job specific targets. It's a catalyst for cascading long and short term objectives. Bundled into a robust PM system are many tactical targets as well as effective metrics to measure success. Beneath the performance management umbrella falls annual performance planning and that much maligned sub-process, the performance review.
Engineered correctly, a successful performance management system also feeds other closely aligned HR processes such as training, talent management and succession planning. In fact some organizations who have developed their capabilities well split the process. Human Resources manages the process and strategists or corporate performance teams manage much of the content as it moves through the organization.
But organizations without the understanding or capability to put a strong performance management process in place may well find thermselves in the same situation as our hapless CEO who wonders, "How do I implement better management strategies in a department where the staff is supposed to know everything about that?"
There is a good article about part of the PM process in our Article Index (click here) "You're Doing Performance Reviews All Wrong. Check it out.
Performance management remains one of the most misunderstood and abused processes in business today. And even when all the right elements are in place, its techniques remain elusive. Strategically, performance management is a way to align an organization behind its goals, values and job specific targets. It's a catalyst for cascading long and short term objectives. Bundled into a robust PM system are many tactical targets as well as effective metrics to measure success. Beneath the performance management umbrella falls annual performance planning and that much maligned sub-process, the performance review.
Engineered correctly, a successful performance management system also feeds other closely aligned HR processes such as training, talent management and succession planning. In fact some organizations who have developed their capabilities well split the process. Human Resources manages the process and strategists or corporate performance teams manage much of the content as it moves through the organization.
But organizations without the understanding or capability to put a strong performance management process in place may well find thermselves in the same situation as our hapless CEO who wonders, "How do I implement better management strategies in a department where the staff is supposed to know everything about that?"
There is a good article about part of the PM process in our Article Index (click here) "You're Doing Performance Reviews All Wrong. Check it out.
Is Strategic Planning Dead?
by Eric Britten
I came across a post on the Harvard Business Review site that purposed, "Strategy's not dead. It's just adapting." I followed the link to a post by Walter Kiechel III, the former editorial director at HBR titled, "Strategy on the morph". The article's a fun read, so I posted it on our site. (Read "Is Strategic Planning Dead?" from our Article Index here.)
I appreciated Walter's hip rejection of the assertion made by many observers (probably not true practitioners) that strategic planning, "as we know it", is dead. Perhaps my age is showing, but do you remember when televisions were housed in a huge console and had black and white screens that were about a foot square? Well, guess what? Televison, as we knew it then, is dead, too. And thank heavens it is. If television never progressed from being that little screen in a huge box to what it is today, probably nobody would own one now. Similarly, if any of our business processes including strategic planning had not morphed over the years, they'd all be dead, too. But, like television and processes, strategic planning is just adapting and changing with the times. And, just as we still call televisions "televisions" despite the fact that they are unrecognizable from the TV's of yore, so shall we still call strategic planning by the same name even as it changes.
So, let's keep up with the times and embrace the newer, faster, nimbler iterative process that is still strategic planning. If our practitioners are not changing with the times, then they should park themselves in front of those little old boob tubes and be content with watching reruns of the Adams Family.
I came across a post on the Harvard Business Review site that purposed, "Strategy's not dead. It's just adapting." I followed the link to a post by Walter Kiechel III, the former editorial director at HBR titled, "Strategy on the morph". The article's a fun read, so I posted it on our site. (Read "Is Strategic Planning Dead?" from our Article Index here.)
I appreciated Walter's hip rejection of the assertion made by many observers (probably not true practitioners) that strategic planning, "as we know it", is dead. Perhaps my age is showing, but do you remember when televisions were housed in a huge console and had black and white screens that were about a foot square? Well, guess what? Televison, as we knew it then, is dead, too. And thank heavens it is. If television never progressed from being that little screen in a huge box to what it is today, probably nobody would own one now. Similarly, if any of our business processes including strategic planning had not morphed over the years, they'd all be dead, too. But, like television and processes, strategic planning is just adapting and changing with the times. And, just as we still call televisions "televisions" despite the fact that they are unrecognizable from the TV's of yore, so shall we still call strategic planning by the same name even as it changes.
So, let's keep up with the times and embrace the newer, faster, nimbler iterative process that is still strategic planning. If our practitioners are not changing with the times, then they should park themselves in front of those little old boob tubes and be content with watching reruns of the Adams Family.
The Latest From Tom Peters
I spent some time today on Tom Peters' site after catching a Tweet from him. Here are some snippets from his posts:
On Leadership: Hay Group's John Larrere said, "Rapid changes in the world are impacting how organizations do business, and as a result, the old rules of how organizations select, develop and retain good leaders have been turned upside down causing the future of leadership to look very different. ... It's about getting them (people) to be passionate about their work and grooming them to handle the challenges ahead."
On Mentoring: " You can submit a bid for your chance to be mentored by Guy Kawasaki, Caterina Fake (co-founder of Flickr), Aaron Magness (director of Brand Marketing at Zappos), or many others. The winning bidder gets a session with the mentor of their choice; for example, the first winner got a half hour on the phone with Dan Pink. Each week a new mentorship opportunity will be posted, so you might want to bookmark the link....http://www.imno.org/"
On reviewing performance: "..... you should be choosing and assessing your talent like an NFL team or a Symphony Orchestra. Those groups would never use a standardized assessment vehicle, and Tom contends that neither should you."
See his You Tube video about this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV6X_LdNVC4. I get the concept, and I think that's his point. Performance plans and assessments do need to be individualized. But, I think that this still can all fit within a fairly common framework.
On Front Line Managers: "The evidence is clear: Employee satisfaction and like variables are significantly, even overwhelmingly, linked to the employee's relationship with her or his first-line manager. While first-line managers are considered to be of great importance, in my experience few companies truly obsess on every aspect of their care and feeding. In fact, my observations suggest that such things as first-line manager training regimes are often of questionable quality. This is a strategic mistake. More important, a lost strategic opportunity."
Read Tom's Blog here: http://www.tompeters.com/. There is always something provocative and interesting posted on it.
On Leadership: Hay Group's John Larrere said, "Rapid changes in the world are impacting how organizations do business, and as a result, the old rules of how organizations select, develop and retain good leaders have been turned upside down causing the future of leadership to look very different. ... It's about getting them (people) to be passionate about their work and grooming them to handle the challenges ahead."
On Mentoring: " You can submit a bid for your chance to be mentored by Guy Kawasaki, Caterina Fake (co-founder of Flickr), Aaron Magness (director of Brand Marketing at Zappos), or many others. The winning bidder gets a session with the mentor of their choice; for example, the first winner got a half hour on the phone with Dan Pink. Each week a new mentorship opportunity will be posted, so you might want to bookmark the link....http://www.imno.org/"
On reviewing performance: "..... you should be choosing and assessing your talent like an NFL team or a Symphony Orchestra. Those groups would never use a standardized assessment vehicle, and Tom contends that neither should you."
See his You Tube video about this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV6X_LdNVC4. I get the concept, and I think that's his point. Performance plans and assessments do need to be individualized. But, I think that this still can all fit within a fairly common framework.
On Front Line Managers: "The evidence is clear: Employee satisfaction and like variables are significantly, even overwhelmingly, linked to the employee's relationship with her or his first-line manager. While first-line managers are considered to be of great importance, in my experience few companies truly obsess on every aspect of their care and feeding. In fact, my observations suggest that such things as first-line manager training regimes are often of questionable quality. This is a strategic mistake. More important, a lost strategic opportunity."
Read Tom's Blog here: http://www.tompeters.com/. There is always something provocative and interesting posted on it.
Are You Wasting Time and Money on Change Initiatives?
by Eric Britten
Lately I have been thinking about change initiatives I have been involved in over the past years. They cover a broad spectrum; strategic and tactical planning, process improvement, integrated annual planning cycles, organizational alignment, leadership, communications planning and performance management are just some of them. How many of these types of activities have you or your organization engaged in? If you're doing the same as most businesses, you've engaged in some of these or all of these activities.
How effective have those efforts been? Are the plans and changes put in place still there and working well? Or, like many organizations, do you look back at those hopeful initiatives and wonder why anyone ever thought things would change - because you're right back operating as if those efforts had never taken place?
To those of you who instituted sustainable change and are reaping the benefits from your initiatives, congratulations for a job well done. Keep up the good work. And to those of you who wonder why all the good hard work put into your initiatives yielded little or no sustainable returns, I have two questions.
Question one. Was your change effort visibly, effectively and unequivocably led and supported by senior management throughout the rollout, planning, implementation and followup?
Question two. (This is really the point of this posting.) Is or was the culture of your organization a strategic one that traditionally embraced and rewarded change, innovation, risk taking, collaborative leadership, new ways of doing things and accountability? Or was there a tactical culture in place that pretty much reinforced making "safe" decisions, sticking to tried and true processes, authoratative leadership, relying upon the gut feelings of those who had been around for a while, and often accepting excuses instead of results?
When it comes to instituting sustainable change, organizations with the more progressive and strategic cultures have a huge leg up over those who do not. Culture and behavior have major effects on the ability of an organization to change. This does not mean that only more progressive and strategic companies should attempt change nor that only they can do it. What it does mean is that before attempting any sort of major change within an organization, it is important to assess the capacity and capability for change within that organization. The results of the assessment can then become important factors in determining how change needs to be approached when designing the initiative or project. Skipping that step can jeopardize both success and sustainability.
Lately I have been thinking about change initiatives I have been involved in over the past years. They cover a broad spectrum; strategic and tactical planning, process improvement, integrated annual planning cycles, organizational alignment, leadership, communications planning and performance management are just some of them. How many of these types of activities have you or your organization engaged in? If you're doing the same as most businesses, you've engaged in some of these or all of these activities.
How effective have those efforts been? Are the plans and changes put in place still there and working well? Or, like many organizations, do you look back at those hopeful initiatives and wonder why anyone ever thought things would change - because you're right back operating as if those efforts had never taken place?
To those of you who instituted sustainable change and are reaping the benefits from your initiatives, congratulations for a job well done. Keep up the good work. And to those of you who wonder why all the good hard work put into your initiatives yielded little or no sustainable returns, I have two questions.
Question one. Was your change effort visibly, effectively and unequivocably led and supported by senior management throughout the rollout, planning, implementation and followup?
Question two. (This is really the point of this posting.) Is or was the culture of your organization a strategic one that traditionally embraced and rewarded change, innovation, risk taking, collaborative leadership, new ways of doing things and accountability? Or was there a tactical culture in place that pretty much reinforced making "safe" decisions, sticking to tried and true processes, authoratative leadership, relying upon the gut feelings of those who had been around for a while, and often accepting excuses instead of results?
When it comes to instituting sustainable change, organizations with the more progressive and strategic cultures have a huge leg up over those who do not. Culture and behavior have major effects on the ability of an organization to change. This does not mean that only more progressive and strategic companies should attempt change nor that only they can do it. What it does mean is that before attempting any sort of major change within an organization, it is important to assess the capacity and capability for change within that organization. The results of the assessment can then become important factors in determining how change needs to be approached when designing the initiative or project. Skipping that step can jeopardize both success and sustainability.
How CEOs Can Convert Their Business From an Entrepreneurial Business to a Professionally Managed Business
by Eric Britten
Today, the Value Forward Network held a teleseminar on the title subject. I did not attend, but the title grabbed my attention as it points out a fairly common flaw in business today.
Entrepreneurs and professional business managers are two very different types of businesspeople. Entrepreneurs are skilled at identifying new business opportunities and parlaying them into going enterprises. They create a new enterprise, venture or idea and assume virtually all accountability for the inherent risks and the outcome. The very traits and attributes that make entrepreneurs good at entrepreneuring often doom them as good operating executives.
Good CEOs, COOs and business managers have diferent traits that make them good at managing and growing an established enterprise. Among their strengths are leadership, team building, focusing on performance, balancing risk and reward, financial acumen, credibility, good communications and people skills. The traits that make them good operators often can make them poor candidates for entrepreneuring.
And yet, how often do we see the CEO who founded an organization, navigated it through the rocky waters of start up, took risks on a daily basis to gain a foothold in their market, wrangled with venture capitalists and single-handedly created something from nothing struggling to run the established business? Think of Steve Jobs, who was fired by the very board he established as co-founder of Apple. Today he says it was the best thing that ever happened to him. But, had his board not removed him, what havoc might he have wreaked?
Knowing when to find good competent managing executives to run the enterprise is a struggle for those who start up a business. Often, it is someone else who must point out reality to them as they are still too busy entrepreneuring inside an organization that now needs a different kind of leader.
Today, the Value Forward Network held a teleseminar on the title subject. I did not attend, but the title grabbed my attention as it points out a fairly common flaw in business today.
Entrepreneurs and professional business managers are two very different types of businesspeople. Entrepreneurs are skilled at identifying new business opportunities and parlaying them into going enterprises. They create a new enterprise, venture or idea and assume virtually all accountability for the inherent risks and the outcome. The very traits and attributes that make entrepreneurs good at entrepreneuring often doom them as good operating executives.
Good CEOs, COOs and business managers have diferent traits that make them good at managing and growing an established enterprise. Among their strengths are leadership, team building, focusing on performance, balancing risk and reward, financial acumen, credibility, good communications and people skills. The traits that make them good operators often can make them poor candidates for entrepreneuring.
And yet, how often do we see the CEO who founded an organization, navigated it through the rocky waters of start up, took risks on a daily basis to gain a foothold in their market, wrangled with venture capitalists and single-handedly created something from nothing struggling to run the established business? Think of Steve Jobs, who was fired by the very board he established as co-founder of Apple. Today he says it was the best thing that ever happened to him. But, had his board not removed him, what havoc might he have wreaked?
Knowing when to find good competent managing executives to run the enterprise is a struggle for those who start up a business. Often, it is someone else who must point out reality to them as they are still too busy entrepreneuring inside an organization that now needs a different kind of leader.
Make It Real
John Schaefer, author of the The Vocational Shrink—An Analysis of the Ten Levels of Workplace Disillusionment, discusses five root causes of low employee morale in an article in AMA's Leader's Edge newsletter.
His fifth cause, Make It Real, truly is the root of many morale, trust, relationship and leadership issues in the workplace. He writes:
Suggestion #5—Make It Real
One of the first things to stress with your management team is what's called 'Making It Real.' This means being genuine and believable in interacting with their people. Employees tend to fall into some common negative habit patterns that employees experience when they feel underappreciated. When your managers understand how to be more open and vulnerable with their staff, they work towards trust, respect and improved communication.
'Making It Real' is the answer to the question, 'What is the root cause of low employee morale?' Maybe it's because it's so simple that it is so often missed, but without your people believing you are genuine, honest, and practicing high levels of integrity, any efforts you make to improve morale will be suspect. If you keep this in mind in your dealings with your people, you will be surprised how easy it is to improve morale and you can enjoy the benefits of higher productivity, better retention, lower costs, and an overall happier, more satisfying workplace.
To read his entire article, The Root Causes of Low Employee Morale, click here.
His fifth cause, Make It Real, truly is the root of many morale, trust, relationship and leadership issues in the workplace. He writes:
Suggestion #5—Make It Real
One of the first things to stress with your management team is what's called 'Making It Real.' This means being genuine and believable in interacting with their people. Employees tend to fall into some common negative habit patterns that employees experience when they feel underappreciated. When your managers understand how to be more open and vulnerable with their staff, they work towards trust, respect and improved communication.
'Making It Real' is the answer to the question, 'What is the root cause of low employee morale?' Maybe it's because it's so simple that it is so often missed, but without your people believing you are genuine, honest, and practicing high levels of integrity, any efforts you make to improve morale will be suspect. If you keep this in mind in your dealings with your people, you will be surprised how easy it is to improve morale and you can enjoy the benefits of higher productivity, better retention, lower costs, and an overall happier, more satisfying workplace.
To read his entire article, The Root Causes of Low Employee Morale, click here.
Foul up. Fess up. Fast. Fastidiously.
dispatches from Tom Peters' the new world of work
Foul up. Fess up. Fast. Fastidiously.
SHIT HAPPENS.
SHIT HAPPENS TO YOU AND ME BECAUSE WE SOMETIMES DO STUPID SHIT.
WE RARELY GET IN TROUBLE FOR THE SHIT THAT HAPPENS AS A RESULT OF THE STUPID SHIT WE DO.
WE OFTEN GET IN TROUBLE FOR THE STUPID SHIT WE DO TO AVOID TELLING ABOUT THE SHIT THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THE STUPID SHIT WE DID.
MESSAGE.
FOUL UP.
FESS UP.
FAST.
FASTIDIOUSLY. (Tell the Whole Truth.)
TO ANYONE YOU CAN FIND TO FESS UP TO.
BOSSES.
SUBORDINATES.
THE GUY AT THE BAR.
OR IN THE WEIGHT ROOM.
THEN GET ON WITH LIFE.
I am not a moralist.
I am not arguing that "telling the truth is a ... GOOD THING. (Though I generally think it is.)
I am arguing that telling the truth ASAP is a ... USEFUL-PRAGMATIC-CAREER ENHANCING THING TO DO ... BECAUSE THE BOOGEYMAN IS GOING TO GET YOU IF YOU DON'T. (I.e. bloggers cornering Dan Rather. Rather has a habit of being chased by weird people, come to think of it.)
And, actually, people think it's "cool" when you/me tell the truth—foul up, fess up, fast, fastidiously. (Soooo Cool, that maybe you should fess up to things you haven't done?) (Just a thought.)
Seriously: PEOPLE HAVE VAST RESERVOIRS OF FORGIVENESS FOR SINS INCLUDING STUPID SINS ... AND ARE THIN-SKINNED AS ALL GET OUT ABOUT EVASIVENESS AND CONVOLUTED EXPLANATIONS.
("It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.")
"I screwed up with the customer" beats (by a country mile): "We lost the customer because the customer's people tripped all over themselves and couldn't come to a decision ... blah blah blah."
Or: "THE LIGHTS IN THE ROOM WERE TOO LOW BY WHICH TO SEE MURDEROUS DICTATORS." (Hey, even, "I like the old brute, used to go water skiing with him ..." would have been better. Right?)
FOUL UP.
FESS UP.
FAST.
FASTIDIOUSLY.
Visit Tom Peters' blog: http://www.tompeters.com/
Foul up. Fess up. Fast. Fastidiously.
SHIT HAPPENS.
SHIT HAPPENS TO YOU AND ME BECAUSE WE SOMETIMES DO STUPID SHIT.
WE RARELY GET IN TROUBLE FOR THE SHIT THAT HAPPENS AS A RESULT OF THE STUPID SHIT WE DO.
WE OFTEN GET IN TROUBLE FOR THE STUPID SHIT WE DO TO AVOID TELLING ABOUT THE SHIT THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THE STUPID SHIT WE DID.
MESSAGE.
FOUL UP.
FESS UP.
FAST.
FASTIDIOUSLY. (Tell the Whole Truth.)
TO ANYONE YOU CAN FIND TO FESS UP TO.
BOSSES.
SUBORDINATES.
THE GUY AT THE BAR.
OR IN THE WEIGHT ROOM.
THEN GET ON WITH LIFE.
I am not a moralist.
I am not arguing that "telling the truth is a ... GOOD THING. (Though I generally think it is.)
I am arguing that telling the truth ASAP is a ... USEFUL-PRAGMATIC-CAREER ENHANCING THING TO DO ... BECAUSE THE BOOGEYMAN IS GOING TO GET YOU IF YOU DON'T. (I.e. bloggers cornering Dan Rather. Rather has a habit of being chased by weird people, come to think of it.)
And, actually, people think it's "cool" when you/me tell the truth—foul up, fess up, fast, fastidiously. (Soooo Cool, that maybe you should fess up to things you haven't done?) (Just a thought.)
Seriously: PEOPLE HAVE VAST RESERVOIRS OF FORGIVENESS FOR SINS INCLUDING STUPID SINS ... AND ARE THIN-SKINNED AS ALL GET OUT ABOUT EVASIVENESS AND CONVOLUTED EXPLANATIONS.
("It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.")
"I screwed up with the customer" beats (by a country mile): "We lost the customer because the customer's people tripped all over themselves and couldn't come to a decision ... blah blah blah."
Or: "THE LIGHTS IN THE ROOM WERE TOO LOW BY WHICH TO SEE MURDEROUS DICTATORS." (Hey, even, "I like the old brute, used to go water skiing with him ..." would have been better. Right?)
FOUL UP.
FESS UP.
FAST.
FASTIDIOUSLY.
Visit Tom Peters' blog: http://www.tompeters.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)