Building an Adaptive Organization - part #3

THEME: Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Building an Adaptive Organization - part #3

Monday morning: April 26, 2010

Dear friends,

Building an adaptive organization takes time and attention. It also requires senior leaders to differentiate between urgency, complacency, and false urgency.

As John Kotter wrote in his marvelous book, A Sense of Urgency, Harvard Press, 2008, complacency is a “feeling of contentment or self-satisfaction, especially when coupled with an unawareness of danger or trouble.” It is the product of success or perceived success. Those who are complacent virtually never think they are complacent; they are just content with the status quo. The best way to identify the complacent is by what they do instead of what they say. Kotter also notes that false urgency is almost always the product of failures. It is built on a platform of anxiety and anger.

On the other hand, he explains that a true sense of urgency comes with a “pressing importance.” Those with it want to make real progress every single day. Underlying a true sense of urgency is a set of feelings: a compulsive determination to move, and win, now. Jim Collins in his book, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap. . . and Others Don't. HarperBusiness, 200, notes that part of building a sense of urgency comes when we “confront the brutal facts” and yet “remain optimistic.”

However, my recent experiences have shown me one simple fact, namely we don’t know what we do not know. This has particularly clear to me because once we have a clear sense of urgency, we must also have a clearly defined mission. Since the Fall 2009 From Vision to Action Executive Roundtable, I have been asking many people what is the mission of their organization. The answers have ranged from “I haven’t a clue” to something that resembles gibberish, i.e. words that have no meaning but are strung together in an unintelligible sequence. Upon reflection, I have found one source of this confusion.

Most current organizational mission statements can trace their roots back to the writings of Tom Peter’s book, In Search of Excellence, or Stephen Covey’s book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Based on the material presented, many people began writing mission statements in the early 90’s. A second wave of mission and core value statements were written in the late 90’s and early part of the turn of the century.

Here is where the current problem gets interesting. When these first mission statements were written, there was a high degree of personal interest, urgency and commitment to what was generated. Those involved were passionate about the result. Now, nearly twenty years later, these mission, vision and core value statements have little passion and/or utilization in the organization because the original people involved are no longer employed, moved on, or retired. In short, the original commitment, passion and urgency has been watered down to such a degree that these core documents are, in many organizations, symbolic but not integrated message.

Still, in the midst of this situation, there are very interesting developments. For example, when working with Systems Unlimited on strategic planning, a non-profit in Iowa City, Iowa that offers personalized services to persons with disabilities within their local communities that help people improve and maintain the quality of their life, we discovered that a dialogue about mission and core values amongst key leaders has not only generated a new draft of a mission statement, but also resulted in all key divisions and departments writing their own mission statements. While at first, this may appear to be nothing more than a time consuming activity, the resulting clarity and focus has increased the level of urgency and yielded tremendous new levels of understanding and focus. As one who has been involved in processes like this for quite some time, it was delightfully refreshing to witness people become energized and engaged like those who created the first drafts back in the early 90’s. It is now something that I have recommended to other clients. Those who have done this report to me that this process is generating similar results.

The other thing I have observed about adaptive organizations recently is that they have the ability to understand how decisions are made. Many years ago, I remember sitting with Chris Ahoy, Associate Vice President for Facilities at Iowa State University, and discussing this very subject. We generated a chart that recognized the importance of integrating a trends analysis, capacity analysis and a strategic nexus review before making a strategic decision. He has further refined this chart in his book, Customer-Driven Operations Management: Aligning Business Processes and Quality Tools to Create Operational Effectiveness In Your Company , McGraw-Hill, 2009. As leaders, we have to recognize that we may personally discount certain factors in the rush to make a fast decision. However, if we are to be effective as a senior executive, then this is not an option.

Finally, adaptive organizations understand and define accountability; they know how it is done. There are days when senior executive forget that accountability is a learned behavior. Recognizing that accountability means having a willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions, we need to remember that accountability in adaptive organizations requires us to balance the desire for “perfect” action with the need for experimentation that results in improved performance.

This week, recognize true urgency, understand mission better, and help more people learn what is accountability.

Have a tremendously successful week,

Geery

Geery Howe, M.A.Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer inLeadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational ChangeMorning Star Associates319 - 643 - 2257

Building an Adaptive Organization - part #2

THEME: Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Building an Adaptive Organization - part #2

Monday morning: April 19, 2010

Dear friends,

Last week, I wrote about the importance of doing a better job of diagnosing our problems before creating a solution to them. In particular, I explained how technical problems start with a high level of disequilibrium which goes down over time. Thus, when an executive is facing a technical problem, he or she will often work to define the problem and the right solution, protect the organization from external threats, orient people to current roles, restore order, and maintain organizational norms.

I also pointed out that adaptive problems move in the opposite manner. Adaptive problems often start with a low level of disequilibrium. They do not always impact immediately the cash generating part of the business like a technical problem. Leaders typically respond to an adaptive problem by doing the following: identify the adaptive challenge, frame key questions and issues, identify external threats, redefine roles, resist orienting people to new roles too quickly for fear of reducing adaptive behavior, expose conflict or let it emerge so the solution is not influence by issues being left unresolved, and often challenge norms or let them be challenged given adaptive change requires people to rethink how they are working.

One critical element that Ron Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky point out in their book, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, Harvard Business Press, 2009, is that leaders dealing with adaptive problems need to be observing events and patterns around them constantly and collecting this data as part of the processing. This observation made me remember the work of Noel M. Tichy and Warren Bennis in their article called “Making Judgment Calls: The Ultimate Act of Leadership”, Harvard Business Review, October 2007. Here, these two authors note that the first step in decision-making is what they call the “Preparation Phase.” They point out that leaders need to do a better job of sensing and identifying what is going on with in and around the company. From this information, they need to frame up the problem and name it. Once this is done, they then can mobilize others to work on it and make sure the appropriate resources are available. The key is constant environmental scanning so one can better understand what is happening and look for patterns within the events.

For example, we know today that there are 38.6 million people born between 1925 - 1945. They are often called the Traditionalists generation. Next are the Baby Boomers, born 1946 - 1964, and there are 78.3 million of them. The following generation is called Gen Xers, born 1965 - 1979, and there are 62 million of them. Finally, there are the Millennials, born 1980 - 2001, and there are 92 million of them. As we all know there are vast difference between each of these generations.

As I scan the environment, here are a couple of things I note. First, Gen Xers, who are new to mid-level management, have no experience in delegating. For them, it is easier to do it alone than include others. They also often lack the capacity to coach mostly because they never experienced it except in high school sports and because no one ever taught them. Finally, everything in the book, The One Minute Manager, is new material for them.

On the hand, Trophy Kids or Millennials are loyal to those they work with, not the faceless organizations that pay their salaries. They love positive feedback because it builds confidence and makes them feel secure. Millennials often have a complete disregard for positional leadership, and will react to positional leaders as if they are parents to be argued with when a decision has been made. Finally, most Trophy Kids or Millennials are being coached by people who have no coaching experience and are not very good at giving feedback. By the way, I still believe that the following book is the best one for understanding Millennials: Alsop, Ron. The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the millennial generation is shaking up the workplace, Jossey-Bass, 2008.

This week, scan your environment more closely and share your observations with your team. This will be the first step in preparing them for handling adaptive problems and challenges.

Have a great week,

Geery

Geery Howe, M.A.
Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in
Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change

Morning Star Associates
319 - 643 - 2257

Building an Adaptive Organization - part #1

THEME: Spring 2010 From Vision to Action Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Building an Adaptive Organization - part #1

Monday morning: April 12, 2010

Dear friends,

Recently, after a morning meeting on strategy with a client, I stood up, left the room to get another bottle of water, and then came back in. When I returned, the tension and worry in the room was palpable. The senior executive explained to those gathered that there was a high probability the organization was going to have to lay-off people this June. The goal of this next meeting was to determine how to do it right.

From coast to coast, the number one concern amongst executives is whether or not they have the quality and skill level within their personnel at all levels in the organization to cope with the on-going pressures of this current economy. The second concern is how to manage their organization and continue to deliver positive outcomes, i.e. profit and growth, when their funding streams and budgets are decreasing. Everything else is secondary.

The standard solution to such concerns is to do the following: keep people informed, listen, set clear objectives, match the person with the job, and create meaningful work. While I recognize that all of these are good management activities, I think we need to explore these concerns at a deeper level, recognizing that the goal during challenging times is to create an adaptable delivery model.

The first step in this process is to understand the differences in your problems. Referencing the work of Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky in their book, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, Harvard Business Press, 2009, we need to remember that there basically two kinds of problems. The first is a technical problem whose solution already lies within the organization's repertoire. The second is an adaptive problem which forces the organization to change lest it decline.

A technical problem falls within our range of current problem-solving and expertise. The problem is clearly defined and known solutions can be implemented by accessing current know-how. A leader needs to apply the right person or tool to the problem to create the right solution. Again, the critical part is to realize that the problem can be fixed by applying existing skills, resources and processes.

An adaptive problem, on the other hand, requires new perspective, expertise and solutions. Here, it may be difficult to actually define the problem. Those involved may need to learn new information and confront issues that call into question fundamental assumptions and beliefs. Furthermore, the solution to this problem can only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits and loyalties. In short, it may require a whole new ways of thinking.

Having worked on many of these kinds of problems since the Fall 2009 From Vision to Action Executive Roundtable, I have learned a few things. First, when facing an adaptive problem, people do not know where to start. Typically, their diagnosis of an adaptive problem comes from past technical reference points which are not always helpful.

Second, they attempt to define the problem, determine a solution, and try to implement the solution in a rapid manner. However, as Hieftz and others have noted, “... the common factor for generating adaptive failure is resistance to loss.” The authors of the above mentioned book advise that a key to leadership when dealing with adaptive problems is “the diagnostic capacity to find out the kinds of losses at stake in a changing situation from life and loved ones to jobs, wealth, status, relevance, community, loyalty, identity and competence.” This helps those involved work from a more holistic perspective.

Third, working on an adaptive problems means working at a different pace of change. While a technical problem may cause quite a bit of disequilibrium to status quo in the beginning, an adaptive is typically the opposite. Yet, as the problem is defined, it will cause a raise in the disequilibrium of status quo. Therefore, while a technical problem can be quickly defined and delegated to people to solve, an adaptive problem may need on-going leadership attention and involvement throughout the solution process.

This week, spend more time diagnosing the problem before you rush out to fix it. As Albert Einstein explained, “If I had an hour to save the world, I’d spend 55 minutes defining the problem.”

Have a fantastic week,

Geery

Geery Howe, M.A.
Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in
Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change

Morning Star Associates
319 - 643 - 2257

A New Perspective on Training

THEME: New Year, More Challenges

FOCUS: A New Perspective on Training

Monday morning: April 5, 2010

Dear friends,

The world of training and development is going through a transformation. All subjects are being offered over the internet, because a digital trainers can be downloaded at any time and any place. Years ago, we talked about the importance of just-in-time training. Now, there is a just-in-seconds-or-less training options being offered via the internet. All an employee needs to do is plug in, power up, and then just sit and listen. The miracle of the digital economy is that everything is at your finger tips.

However, in my opinion, this way of learning is meaningless. It is nothing more than TV learning. In a world where everything is fast and getting faster, TV learning has a retention time period in the length of nanoseconds. I recognize that knowledge is dispensed but the form, does not assure that it is learned.

With this in mind, it is time for us to take a different perspective on training. The actual learning process at a company begins when prospective employees are interviewed for a job. The questions that are asked and the answers that are given define what is the best way to match talents with opportunities. It also defines cultural expectations about performance and organizational focus.

Once an employee is hired, national statistics indicate there is a 33% chance of turnover in the first six months. Rather than thinking of on-boarding as filling out paperwork and mandatory HR/Risk Management training, it is time to explore this period in a new light. First, we know that followers bond with leaders before they bond with strategic plans. Second, we also know that people quit who they report to, not always the companies where they work. Therefore, the on-boarding process needs to be the first step in a long bonding period where employees are clear about the culture of the organization, the expectations of the organization and mission of the organization. It also is the next step in relationship building which started during the interview process.

Years ago, I learned that “a loving person lives in a loving world, and an angry person lives in an angry world. Everyone you meet is your mirror.” When we envision on-boarding as more than meetings and begin to truly recognize that it is the foundation for long term employment, then we need to include in the initial relationship building time period, both mirrors and windows. Mirrors to understand where we are coming from as we enter into this new place of work and windows into how this new place of work responds and integrates with it’s service environment. Rather than thinking of this training and development time as an expense which will drain fiscal resources from the company, we now need to think of it as a continuum that will build sustainability into the organization’s strategy and culture.

In an article called “Secrets of an Operational CEO, in the January/February 2010 issue of Chief Executive magazine (www.chiefexecutive.net), Bob Nardelli, CEO of the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, and former CEO of Home Depot and Chrysler, notes “One of the basics in any recovery is finding the best talent. You can never ‘over-talent’ a job in today’s environment.” Later he explains how to develop a talent management strategy. “You have to take it [talent development] seriously as you do any capital investment. When I went to Chrysler, I spent about 240 hours going page by page over the top talent to understand who they were and what their backgrounds and aspirations were.... I had to dig deep to understand what talent I had and elevate some individuals to take some risk.... There’s a saying, ‘If you had a buck, you’d spend 99 cents on talent.’ Rings loud with me. If we’re honest, we all probably have leather-bound binders on the shelf with great strategies that no one will ever know about because we didn’t have the talent to execute them.”

This week rethink training and development. Start by drawing a line with hiring at the beginning to senior management at the end. Then, mark off critical points of learning along this line. The world of training and talent development is deeply connected to the mission of the organization, not just digital trainers on the internet.

Have a fantastic week,

Geery

Geery Howe, M.A.
Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in
Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change

Morning Star Associates
319 - 643 - 2257