Introduction
Given all of the large and small changes that are taking place in the world right now, we must remember that a leader can not always protect an organization from change. Some days, unforeseen and unpredictable variables create change within the service landscape, and we have no influence over what is happening on any level. We can only figure out how to respond appropriately. One of the most important choices a leader can make is to figure out how to sustain the organization as it moves through the changes that are happening. From my perspective, this course of action requires an understanding of four core concepts.
Changing the Pace Of Change
First, if we seek to sustain the organization through challenging times, we must understand that it is not the speed of change that is difficult for leaders and companies. Instead, it is the change in pace over time that is difficult and challenging.
When I was actively engaged in strategic planning, I always asked the senior team the following four questions as part of preparing for strategic planning: Who will lead? Where is the vision and who has it? At what pace do you want to go? What should not be lost during the journey of planning? Most leaders involved in this work focused on the Who question related to leadership, and the What question related vision. A few leaders liked to focus on the last of the four questions because it related to stewardship and continuity.
Almost everyone skipped the third question because it involved talking about pace. I believe this is because most leaders just wanted to get past strategic planning and into strategic execution. They thought the solution to all their problems, large and small, was to accelerate the pace of change.
However, few leaders really paused and thought deeply about the pace of change. John Kotter in his book, Accelerate: Building Strategic Agility For A Faster-Moving World (Harvard Business Review Press, 2014), wrote: “The world is now changing at a rate at which the basic systems, structures, and cultures built over the past century cannot keep up with the demands being placed on them. Incremental adjustments to how you manage and strategize, no matter how clever, are not up to the job.” He continues, “... organizations everywhere are struggling to keep up with the accelerating pace of change - let alone get ahead of it.”
I think the root cause of this issue with pace is that we have forgotten that successful companies have a dual operating system. One system is the daily management operating system. This is focused on making sure the trains run on time, for the lack of a better metaphor. It is very hierarchy and structure oriented. It is driven by policies, rules, and procedures. As an operating system, it lets people do what they know how to do exceptionally well in a consistent and timely manner.
The other system is the strategic operating system. This system is focused on the design, communication, and implementation of strategy. It is built to capitalize on big opportunities or to dodge threats. This system involves some of the various elements: innovation, productivity improvement, integration of acquisitions, synchronization of various operations, cultural change, and profitable growth. However, this same system can be minimally effective or even slowed down by the following: a limited number of change leaders and agents within the company, silo parochialism, rules and procedures designed to maintain status quo, external pressure to make quarterly numbers, and complacency or insufficient buy-in to the agreed to strategies the company is pursuing. When the system does work well, all involved are creating and executing the desired strategies throughout the entire company. In short, one system is focused on the day to day while the other is focused on the bigger picture and the long term.
Still, many organizations are “hostage to the present,” notes James Kouzes and Barry Posner in their book, A Leader’s Legacy (Jossey-Bass, 2006). These companies are successful at the operational level, but struggle strategically. Years ago, I had a client tell me this happens because “operational compliance” is more important than strategic execution. All involved are solving today’s problems, but not positioning themselves or the company for known future problems. This reflects a “get’er done” mentality, and a company culture that is not unified.
If we seek to sustain a company through challenging times, we need to understand the role and importance of both operating systems, and to grasp if the issue of pace has changed within the strategic operating system, the daily management operational system, or both at the exact same time. Once this level of clarity has taken place, we can then help people to work with the new speed.
Still, we have to understand the difference between strategic leaders and operational leaders. As Joel Kurtzman in his book, Common Purpose: How Great Leaders Get Organizations to Achieve The Extraordinary (Jossey-Bass 2010), explains, “Strategic leaders are people within organizations who plot the course... Strategic leaders generally can think far into the future...The best of these people understand where the future is going and how to get there.” He continues “The role of operational leaders is quite different from those of strategic leaders. Operational leaders make certain the trains run on time, the manufacturing processes are adequate, the logistics systems work, the technicians are well trained, and the the trucks are where they are supposed to be.... like strategic leaders, operational leaders are vital to an organization’s success.” When we grasp this difference and understand that each leader routinely confronts a combination of technical and adaptive problems, and wrestles with questions related to their role, how much initiative they can take to solve problems, and their ability to make progress in any significant way on either the day to day work or the strategic level goals, we begin to realize that pace is a major issue for all involved.
To be continued on Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment