How do leaders successfully deal with accelerated change, chronic uncertainty and rampant complexity? - part #3

This morning I have been thinking about an interaction I had at the Spring 2019 From Vision to Action Executive Roundtable. Myself and another person were walking down the hall toward the conference room where the Roundtable was to take place. I turned to the other person and asked “How long have we been working together?”

He replied, “Since November 1999. Do you remember when we first met?”

I thought for a moment and said, “I am sorry to say I don’t.”

He continued, “It was November 1999. You keynoted a conference that I attended. I was a first time CEO and I asked you after your presentation what I needed to know and do as a new leader. You told me to read the book, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring To Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead  by Belasco and Stayer, and then to call you to discuss it.”

I smiled.

He continued the story by saying, “I did read the book and then I called you.” And with that, he quoted two of the most powerful lines from this book:

“Transfer ownership for work to those who execute the work.”

“Create the environment for ownership where each person wants to be responsible for his/her own performance.”

In times of accelerated change, chronic uncertainty and rampant complexity, we want people to own the work they are doing. We also want these same people to have a clear picture inside of them about what is a “great performance”. And finally, we want all the systems and structures to align and support that “great performance” at the individual, team and organizational levels.

As I wrote last week, I believe the foundation upon which ownership, clarity and alignment is built starts with the senior leadership team. The challenge for us at this time is to realize that within complex change the leader’s job with their team and the organization as a whole is to engage in active inquiry. 

Many years ago Stephen Covey explained it this way: “seek first to understand; second to be understood.” Active inquiry is based upon persistent and thoughtful inquiry through questions.

This past summer I worked with many different leadership teams as they began planning for the future. In particular, I was working with a senior leadership team where I asked three foundational questions:

- What is going right?

- What shouldn’t change as you execute a new strategic plan?

- What does growth mean to all of you?

In one particular circumstance, every single senior leader at the table would make a statement. No one asked questions. The CEO was stunned. There was no thoughtful inquiry.

At the end of the day, the CEO asked me for my analysis of the day’s meeting and I respond with “I don’t know if you can get there from here with this group of people. The day was all posture and no dialogue. They are senior managers but there was little senior leadership behaviors displayed at the individual or group level.”

Upon considerable reflection, I have figured out that complex times and changes require more interactive communication at multiple levels within the organization. The goal of which is to create understanding, trust and a level of dialogue where by we may discover “positive deviance”, i.e. a solution or set of solutions that may already working within the organization itself, rather than looking to outside people and companies for best practices or clues about how to proceed. Furthermore, interactive communication can redirect our attention from “what’s wrong” to “what’s right” 

 

This week, sit down and do your own reflecting. Ask yourself the following two questions: 

- Where are we building safe, respectful, and trusting work environments so all involved will commit to decisions and plans of action? 

- Where are we building time and space into our daily lives so we have the courage to hold one another accountable to delivering those plans?

Now is the time to work for a better future.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

The goal of the plan is to have it be owned and understood by those who have to execute it; the goal is not just to get it done.

When a senior team comes to the realization that the organization needs a new strategic plan, it is “all hands on deck.” Meetings are organized. Charts and graphs are created. People go into a frenzy of goal setting. Metrics abound. There is a rush to create the document so that the really important work of execution can take place. 

Some times, a strategic planning consultant is brought in to make it go faster and to be better organized. If that person is me, one of the first things I do is to stop the entire goal setting madness and slow things down. I remind people that the purpose of strategic planning is way more than creating a document in record time so that everyone can get it done in even faster time period.

Instead, I point out that the purpose of strategic planning is to create a process and a document where by the people who will do the work own it and understand why this is the best plan given the challenges before the organization and their industry. When people understand the WHY behind the plan and feel like they had a voice in creating it, then, when it is time to execute the plan, the plan is framed up as “our plan” rather than senior management’s plan.

When we create a process that results in clarity, commitment and ownership, then we have created something that is amazingly powerful, namely the desire to want to execute the plan. This is the secret to creating a strategic mindset which will be the foundation for creating multiple strategic plans over time.

This week focus on the process of building ownership and understanding. It will make a world of difference.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

The Problem With Solving Problems

Every day, a person in a management or leadership position is confronted with a problem. Instantaneously, they go into action mode. The goal of which is to solve the problem, and thus restore order and predictability within the company. The challenge is that every time a leader solves a problem they also create one. While this may not seem evident at the start, it is still a basic fact of the world of leadership and management.

First, in order to become a leader, one has to solve many problems. These problems usually take place at the front line position or front line supervisor level. The better you are at doing this the more people see you as having potential and capacity.  As a result, you get better and better at solving problems, because you are getting positive feedback about how well you are doing it.

Next, people in upper management notice that you are very good at problem solving so they move you up within the organization so you can solve more problems. Therefore, you move from being a front line supervisor to a middle manager. Upper managers are pleased and you are delighted to be solving more problems.

Now, in this new position the problems are bigger and more complicated. But, because of your early successes, you lean into them and give it your all. Slowly and then faster, you solve more and more problems. As a result, you get more and more positive feedback. Once the praise starts rolling in, you double down and lean in harder and faster. Now, you want to solve all the problems.

With this forward momentum, and when a position opens up within the senior management of the company, you are considered to be a “high potential candidate.” With your track record on problem solving, you ultimately get the job. And then things stop working out so well for you. 

First, there are operational problems, and strategic problems. They both need solving. The challenge is that by solving one you may actually create more problems in the other area. And the big question is which problem to solve first, the operational one or the strategic one.

Second, there are technical problems and adaptive problems. Technical problems have known solutions. All a leader needs to do is connect the right person with the current know-how to solve the problem. Adaptive problems, on the other hand, require a new perspective or expertise, and often challenge fundamental systems and/or beliefs. Solving these kinds of problems require learning about new ways of thinking otherwise the company as a whole may decline. The difficulty is that one person’s adaptive problem may be another’s technical problem or vice a versa. Sometimes, the problem is both technical and adaptive.

Third, what got you to the senior level, namely your ability to solve problems, is now a problem unto itself. Everyone has learned that you are the best problem solver. So, rather than solve them themselves, they just bring them all to you. Now, there are more problems to solve and no time to solve them. What at first was a good skill has now become a liability, because none of your direct reports think they can solve a problem. Your actions have taught them that only you can solve the problem. In short, solving a problem has created many more problems.

There is a solution to organizational problem solving. You need to learn how to be a better manager and leader. You have to unlearn that you are the center of all problem solving and instead learn how to create a team, a department, a division and then a whole company of problem solvers. In short, you have to become a leader of problem solvers rather than the chief problem solver of the company.

And this is where the 2018 From Vision to Action Leadership Training fits into the problem solving process. Through a challenging, interactive curriculum which blends lectures, selected readings, small and large group discussions, and how to skill-building exercises, participants in this four part leadership training gain critical knowledge and skills which improve their ability to lead people, to define problems, and better ways to solve operational and strategic level problems.

For more information on this in-depth training and how to register for the 2018 From Vision to Action Leadership Training, please click on the following link: http://www.chartyourpath.com/VTA-Leadership-Training.html 

Solving problems happens every day in the world of management and leadership. It comes with the territory. The key is to make sure that those who have the problem own it and solve it themselves. Then, you as the leader and they as the employees of the company can move forward successfully together. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

The Three Definitions of Strategy

After the morning strategic update by the CEO, I was sitting at a table over lunch with a mix of senior executives and middle managers when she turned to me in between bites and asked the following question: “So, how do I think strategically on a daily basis?”

It was a good question. I responded by saying: “It all depends on how you define the word “strategy.”

When I teach the From Vision to Action Leadership Training, I continually point out to all involved that the word strategy is a big word. Often used and rarely understood, most executive choose only one definition of it and instantly cause themselves and others many problems.

So, let’s dive into the first definition. Strategy is an extensively premeditated, carefully built, long term plan designed to achieve a particular goal. People like this definition because it is precise, focused and will generate an outcome. At the end of the day, we can say “we did it” and have a party.

However, the best leaders know that there is more to strategy. Every strategic commitment has a decay rate. This is the recognition that from the time it took to create the initial ideas for the plan to the moment the strategic plan is ready for sharing, all of our best thinking and analysis goes into the document. But, once the document is printed, everyone wants to “get it done.”  What they miss in their understanding of strategy is that it has to be adaptable by nature due to unforeseen variables not considered during the planning stage rather than a rigid set of instructions or tactics. Without the recognition of the strategic decay rate, strategy has the potential to create organizational vulnerability.

The third definition of strategy recognizes that to create strategy can be as simple as one to three people sitting around a table writing stuff down. “So, what do you want to get done during the next 1-3 years?” asks one person to another. “Here is my list,” says the first to the second. And the third person is madly writing it all down on a flip chart or typing it up. In the end, strategy is created, but not owned and understood by those who have to execute the plan.  What most leaders fail to recognize is that successful strategy serves an important function in promoting ongoing evolutionary success. Strategy is not a one time affair but an on-going and in-depth process of creating clarity, ownership, and focus over time.  

In short, strategy is a an extensively premeditated, carefully built, long term plan designed to achieve a particular goal. But for successful leaders, it is much more than a document created on an annual basis. It is a commitment to thinking deeply and more holistically. And this is what separates the great strategy from the good strategy.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

What You Envision, Guides

It was a simple and yet comfortable office as we sat down together that afternoon in the early 90’s.

“Geery,” he commented. “I know rural healthcare in the midwest is not fancy, but we need a vision. We are dying for a vision.”

We sat quietly for a couple of moments and then he said to me, “We need to become the Embassy Suites of healthcare in our community. We need to deliver individualized service, personalized care, and exceptional medicine.”

I smiled because the birth of a vision is always special. The next afternoon he shared this vision with the executive team and many people agreed. They shared their thoughts about the best hotels they visited and how the quality of the service was critical. They talked about what the words “individualized”, “personalized” and “exceptional” meant to them. With time, coaching and guidance, people became engaged, and the vision grew and evolved.

The second of The Core Four Actions states “What you envision, guides.” When we review the dictionary definition for the word, “envision”, we find the following meanings: “to picture”, “to form in the mind”, “to exercise the powers of judgment, conception, or inference”, and “to have in the mind or call to mind a thought.” When reading these definitions, I am reminded of a quote by Marcus Buckingham about leadership. As he wrote in his book, The One Thing You Need to Know ... About Great Managing, Great Leading, and Sustained Individual Success, Free Press, 2005: “You must become adept at calling upon those needs we all share. Our common needs include the need for security, for community, for authority, and for respect, but for you, the leader, the most powerful universal need is our need for clarity.  To transform our fear of the unknown into confidence in the future, you must discipline yourself to describe our joint future vividly and precisely. As your skill at this grows, so will our confidence in you.”

I also am reminded of something that William Bridges in his book, Managing Transitions, Da Capo Press, 2003, pointed out. During transitions, he noted, people need the following:

- The Purpose: the answer to the question “why?”

- The Picture: the look and feel when we reach the goal

- The Plan: the step-by step goals of how we are going to get to the above picture

- The Part: clarity about our role in the process

When confronted with the challenges and complexity of strategic change, we as leaders need to generate a picture which will guide us. A good vision, according to Dan Cohen in his book, The Heart of Change Field Guide: Tools and Tactics for Leading Change in Your Organization, Harvard Business School Press, 2005, offers a compelling, motivating picture of the future and serves several important purposes. First, it clarifies the general direction of change by providing a kind of motion picture - a living, dynamic illustration - of the behaviors required for success at all levels. Second, it helps identify the behaviors that must be encouraged as well as those that must be eliminated. Third, a good vision helps pinpoint key performance measures, and motivates people.

Neeli Bendapudi, professor, and Venkat Bendpadudi, senior lecturer at The Ohio State University’s Fischer College of Business in their article “How to Use Language that Employees Get”, in the September 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review, write: “In our research on executives who have instilled a great sense of purpose in others, introduced powerful brands, or managed successfully in turbulent times, we’ve found that they often use terms and metaphors that resonate with their employees.” This is the essence of a great vision and the second of the The Core Four Action.  When you build a great vision, it resonates with all involved. They not only hear it. They also feel it. When planning for change, it is important to build a vision that people can utilize.

The difficulty is that many leaders approach the process like a chess master rather than a gardener. As General Stanley McChrystal with Tantum Collins, David Silverman and Chris Fussell write in their book, Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement For A Complex World, Portfolio/Penguin, 2015: “The temptation to lead as a chess master, controlling each move of the organization, must give way to an approach as a gardener, enabling rather than directing. A gardening approach to leadership is anything but passive. The leader acts as an “Eyes-On, Hands-Off” enabler who creates and maintains an ecosystem in which the organization operates.”

As we grow the right kind of working environment within a company, we also create the opportunity for a vision to not only be heard, but also, over time and with consistent good role modeling by leaders, owned and understood by those who have to execute it. The key is create a vision that moves from being “a vision” to being “our vision.”  

This sounds simple but it is not easy. The first step is create a high degree of trust within the organization. The second, and also important, step is to create a vision worth following.

This week, step back from the day to day rush and envision a better future. Then, begin the journey of sharing it with others. With their insights and clarity, you have the potential to create something that all of us will own and execute during the coming years. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

How do leaders create an understanding of a problem and buy-in for the solution? - part #2

One of the biggest challenges to creating buy-in for the solution to a problem starts with creating the environment for understanding and ultimately ownership of the problem. This means we have to help employees feel that they are technically competent to deal with the problem but also committed and motivated to deal with it. This is why more leaders need to read or routinely review the following book: Lencioni, Patrick. The Three Signs of a Miserable Job: A Fable for Managers (and their employees), Jossey-Bass 2007. This is a great resource for building the right environment for ownership.

Second, John P.  Kotter and Lorne A. Whitehead in their book, Buy-In: Saving Your Good Idea From Getting Shot Down, Harvard Business Review Press, 2010, write that the elements that work together to achieve buy-in happen when we capture peoples’ attention, and then “with people paying attention, winning over the minds and their hearts.” From my experience and observations, people only do this when they feel safe and cared for by their managers and supervisors.

Finally, while this may seem immensely simplistic, the best leaders at helping people buy-in to a solution show how the solution and it’s related new behaviors and practices will lead to improved results. While this may not be a latest and greatest, hot-off-the-press, best-seller, new idea, it is nevertheless a practical one. When people see improved results, they support and advocate for the solution to continue.

This week, keep building the right environment for ownership, and keep helping people to see improved results. It will make a world of difference for all involved.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Change Is The Only Constant

Right now all across the country and around the globe, change has become the only constant, and people are reacting in a normal and dynamic manner. Thus, leaders at all levels need to routinely engage in more strategic level dialogues to create continuous clarity and focus. The challenge is that few people understand what is a strategic level dialogue and why it is important. 

In the beginning, think of a strategic level dialogue as a free flowing conversation about context, strategy and operational excellence. The goal is to help people improve their capacity to build, define, share and engage at a more strategic level. When they better understand the why and how elements rather than just the what to do next elements of their job, they can then make new and better strategic choices and transform those choices into consistent communication and action at both the strategic and operational levels.

Nevertheless, many leaders say they are too busy to spend time visiting with people. Now I know that many of them are getting caught in the trap that things are more important than people, but few recognize that the time spent visiting with people in a strategic level dialogue allows their colleagues and partners to better transform awareness and understanding into commitment and responsibility.

Still, I can hear someone in a management and supervisory position telling me that it would just be easier to simply tell people the strategy rather than  engage in a dialogue about it. Here, I refer them back to the work of James Belasco and Ralph Stayer from their book, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring to Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead. As they wrote, "The primary purpose of strategic planning is not to strategically plan for the future, although that's an important purpose of the exercise.  It is primarily to develop the strategic management mind-set in each and every individual in the organization. The purpose of the process is not only to produce a plan. It is to produce a plan that will be owned and understood by the people who have to execute it."

We as leaders have to recognize that in many companies, there are dual operating systems, i.e. one for day to day business and one for the design and implementation of strategy. It is the second one that is focused on continual development and communication of strategy. This is the one that will create a strategic mindset, the unification of understanding about context, strategy and operational excellence. When this takes place, we have the potential for creating strategic ownership.

So, how do we actually do a strategic level dialogue? First, it can happen any time and any where. Over coffee or over a meal, the key is to start with some excellent questions like the ones I shared last week in this blog.

Once you have asked a question, listen carefully to the answers. As the late Stephen Covey reminded us, “seek first to understand and second to be understood.” Build a common ground and perspective, and remember to connect everything back to the strategic nexus the union of mission, vision, values and the strategic plan.

Given constant change is the new normal, now is the time to hold more strategic dialogues. Can you afford to have less clarity rather than more clarity in your organization at this time period?

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Holding People Accountable - part #1

Accountability is the new buzz word. Just like excellence in the late 80’s and empowerment in the 90’s, everyone is talking about it and few comprehend how to actually do it.

First, we need to recognize that most people’s definition of accountability is typically a reaction to something happening or not happening rather than a proactive choice. The former happens when something or someone upsets status quo. The later happens when we as leaders are willing to take responsibility for our actions, to do what we said we were going to do, and to ask for support before we need it. In short, accountability from a leadership perspective is the willingness of a person to call their peers or direct reports on performance or behaviors that might hurt the team or the company. 

Even though it is a buzz word, accountability is still important. Without it, we can not achieve our strategic goals. Our change process will break down without it. Accountability plays a role in building ownership and it creates enhanced teamwork and trust 

After listening to many leaders talk about accountability this year, and discussing it with them, it has come clear to me that accountability in the realm of leadership is all about results. In particular, it is about driving for results through others. It starts with setting clear expectations, having well defined goals and giving feedback routinely.

Proactive accountability helps the organization reach it’s collective goals. The success of accountability reflects the depth of ownership and understanding about what are our individual and collective results. Thus, line of sight and ownership are connected. In short, the purpose of holding someone accountable is to improve their performance, to help them become a better employee, and to achieve our collective results.

The main problem with accountability right now is ambiguity. Poorly defined goals, low or unclear expectations, and irregular progress reviews or coaching sessions cause many problems. Most people being held accountable end up feeling defensive, loose their self-confidence, become more confused than clear and feel wounded rather than competent.

To successfully be held accountable and to accept it in a positive manner, people have to know their SMART goals before accountability works. But more important, they need to be clear about the results or desired outcomes we are seeking. In short, they have to know what is expected of them.

This week, gather your team together and discuss what is the difference between reactive vs. proactive accountability. It will make a world of difference.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Building Clarity and Ownership

Clarity without ownership is non-action. Ownership without clarity is fruitless action. Clarity with ownership is effective action.

The challenge for many leaders this coming summer is to increase the level of effective action. And the first step in that process is to remember a key concept written by James Belasco and Ralph C. Stayer in their book, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring To Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead, Time Warner, 1994.  In it, Belasco and Stayer write that it is critical to “transfer ownership for work to those who execute the work.” From my perspective, we start this process by creating role clarity which includes role responsibility. For example, by clarifying who should make certain decisions and how they will be held accountable for them, we are creating a fresh perspective. When we explain how effective action will be measured, we give people the tools to act like owners. As Belasco and Stayer wrote many years, “Am I creating owners or dependents?... If you want them to act like it’s their business, make it their business.”

Second, the same authors note that we need to “create the environment for ownership where each person wants to be responsible for his/her own performance.” Having a strategic nexus, i.e. a clear mission, vision and core values that are used and referenced daily plus an effective strategic plan that actually guides the organization, transforms ownership from being a concept into being a cultural foundation for action.

Next, the authors remind us to “focus individuals on the few factors that create great performance.” This happens, from my perspective, when we clarify the difference between goals and priorities, and explain as leaders how our actions impact the whole organization.

Building clarity and ownership is a daily process. It takes time and consistent action. However, when it becomes part of one’s daily discipline, it can be transformative for all. This week, focus on creating more clarity and ownership. It is an investment with a fantastic return.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

An Interesting Perspective On The Development of Strategy

For many years, I have asked participants in the From Vision to Action Leadership Training to read the book, Leading Change by John Kotter, the Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership, Emeritus at the Harvard Business School and the cofounder of Kotter International. Given Kotter’s eight step model for organizational transformation, first presented back in the mid-nineties, is the national and international gold standard for successful organizational change, it is always important to keep up with his current thinking. Recently, he wrote the lead article for the November 2012 issue of the Harvard Business Review on it’s 90th anniversary called “Accelerate!: How the most innovative companies capitalize on today’s rapid-fire strategic challenges - and still make their numbers. Here is the link: http://hbr.org/2012/11/accelerate/ar/1

The article begins with the following premise: “Although traditional hierarchies and processes - which together form a company’s “operating system” - are optimized for day-to-day business, they can’t handle the challenges of mounting complexity and rapid change.” Therefore, Kotter suggests the development of “a second operating system, devoted to the design and implementation of strategy, that uses an agile networklike structure and a very different set of processes. The new operating system continually assesses the business, the industry, and the organization, and reacts with greater agility, speed, and creativity than the existing one. It complements rather than overburdens the hierarchy, thus freeing the later to do what it’s optimized to do. It actually makes enterprises easier to run and accelerates strategic change.”

According to Kotter in this article, there are three main differences between his original eight-step method for successful large-scale change and the eight “accelerators” for the development of strategy. The first difference is that the eight step method for organizational transformation is sequential while the eight accelerators for the development of strategy are “concurrent and always at work.” The second difference is that the former is “usually driven by a small, powerful core group, whereas the accelerators pull in as many people as possible from throughout the organization to form a volunteer army.”  The third difference is that the former is “designed to function within a traditional hierarchy, whereas the accelerators require the flexibility and agility of a network.” 

The eight accelerators that create this high degree of strategic fitness are similar in many ways to the eight step model, e.g. “create a sense of urgency around a single big opportunity,” “build and maintain a guiding coalition,” etc. However, this complementary system for strategic development, according to Kotter, is based on the following five key principles, namely “many change agents, not just the usual few appointees”, “a want-to and a get-to not just a have-to-mind-set”, “head and heart, not just head”, “much more leadership, not just more management”, and “two systems, one organization.”

First, while I like the idea of dual operating systems as a way to explain how strategy is developed and communicated, I am not entirely sure that Kotter’s new model is all that new. I have seen numerous organizations over the last 20+ years create this dual operating system model without out calling it something new and different. While Kotter’s new model is very specific in how the strategic development operating system should be created, I think many large and small companies can embrace the idea and then modify it in simple ways to meet their needs. 

Second, I do not know if they need to create an entire networklike structure that runs parallel to their traditional hierarchy to formulate and implement strategy. The best companies that I have seen each have a unique system for the on-going development of strategy. However, from my perspective, the critical part to their successful implementation of strategy revolves around the generation of a deep level of clarity, ownership, and understanding of strategy within the entire organization. It is the clarity that makes the strategy effective not simply having an entirely separate structure for the development of strategy.

Third, I also want to note that in the later half of this article Kotter explains that he has only utilized this new method in eight companies, and that it is critical for the strategic development guiding coalition to be in close communication with the more traditional executive management team. Furthermore, according to Kotter, if a company is based on a control-oriented hierarchy, this new model is quite helpful. But, having taught leadership since the eighties and been involved with countless strategic development projects, I find very few companies with control based hierarchies to be successful and strategically agile. Control based methods of working and leading people are typically the main problem for why the company is struggling strategically. From my perspective, if one changes this form of leadership, then many of the problems will fade away related to strategic development and implementation. 

Still, I do encourage everyone to read this article as over the years Kotter’s perspectives always generate considerable discussion and introspection throughout the world of business. And who knows, maybe in twenty years it will become the new gold standard for strategic development. Until then, keep reading and learning!

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Improving Front Line Supervisors Effectiveness - part #2

Last Monday, we began exploring how to improve front line supervision.  When ever this topic surfaces, we need to remember The Law of the Whole, namely that change in one part influences and changes all other parts. 

Our goal as a leader is to help front line supervisors to achieve clarity in the following three areas, namely role clarity and definition, individual and team expectations, and organizational systems, processes and metrics. We also need  to remember that if we change any of these three things, we have impacted, if not changed, the other two. We also have to realize that our understanding of each of these three things might not be the same as the supervisor, their direct reports, or the customers.  Therefore, we need to spend more time creating clarity rather than simply telling supervisors what to do.

Furthermore, Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Three Signs of a Miserable Job: A Fable for Managers (and their employees), Jossey-Bass 2007, wrote that there are three core problems that many people experience at work. They are as follows:

- Anonymity: People cannot be fulfilled in their work if they are not known.

- Irrelevance: Everyone needs to know that their job matters, to someone.

- Immeasurement: Employees need to be able to gauge their progress and level of contribution for themselves.

Whenever, I read this list, written by Lencioni in 2007, I think back to what James Belasco and Ralph C. Stayer wrote much earlier in their book, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring To Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead (Time Warner, 1994). These two authors believed that creating the environment for ownership and responsibility was mission critical to success. The foundation of this environment revolved around four key concepts:

- Transfer ownership for work to those who execute the work.

- Create the environment for ownership where each person wants to be responsible for his/her own performance.

- Coach the development of individual capability and competence.

- Learn fast.

When it comes to improving front line supervision, the above list is a great place to start.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Maintaining Operational Excellence During Constant Change

“Do you ever coach more than one person in an organization?” the CEO asked me during our morning coaching session. 

“Often,” I responded. “Why do you ask?”

“I have this guy who runs one of our divisions who is really good with the customer, really good with quality but he is old school and not so good with people. 30% turnover is the norm in that division. We need to improve that and get better.”

“Yes,” I nodded. “And then you will have to balance constant change with constant improvement. This will not be easy.”

Years ago, in an early session of the From Vision to Action Leadership Training, a former agriculture salesman shared a simple truth with me, “the bigger the burger, the bigger the bun.” Right now, the burger, i.e the moment of truth when a customer engages with your products and services, is more important than ever. Therefore, we need to look at the bun, namely the four pillars that support the burger, i.e. people structure, systems and culture.

As we all know, change can come in two basic forms: doing things better or doing things differently. However, the majority of operational excellence is focused on maintaining SOP, which means doing things the same. As leaders, we at times forget that there are a lot of systems and infra-structure engaged in this level of work. We also forget that real change requires real effort. And today in companies all over the globe, most of the effort is focused on maintaining order rather than making things better or different.

Now the common solution to this situation is to generate SMART Goals, i.e. specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound goals. However from my vantage point, the real solution is to translate SMART Goals into SMART Execution. 

First, there is an assumption related to SMART Goals and operational excellence, namely that all SMART goals are owned and understood by those who are going to do the work rather than imposed by those who manage the work. From what I hear and see, ownership is low right now and imposition by external forces to do better and be more profitable is high and getting higher. For SMART Goals to become SMART Execution, we must have ownership. 

Second, SMART Execution assumes a leader, manager or supervisor is actively involved in monitoring and coaching someone on their progress related to the SMART Goals. Right now there are few good coaches and fewer people who are committed to do it. When time becomes pressurized by operational problem solving, then coaching falls by the wayside. For SMART Execution to take place, coaching is a non-negotiable. Every one must do it and participate in it on a regular basis.

As SMART Execution takes place, we need to realize that other people’s perceptions may take time to change. As we all know, each of us carries preconceived notions of other people and other departments. We are often prejudiced by experience and information. When SMART Execution takes place, we need to understand that changing perceptions takes time and awareness. Often people during constant change are not very aware as much as just coping. 

Furthermore, the more things change, the more things stay the same which is a problem during SMART Execution. Few people plan for distractions, competing goals or the proverbial “once in a lifetime” short-term profit opportunities to appear, but they do show up and it does happen. 

At the same time, few people plan and invest time and energy into the maintenance element of what ever they are seeking to change. Remember the line: If you build it, they will come. From my perspective, go ahead and build it but also remember to have dollars set aside for re-shingling the roof, fixing the toilet and providing three good meals a day. 

For many leaders, the fun is in the building of the SMART Goals. But wise people know that there is more to life than just building new goals. Someone must move from creating the goals to executing them. SMART Execution may not always be glamorous but the discipline of SMART Execution is the foundation to sustainability and excellence.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

A Blinding Flash of the Obvious

Tom Peters would often share in his lectures about “a blinding flash of the obvious,” namely an insight or perspective that would make your head spin. Having worked with numerous groups and people over the course of the summer, I think we all need some more blinding flashes of the obvious. Here are a few for your review.

First, let’s remember Collins’ brilliant insight that “Good is the enemy of great.” There are times when this should be handed out at the start of every meeting for the next 30 days so people will quit settling for “good” and instead have the discipline, fortitude, courage and clarity to seek great over good. Too many times this summer, I witnessed good and even OK as acceptable standards and behaviors in many companies. It is a far cry from greatness when we let mediocrity be acceptable.

Second, we need to continue working on a key idea from James Belasco, and Ralph C. Stayer’s book called Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring To Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead (Time Warner, 1994). As they write, “Transfer ownership for work to those who execute the work.” Brilliantly simplistic and yet so many people haven’t a clue about how to do this. Most forget that when we create “an environment for ownership where each person wants to be responsible for his/her own performance” then we are creating the opportunity to transfer ownership to those who do it on a daily basis. It is the ownership environment that holds the key to be prepared for the future.

Finally, back to Collins in his book, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap. . . and Others Don't. HarperBusiness, 2001, where he writes “all good-to-great companies began the process of finding a path to greatness by confronting the brutal facts of their current reality... When you start with an honest and diligent effort to determine the truth of your situation, the right decisions often become self-evident. It is impossible to make good decisions without infusing the entire process with an honest confrontation of the brutal facts.” Brutal facts in combination with some good old fashioned faith and hope make a major difference.

Every day there are moments when a blinding flash of the obvious could happen. Open your eyes to the possibilities and keep educating those around you to do likewise. Remember: common sense is not always that common.

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

Leading Through Complexity: The Core Four Actions - Part #3

THEME: Fall 2009 From Vision to Action Executive Roundtable Report

FOCUS: Leading Through Complexity: The Core Four Actions - Part #3

Monday morning: November 9, 2009

Dear friends,

The third of the The Core Four Actions states “What you steward, endures.” For many people, stewardship is the monthly tithe at the church, or the occasional reminder that a good farmer cares for the soil as much as the crops. For some, it is an act of doing nothing about something that is completely intangible.

When we go to the dictionary and look up the word “steward”, it states that stewardship is “a responsibility to take care of something one does not own.” Reading it this morning, I am reminded of what James Belasco and Ralph Stayer wrote in their book, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring To Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead , Time Warner, 1994: “The primary purpose of strategic planning is not to strategically plan for the future, although that's an important purpose of the exercise. It is primarily to develop the strategic management mind-set in each and every individual in the organization. The purpose of the process is not only to produce a plan. It is to produce a plan that will be owned and understood by the people who have to execute it.” One huge learning for leaders who embrace stewardship is for them to recognize that we really do not “own” the organization’s mission, vision, or core values. We are caretakers of them. The same goes, on one level, with the strategy and the strategic plan. We do not own strategy as a possession as much as take care of it and make sure that it is not loss in SOP and tactical execution.

For me, stewardship is a proactive and thoughtful leadership action revolving around the following four words: intention, integration, intensive and interactive. First, successful stewardship is the intentional management of key ideas, systems, and perspective. Too often, senior leaders and midlevel managers forget that having a strategic plan is not executing a strategic plan. The later requires discipline while the former requires patience.

Second, successful stewardship is integral to the development and execution of strategy. Through stewardship, we decide what business we are in and what business we are not in. And this is no small piece of work.

Third, successful stewardship is an intensive act of leadership. Every day, it seems we have to balance our history, our present obligations, our expectations and our challenges plus our future desires, hopes and visions. Every word we as leaders speak and every action we take, or do not take, sets a precedent within the organization and in the community. To balance all of these expectations, we have to consciously manage what is most important, i.e. the strategic nexus.

This leads us to the fourth key point about successful stewardship. It is interactive leadership. Think strategic dialogue. For example, in many no-profits, being successful has been a qualitative measure. If we had a good story to tell, we were successful. With the changes that have taken place in the last number of years, now successful non-profits have to be both qualitative and quantitative. We need to share the stories and the metrics. To do this, we need to engage with staff at all levels, listening and sharing about what is most important, and explaining how we measure our success in this new environment.

This week, remember that stewardship is intentional, integrated, intensive and interactive.

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