06 Nov 09 Chickens, Eggs and Change

There is an interesting debate going on amongst those who have little else to debate these days. The question is this. For effective change to take place, does one first change the organizational structure and systems and then adapt a strategy (and human strategy as well) to fit the new structure and system, or does one start with the strategy and mindset changes and then adapt the systems and structure to fit it?

This is one of those interesting leadership questions because, if you have an answer, you probably believe it is the only logical answer to have. Of course my answer is one of those amazingly frustrating answers for many people. I believe it depends on the change being instituted and the context of the specific leadership and organizational challenge.

In my opinion, it is possible for a full scale and successful change initiative to be instigated by the recognition that current systems, hierarchies and processes are either producing less than desirable results or, more likely, are not creating results quickly enough. This is a carry over from the industrial age that we haven’t quite settled yet. Systems that create efficiency and run at the lowest cost are not necessarily the same systems that create the greatest speed or quality. As I’ve written here before, the obsession with cost reduction has created many organizations that now find themselves able to do things inexpensively, but without innovation or speed to market.

On the other hand, organizations that have flat structures, few complex processes and an innovative mindset are not immune to dealing with change. The current economy for example has hit everybody. Many of these innovative companies (Google, 3M, Apple) have come to recognize that their cowboy mindset worked well in good times, but did not prepare them for the more team-oriented approach that may be necessary today. Yes, these companies have had teams forever, but the kind of collaboration that is necessary now is so entirely cross functional and focused that few organizations are accustomed to it. These aren’t organizational design issues…these are internal issues. In these cases, the mindset has to change first, and the design will follow.

I believe what is most important is the manner in which the change process is approached. First of all, we should quit acting as if the “change process” is a unique and perhaps frequent stand alone event. In the current environment, change is not separate from leadership…it IS leadership. Second, for either design driven or internal driven change to work, stakeholders have to be enlisted early in the game. We have become a complex environment and diverse perspectives will provide the framework for understanding what and how change will enable the new corporate.

Finally, we have to get away from believing that there is one way to either make change happen or even to describe the phenomenon that occurs during change within an organization. We have become comfortable with approaches and theories that date back to a much more stable and industrial age. For change to work, leaders have to have open minds and hearts and be willing to understand that they don’t understand.

“>

Tags: accountability, change, communication, culture, Global Leadership, innovation, Leadership characteristics, trust, vision

31 Jul 09 Accelerated Leadership Development

I was recently approached by a publisher to consider writing a book on “accelerated leadership.” While I may or may not take on this project, I was struck by the concept. For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out exactly what “accelerated” leadership might look like. I finally decided (and am still waiting on clarification from the publisher) that what they actually meant was “accelerated leadership development.” That actually makes sense to me because, in today’s workplace, time is more than money. With the many organizational changes that have been accelerated themselves, it would stand to reason that leaders need to get up-to-speed and highly effective as quickly as possible. Especially in cases where the leadership position developed through re-organization or a change in company priorities. In more cases than I can remember seeing before, leaders are being placed in areas of responsibility for which they are not quite ready.

The idea of accelerating the development of leaders…and development of specific leaders who need the support…is an important topic. It also begs the question, why is it so difficult to speed up the process of leadership learning when the demands are so great and the need is so pressing? I would suggest that the speed of leadership development is, in large part (not entirely) a function of the organizational culture in which the leader operates.

A recent article in the OD Practitioner suggested some interesting issues that are barriers within an organizational culture to learning and performance. While I’m not sure I agree with all of the conclusions (I hardly ever do!), I think there are some interesting findings worth considering in terms of cultural inhibitors to growth. These included:

1. The collective attitudes and established norms. One of the inhibitors to accelerated learning on the part of leaders is the overall attitudes and actions of support (or not) within the organization. This is in part the issue of diversity of opinion and dialogue. On the one hand, if there is AN attitude in the organization about learning, it may be a very cohesive culture. On the other hand, if that attitude and norm diminishes the value of leadership learning and only focuses on the value of leadership action, it might be that it is difficult for leaders to identify their performance gaps and address them.

2. The written and unwritten rules that influence behavior. On this topic I’ve written and spoken a lot. It is less the written rules within the organization that influence behavior than it is the unwritten ones. The issue of “how we do things around here” can dictate exactly the focus of “successful” leaders (defined by the organization.) If the unwritten rule is, to succeed you have to show forcefulness as a leader, then it is difficult to imagine an open mind when it comes to collaborative methods of leadership. These rules of behavior and engagement can not be understimated when it comes to the overall effectiveness of leadership development.

3. Tolerance toward risk and innovation. At the beginning of a leaders development process in a new role, innovation is not only easier it is likely to be desirable by the leader. If I don’t know any better, I may come up with ideas that have not been tried before in order to establish myself as the new person in that role. Unfortunately, in many organizational cultures, the tolerance towards risk is so low that the actual lesson that must be learned by the leader is to not rock the boat. This not only stymies the development of the leader, but the development of the organization as well. If there is a culture of humiliation around failed ideas and innovations, it is unlikely that the new leader will develop quickly into the powerful person he or she has the potential to be.

While a culture like the one above can make things more difficult, it does not have to create an impossible situation. Like with many similar issues, the first step is to acknowledge that these are forces fighting the desired change. Then you can create strategies to address them. It may be that you need to take ownership of your own development if the environment is one that discourages it. You can test the unwritten rules by asking, “Is this what we really believe around here?” And you can deal with risk aversion in large part by doing your research and making sure that everybody is clear on the potential upside as well as the downside. None of this is easy in practice, but unless you take accountability to start the change within your organization, you will be waiting a long time for somebody else to do it.

Tags: accountability, change, culture, leadership development, ownership

07 May 09 Being a Village Elder

One of my long-time friends and colleagues, Shlomo Ben-Hur, used to say that, “When you live in the village, sleep in the village, drink the water and eat the food of the village, before long you become a villager.” While I am probably misquoting what I believe to be a Yiddish saying, hopefully you get the picture. The point of his comment was, if you commit yourself to a particular culture and follow the customs and practices of that culture, eventually you are an active participant in the building and maintenance of that culture.

As leaders, it is important to consider the role we play in establishing the “village culture.” You are not only a village member…you are a village elder. And while village elders are not able to dictate exactly what a culture will be, they are able to determine the laws of the village:

What do we worship around here? Any corporate culture has established within it a set of behaviors and characteristics that define that culture. For example, Cisco’s John Chambers and his top leaders have established teamwork and collaboration as primary characteristics of the corporate culture that are not only adhered to by all but are aggressively protected when people within the organization attempt to be autocratic. What does your organization hold to be holy? What is it within your culture that will not be sacrificed?

With whom do we fight and with whom do we ally? Every village has it’s enemies and it’s allies. The leaders within an organization often determine which is which and the distinction is not always self-evident. In most cases, especially in a capitalist society, the enemy is the competition. Chrysler versus General Motors would be a classic and easy example. But today, with the bankruptcy of Chrysler, the role of General Motors Acceptance Corporation in the future of Chrysler, it is not so easy to understand who is the enemy and who is the ally. It will be difficult to adjust the culture to the new reality and the leaders of both organizations…the village elders…will have to figure out how to make this happen.Are your enemies outside of the organziation or between departments and teams within the organization? Who are your allies?

What do we reward and what do we punish? Every village has it’s internal set of acceptable and desired behaviors. Regardless of what is laminated on the wall as core values or mission/vision statements, the true evidence of a corporate culture comes from the reward/punishment that is meted out by the leaders within the culture. In some organizations, such as Google or W.L. Gore, risk-taking is rewarded based on the thought process, preparation and intent of the risk. In other organizations, risk-taking is punished as dangerous and undesired. What is rewarded and punished in your company? What village laws exist regarding the behavior of employees and leaders?

Of course any metaphor for reality falls short in one aspect or the other. I’m not suggesting that the corporate culture and village comparison is without its faults. It is an interesting exercise however. If you want to change or develop a culture, you have to pay more attention to the unwritten rules than you pay to the corporate policies, statements or HR edicts. It is the laws of the village that are understood…estabilshed and reinforced by leadership behavior…that make the difference.

By the way, if you are interested in this concept, I would also invite you to download the recording of my webinar “Writing the Unwritten Rules: Establishing a Culture of Success.” There are more categories of cultural behavior that are worth considering that are covered in greater detail in this hour-long session.

Tags: chrysler bankruptcy, cisco, corporate culture, culture, gmac, john chambers, unwritten rules

17 Jan 09 Culture of Failure

In my experience, employees in large and small organizations are concerned about taking risk and failure. “Fear of Failure” is one of the greatest inhibitors in these organizations to not only innovation, but to the act of execution itself. When leaders are afraid of making mistakes, they play safe…which is not the job of the leader. Leaders have to be willing to make decisions with partial information in order to achieve the results that are required in most organizations today.

The quandry comes from trying to figure out how to promote a culture of risk-taking while at the same time holding people to high levels of quality. This is an issue that perplexes leaders whether they are in Germany or Japan where quality is a high source of pride or in France or Russia where quality is perceived differently but pride is important.

One way to approach this problem is to realize that when most people say they are afraid of failure, what they are really saying is that they are avoiding embarassment or criticism. Failure itself is inevitable at times and most people know that. For a leader to create a culture of innovation and decision-making, he or she has to adopt a set of behaviors that critically examine the causes of failure while validating the people who were involved. Fear of failure can actually be fear of blame and it is within the power of leaders to establish a culture free of blame. By looking at the results, context and decision making in a particular instance, the focus becomes less on the decision-maker and more on the outcome of the process itself.

Tags: courage, culture, Failure, risk-taking