Finding the Yin and Yang of Leadership Culture

/2 Comments/in , , /by

All I ever needed to know about leadership culture came from two stickers on a desk 30+ years ago.

This is an article on reflection on and appreciation of the lessons one’s childhood can provide. As a parent, I’m fond of thinking about how kids see the world. As I’ve grown, I’ve realized many of the lessons I needed for later in life were right in front of me. It only took time to understand them.

First, some autobiography…

I had the great privilege to grow up around a couple of entrepreneurs.

No, let me rephrase that…

I had the great privilege to grow up around a couple of drop dead risk takers.

Few people get to do that.

That privilege came with the ups and the downs of business ownership in an era of significant change. I was immersed in both the elation of business success and the absolute devastation of bankruptcy.

My childhood included vacations in Aspen and L.A.–a real treat for a kid living on the Gulf Coast–followed by an extended stint living with relatives and years of palming a “free or reduced lunch” card to the lunch lady at my high school.

Such is life, and I’m a lot better for it.

Still, I learned about what risk is and isn’t; and about what accountability, likewise, is and isn’t.

The cool part, though, is what I learned by osmosis in those years of walking around smaller businesses and the people in them. In that environment I had free rein to explore all kinds of cool equipment, and to interact with all sorts of people.

One of the businesses was a private ambulance service, the other was a telephone answering service.

In one business, I got to play around in an old Cadillac ambulance like this one:


Yes, it was Ghostbusters style (or, for a more apt but obscure cinematic description of the operation as I remember it: Mother, Jugs & Speed).

Ours was blue.

I can still smell its interior and see the duct tape on one of the seats where the rotary-dialed radio telephone (yes, rotary) was installed.

In the other business, I was witness to the transition of telephone answering services from old-fashioned telephone switchboard operators–no kidding, like Lilly Tomlin’s “Ernestine” character–
to computerized switching. I spent so much time around those operators that I can still today recite some of the customers:

“M&M Patio, may I help you?”

Those operators doing their thing still ring through the ages for me. All this was in the time before voicemail largely displaced that particular profession.

Enjoying my free rein, I could play with old telephone equipment to my heart’s content, and I could explore the emergency medical equipment and tools in all directions.

I knew what an Ambu bag and mass trousers were before I could diagram a sentence.

I learned how to patch a switchboard at the same time I learned to ride a bike.

I had full access. In retrospect, it was a part of my childhood that was replete with lessons.

What I learned

Both businesses were 24x7x365, reactive operations. As the son of entrepreneurs running businesses of this sort, I grew to expect that mom worked the holidays.

More significant than that: I never, ever, witnessed an adult say “that’s not my job” or “I’m off today, somebody else will handle it” or “I’m calling in sick today.”

Never.

It was no big deal…we knew why.

Accountability.

Ownership.

Risk taking.

That simple reality alone has had a profound impact on my life and work, not to mention on the (low) level of my appreciation for paycheck players and iron bureaucrats of all sorts.

The entrepreneur’s life wasn’t easy, but it was colorful.

To this day, I’ll take colorful over easy anytime.

But, I digress.

It was about the people…

The part that was most interesting is what I took away from the people; and that’s what this article is about. 24X7 professional operations of these sorts have a lot of downtime for the people in them.

To wit, I can remember building model airplanes with one of the EMTs, learning how to properly wash a car and change out spark plugs from another; and getting to know all sorts of people who worked in the business–old, young, men, women, black, white, creole, Asian, serious, funny, mean, nice and all points in between on each.

Such personalities and the inherent downtime of the operations mixed to produce some amusement and some lessons for a kid like me wandering around the operation.

Which brings me to this:

How I found the Yin and Yang of leadership culture in the bunk room of an ambulance service

In the sleeping quarters for the overnight ambulance crews–replete with bed frames hammered together with pine 2x4s and framing nails–was a steel desk. I’d be willing to bet it had been picked up at an army surplus auction back in the 1970s.

At some point, a person had used a cool-for-that-time-period Dymo label maker, one like the one in the picture here, to leave behind some wisdom on its right side pull-out writing surface.

That person, likely bored beyond comprehension and enjoying a moment toying around with the label maker; pressed out a phrase.

It read:

It’s the basic definition of accountability. The Yang of leadership culture.

Probably thinking it was a good phrase to live by (or just a way of ribbing other crew members), the person peeled and stuck the phrase to the writing surface of the desk.

At some point later, a second person took the same labeller and pressed out Phrase 2. It read:

Phrase 2 was stuck just below Phrase 1… as a sort of quasi-professional, realpolitik-driven retort to the self righteousness of Phrase 1. The Yin of leadership culture.

I suppose I discovered the two stickers when I was 8 or 9 years old. I have never spoken or written of them until I decided to write this short article.

Probably half of that is because of the language they are written with isn’t all that polite; and half is because it has taken me a long time to really grasp the significance of their brutal and ironic simplicity.

The significance of the Yin and Yang…

Now, language aside–and, yes, I spent all of my childhood around a crew that could curse the paint off the walls–these two phrases encompass two very different and very relevant sides of leadership culture.

One one side are the people who take responsibility. On the other side are those who duck responsibility.

The dark and the light.

The Yin and the Yang.

You have, in the form of two very basic phrases, the foundations of organizational and leadership culture.

Just as the Tao I’ve used in the opening image for this post implies that light and dark reinforce one another, and to a small degree reside within one another; these two sides of leadership culture reinforce and infiltrate one another.

In most organizations, there is a competitive equilibrium between the accountable set and the avoidant set. The accountable ones find positions and actions that are profitable, and the avoidant ones do the same.

It is in the behaviors that we, the leaders, reward that we determine which set gets to be dominant.

Which animals do you feed, and which do you slaughter?

I’ve seen organizations feed both sides. Based on that, I’d choose accountable.

Why this matters

I hope you’ll take away two things from this story:

First, this matters because great leaders give credit and take responsibility.

Do you find yourself in a culture where people do that? Or, at least, do you find that accountable people are rewarded more than avoidant ones?

Or, do you find yourself in a culture where people give responsibility and take credit? They lay off risk and lay on the stories of their successes.

It’s a simple assessment. Are the most accountable people in your organizations also the ones most likely to be “slaughtered” when the fan stops spinning?

It’s an existential question for individuals and for organizations.

Second, I hope you’ll see that this story matters because your organization and community is training its next generation of leaders.

No, it’s not doing so through your training programs.

It’s doing so through the equivalent of a label maker and a desktop.

The informal culture wins the day. The behaviors that get fed day in and day out are the ones that grow.

It really doesn’t matter what speeches, brochures, or PowerPoint documents you distribute.

The reason I went into detail on the autobiographical vignette is that I was made a better professional and leader by the diverse and sometimes “not-fit-for-kids” environments that I was able to explore and experience.

The diversity of experience I was blessed with has made me better.

I’m sure, somewhere out there, there are kids (and young professionals) who still get those types of experiences; and I hope all of us as parents and leaders will encourage them.

In the meantime, the rest of us can learn by osmosis from this particular Yin and Yang of leadership culture.

Feed the accountable ones.

Please share your thoughts on this article below…

The Joy and Pain of Bureaucracy

/0 Comments/in /by

Bureaucracy is bad…when it’s self serving. 

The Financial Times published an excerpt from David Graeber’s book ‘The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy.’

Here’s the LINK.

In the article, Graeber outlines how “bureaucracy,” typically a word used as a slur by die-hard capitalists, is actually the source of a covert love affair.

To wit (with my emphasis added):

“In this sense, bureaucracy enchants when it can be seen as a species of what I like to call “poetic technology” — when mechanical forms of organisation, usually military in their ultimate inspiration, can be marshalled to the realisation of impossible visions: to create cities out of nothing, scale the heavens, make the desert bloom. For most of human history this kind of power was only available to the rulers of empires or commanders of conquering armies, so we might even speak here of a democratisation of despotism. Once, the privilege of waving one’s hand and having a vast invisible army of cogs and wheels organise themselves in such a way as to bring your whims into being was available only to the very most privileged few; in the modern world, it can be subdivided into millions of tiny portions and made available to everyone able to write a letter, or to flick a switch.“

I’m no fan of useless structure or artifice.  But I do like effective structure and relentless clarity.  Sometimes, a little bit of engineered bureaucracy provides that.

Further, in my professional experience, the irony is this:  Those who decry “bureaucracy” the most tend to be the ones who are protecting their own, personal, “democratisation of despotism.”  They cry out against control that is not their own…regardless of its impact on effectiveness.

The real measure ought not be the amount of bureaucracy applied to a given problem, but whether the bureaucracy actually makes you or your organization more effective.

Perhaps one person’s bureaucracy is merely another person’s way of making sense of the world.

It’s bad when it’s self serving.

 

 

Should We Eliminate The “A Player” Trope?

/0 Comments/in , /by

A recent Forbes publication calls into question the offhand assignment of “A Player” labels.

On the heels of my article on how organizations handcuff their talent (link here); and my use of the “A Player” meme in that article to boot, I find an article that calls the entire “A Player” meme into question.

And I like it.

In Forbes, Gainsight CEO Nick Mehta published an article titled Silicon Valley Mythbusting: Rethinking The Concept of ‘A’ Players.  In this article, Mehta dives into some of the structure- and leadership-oriented issues related to talent; and as the title suggests, calls into question whether the “A Player” label is actually a transferable thing.

Here’s your link.

The operative quote from the article is this:

As a leader, you get paid a lot to do your job. It is your responsibility to find the right people for the right roles with the right manager. It is also your responsibility to coax the best performance out of your team, and using terms like “A Player” does them a disservice. On the other hand, you can build your team into the best they can be, both together and individually: then you’d have an “A Team.”

Mehta’s article outlines how a so-called A-Player in one company could very well be a failure in another.  He brings it down to fit within company culture, fit within role, and fit with management.

So what? 

Mehta’s analysis (and mine in my handcuff article) is a take off on the old nature vs. nurture debate.  To be clear, it is not an appeal to the mindset of “we are all the same.”  I don’t see where Mehta is saying that all players are the same; but rather that it’s very hard to read talent from a single situation (great or otherwise).

It brings up questions like:

Is talent really situational? (I’d argue, yes)

Does a talented “A Player” really have the passport to be an A Player anywhere, or has the A Player really been shrewd (or lucky) about the factors that Mehta outlines (again, company, role, management)? (I think it’s a little bit of both)

Do we do a disservice to our entire talent base, as Mehta suggests, by labeling some people “A Players?” (In my opinion, maybe…especially if the culture allows that an “A” grade is untested after it is conferred.)

Finally, shouldn’t we be focused, as leaders, on building the highest performing team and not the team filled with the highest talent individuals?  (Yes, yes, yes…A thousand times)

Parting thought:

I have had the privilege of working alongside senior executives who have the talent to fit right in across any number of corporate cultures and leadership positions.  I have also witnessed under-talented and opportunistic executives who by happenstance, good luck, obsequiousness,  or sharp elbows found their only possible senior executive position in the entire world.

Knowing both, I can say that situation matters.

Senior leaders should be humble enough to assess others’ talent across time, company, and role.  Nick Mehta is onto something.

What do you think?

 

God Help Your Risk Takers…

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Recent studies show that references to God in prompts to survey subjects lead them to take on more risky behaviors. This can have interesting implications for your strategy.

If you’ve been following this blog, you’ve seen multiple references to the need for leaders to underwrite risks and back their people.  I’ve cast this as the need for leaders to say “I’ve got your back.”

Here’s a post that goes into that concept in some depth.

Now, researchers at Stanford University have published studies that show people seeking more risk when they are reminded of God before making a choice between lower risk behaviors and higher risk behaviors.

Here’s a link to an article that outlines the findings.

The researchers posed various choices between higher risk and lower risk behaviors, and varied whether there were subtle references to God in the prompt.  For instance, an ad for skydiving might say, “Find skydiving near you!” or it might read, “God knows what you are missing. Find skydiving near you!”

The studies also differentiated between high risk behaviors in a moral sense and high risk behaviors in a non-moral sense.  Prior studies have shown that religious people tend to take fewer “moral” risks than non-religious people.

The summary of the study is this:

“…people are willing to take [more] risks because they view God as providing security against potential negative outcomes.”

Some implications for the strategist and leader:

The gist of this study is that when people believe they have some backing, even by supernatural forces, they are willing to do “more” than they otherwise would.

They view the security as valuable.

A few implication come to mind:

1.  People will take more risks if they know somebody is underwriting it, even (and especially?) God – You and I need to be good at letting people know when we have their backs.  Simple phrases like, “I know this is a risk, but it’s one that I’m taking, not you” can go a long way to putting people’s minds on business strategy instead of survival strategy.

2.  The source of risk backing has to be credible to the person taking the risk – It’s not enough for you and me as strategists and leaders to know that we have the backs of the people taking risks for us…we have to show, credibly, that we have sponsored others through tough risks and failure.  Religions form around stories;  so does your risk taking (or risk-averse) culture.

3. People have to be reminded – It’s important for people to know constantly that risk taking is backed by someone or something. In the study referenced above, people made marginally different choices by merely being prompted with the word “God.”  In your organization, simple prompts make that much difference.  When people are contemplating risks in your organization, do the prompts come with “I’ve got your back,” or do they come with “You’d better not mess it up…”?

All of this matters for you and me as leaders and as strategists.

Strategies involve taking risk.  Otherwise, they aren’t really a strategy.

They also involve people taking risks on behalf of the company and themselves.

Unless, and until, we get good at being clear on the risks we expect other people to take, and have credibility on the point, our people will take fewer risks.

Compound that with the converse situation that tends to get more play at the water cooler in risk averse cultures–namely, constant references to the negative things that happen to risk takers–and the leverage of a few simple words and actions becomes clear.

God help your risk takers…

One Habit to Create Action From Every Meeting

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By focusing on three simple post-meeting reflections, anyone in a professional environment can drive for better action orientation…

I wish this post was based on a blindingly original insight about how to be action-oriented.

It isn’t.

Instead, it’s based on a blindingly effective one.

The situation

I have walked the halls at dozens of companies over the years.  I’ve observed that one of the most pernicious yet obvious problems of strategic management at organizations large and small is the inability to drive action from meetings.

Some organizations I have been around have highly structured, up front requirements for meetings…They include things like lists of “desired outcomes” or “purpose and process” or “meeting objectives” written into the meeting agenda.

Those things can help.

Still, even those companies with strong meeting discipline struggle to avoid the “meeting to meet” habit that can come up.

Over the years of working on relatively ambiguous strategy and operational issues, I’ve found one leadership habit that has allowed me and a lot of my teams to go beyond objectives and process and toward a more action oriented approach to work.

It works in concert with good meeting planning; and leads to even better meeting planning for the next day, week, and beyond.

The habit

The habit I’m talking about is a 5 minute post-meeting reflection on most every professional interaction.  It focuses on three elements of action.  They are:

1. The insights gained in the interaction.  You just met for an hour.  What did you learn?  Those insights may be about facts presented and discussed, motivations of different parties in the interaction, or interpersonal dynamic in the room (or, sometimes, not in the room when unhealthy things like backbiting come into focus).  The focus on insights is a focus on what I learned.

2.  The implications of the insights and of the meeting overall.  It’s not enough to know what you learned.  You have to know what it means in the context of your organization’s or team’s macro-level agenda, the path of work that you may be following, and the objectives of the given meetings.  Often, studying the implications of a meeting brings you to drastically alter course on objectives, agenda, and problem-solving approach.  The focus on implications is a focus on meaning.

3.  The next steps implied by the insights and next steps. What actions will we take based on the things we learned and the meaning that they bring to the problem solving approach? The brief reflection on next steps in light of the insights and implications drives action orientation. It drives it–more importantly–based on the facts on the ground.  Many professionals are great at putting the next steps they think are going to come out of a meeting into the meeting agenda.  I’m saying that the next steps should be written on reflection, not strictly based on the agenda.

That’s it:  Insights…Implications…Next Steps.

Those three reflections, done personally or in team format for maximum of 5 minutes after a meeting, can drive toward more effective action in most any environment.

The more ambiguous the environment (factual, interpersonal, strategic, etc.), the more useful these reflections.

Parting thought

I received a part of this habit many years ago through good coaching from a manager early in my career.

I don’t see it as some groundbreaking insight.

I do see it as a way to increase speed and effectiveness in most any professional environment.

It is fundamentally action oriented…

But…

It requires a leadership approach that is grounded in vision and a hypothesis about direction and context.

If you have that, then Insights, Implications, and Next Steps will allow you to gain more from every interaction you have.

Try it out.

Why Your Entrepreneurs Leave

/3 Comments/in , /by

In large organizations, if board oversight and management incentives aren’t aligned with value creation, entrepreneurial mindsets can and will be crushed by “iron bureaucrats.”

In a recent post, I juxtaposed the decision-making approaches applied by hard core entrepreneurs and those applied by big company executives.  My thesis was that big company execs can learn from the decision making approach applied by entrepreneurs, if only their incentive structures can allow for it.

One reader, Graham Moores, responded on LinkedIn with this comment:

“In my experience the collaboration between Entrepreneurs and Executives is what should be aimed for, when one side does not understand and respect the other, problems will exist.”

This is a fantastic point, and in the ideal world, makes great sense.

If we can couple the entrepreneurial mindset of building businesses and bearing risk with the executive mindset of allocating resources and protecting against downside; all can win.

However, as Mr. Moores noted, the two sides often don’t understand one another; and therein lies the rub…

Why are real entrepreneurs so often bred out of large organizations?

The classical answers tend to be given offhand.  They include that big organizations move too slow, are too risk averse, and are double ungood at listening to new ideas.

These “reasons” tend to imply that large organizations are uncomfortable for people with an entrepreneurial bent.

That may be true…

But…

I’d argue the real reason entrepreneurship is bred out of large orgs is actually rooted in an organizational phenomenon best articulated by science fiction author Jerry Pournelle.  It has been called the “Iron Law of Bureaucracy.”

I’m capturing it from his website, but it has been quoted in many other places.

It reads (with my emphasis added):

“In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.”

If we replace Pournelle’s well-known government-connected bureaucracies with some generic corporate examples, then you and I can start to see how this law applies to the problem of entrepreneurship and executive management.

It could easily read as follows (to be clear, all edits are my own and I present it only for conjecture):

“In any business bureaucracy there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are people dedicated to customer satisfaction, product excellence, and advancing the organization’s reputation among employees, customers, and the community…

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples include executives and administrators who focus exclusively on defending position, avoiding risk, and managing to the letter of all incentives.

It’s plausible to argue that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization.It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.”

What this might mean is that instead of large organizations being uncomfortable for entrepreneurial people, they actually become actively hostile to people who want to rock the boat in the name of building value.

The two don’t merely misunderstand each other; they grow to be fundamentally incompatible.

And, since the second group is far more likely to play the bureaucracy game with alacrity, its most senior representatives will eventually call the shots, just as Pournelle’s law states.

They are the “Iron Bureaucrats.”

So what?  Isn’t that just life?

Well, sort of.

As my reader, Mr. Moores, noted, it’s actually ideal if the entrepreneurial and executive mindsets can coexist and collaborate.  We want large organizations to both embrace business building and risk taking while at the same time embracing discipline and risk awareness.

That’s a good strategy.

But how?

Much of the time, this comes down to the inherent bent of the CEO and senior management.  If the CEO is an iron bureaucrat, then entrepreneurs will struggle.

If the CEO is a closet entrepreneur, even within the trappings of a large bureaucracy, then entrepreneurs can thrive.  One need only look at some of the shifts in strategy at bellwether companies like IBM, Apple, Nucor and many others over the years to see the evidence of this factor.

The other factor is the incentive set that is outlined for senior executives.  In a sort of Judo move, boards can take an iron bureaucrat’s best strength (hitting the numbers) and make it work for the long term value of the company by measuring business building activity aggressively.

So, while entrepreneurs are likely to be bred out of large organizations, they don’t have to be.  Through better board oversight (particularly on the philosophical bent of the CEO) and incentive alignment (particularly around business building) the curse of the Iron Bureaucrat can be overcome.

It’s always great to get thoughtful responses on blog posts, regardless of platform; and I hope you’ll add your thoughts here.

 

The Chinese Food of Corporate Leadership

/1 Comment/in , /by

Attaching real change to ubiquitous communications can save you from providing an ultimately unsatisfying change experience for your organization, shareholders, and community. 

The best management science surrounding corporate performance transformation comes with a hefty dollop of behavioral science.

Focus on the people, start with the “why,” ensure purpose, drive for meaning… Anyone who has read the likes Heath, Pink, and Sinek see these soft aspects of transformation leadership writ large.

And they have their place, for sure.

The best transformational leadership and influencing models therefore come not only with tangible change agendas (initiatives grounded in real strategic issues a given company needs to solve) but also in strong influencing tactics, including emphases on structured communications and leadership behaviors to “show” that change is happening.

But, there’s a rub…

With an overwhelming set of tools available for communication these days ranging from in person to multimedia to social media, and with a solid base of “new age” thinking like those listed above directing companies to talk about purpose and reasons for action; companies can have an overweening focus on communication as the action itself.

The result?  Communications are delivered with very high-minded ideals but without much substance or action.

They become a passing thing, kind of like the full feeling after a Chinese food meal.  In 30 minutes, you wonder why you are so hungry again.

Thus, communication without grounding in action is the Chinese food of corporate leadership.

Why is it unsatisfying, and why do corporate leaders go there?

Why has this become the case?  I can list a few hypotheses…

  • Communication is typically deficient – Yes, that’s the starting point that leads to efforts to “lead with communication.”  Leaders are busy. They get distracted from the day to day hygiene of good, solid communication. So, they over correct.

 

  • It’s fashionable to demand transparency in organizations – It’s actually ok (and, indeed, I encourage it) for employees to seek meaning and reason for their work these days… So, leaders go to communication first because it’s what people want.

 

  • Communication has become simultaneously easier and harder – Employees can be bombarded with messages, creating a situation where the ease of communicating actually destroys the effectiveness of it (How many of you reading this read every corporate email you receive???  Hmmm?).  So, leaders can resort to it early and often, far easier, in fact than actually creating action.

 

So, leaders communicate, but they aren’t strategic about it.  They “flood the channel” with communication for communication’s sake.

And, in the process, they create a tone deaf employee base resistant to listening to most any communication.

The implication?  Enterprise-level and line-level leaders have to do a better job of connecting communication with actual action.

But, how? 

The easiest remedy to the Chinese food dilemma is to avoid creating tone deafness from the start by ensuring that strategic arguments delivered to the organization are backed with action.

However, that’s not always possible.

So, the next best thing is to attach communication as an adjunct to good, solid change management.

In one client partnership, we have accomplished this by attaching communications to explicit efforts and milestones in the company’s strategic plan.

We limit the commentary on what is “coming” since many changes that are “on the come” slip into oblivion, and stay very concrete with communications linked to actions that specific people are leading.

In this way, communications that previously might have sounded like “We are upgrading our approaches to product development” start to sound like “This week we launched an effort to re-draw our product prototyping process, led by Jane Smith and focused on providing customer impact in the next quarter…”

In this way, we provide a filling meal of communication and action on the same plate.  We also engage people around real concepts instead of nebulous, amorphous strategy-speak.

You should try it.

But beware:  Trying it may show you how far from action you already are.

RAND Corp’s 12 Instability Factors and Your Organization

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Earlier today, I came across this tweet by RAND Corporation.

It got me thinking about how organizations are, in a lot of ways, a lot like countries.

When we think and talk about change leadership within organizations, we are typically dealing with scaled down versions of political environments; and some of the lessons related to counter-insurgency and political change can and do apply directly.

RAND’s 12 factors that “generate and sustain unstable environments” are actually quite applicable for large organizations thinking about undertaking transformational change (or, to be honest, merely looking to stabilize performance).

Let’s do a little bit of mental ju jitsu, and replace “violent extremists” with “change resisters” and then see how this idea stacks up.  Let’s take them in turn and I’ll comment on how the factor translates to corporate change programs…

Factor 1. The level of external support for violent extremist groups…OR, The level of external support for change resister groups.

Doubtless, the level of external justification for individuals to be resistant to a given change agenda is a key indicator of how likely change is to happen.  This is the reason that role modeling by executives and peers to a given group undergoing a change is a critical input to the change leadership puzzle. Whenever a person in an organization (for the sake of argument let’s say it’s the finance function of your company) can go and get “mentorship” from outside of his or her group from other influential people who disdain or downplay the change…that person will be much more likely to resist.  It’s academic.

Factor 2. The extent to which the government is considered illegitimate or ineffective by the population

Another highly applicable factor is how legitimate leadership, particularly senior leaders and direct change leaders, is believed to be by the rank and file.  The “population trust” factor can’t be ruled out when thinking about how to lead change.

Factor 3.  The presence of tribal or ethnic indigenous populations with a history of resisting state rule

At first glance, this sounds like an anthropological factor that really is best left to the tribes of Afghanistan; but when you think about it, this might be the most relevant factor.  If you have ever tried to penetrate a corporate fiefdom ruled by a real tribal leader, you know this analogy is real.  If your organizational culture revolves around cults, fiefdoms, empires, and turf; you will undoubtedly encounter much more change resistance.

Factor 4. The levels of poverty and inequality

Change is hard.  It’s a lot harder when the senior executives live like kings and the rank and file live like doormats.  People notice.  A high level of inequality OR a high level of senior management secrecy about inequality will severely handicap efforts to change or stabilize a company.

Factor 5.  The extent to which local government is fragmented, weak, or vulnerable

This one goes to the tribal points outlined on point 3, but is actually the opposite.  If your organization has exceptionally weak local or frontline leadership; then people don’t get the word.  They are left to their own devices.  That’s a recipe for slow change at best.

Factor 6. The existence of ungoverned space

This is an interesting one when it comes to organizational analogies. In an organization undergoing significant change; my mantra is “everybody plays.”  Why?  Because when some organizational space is left out of the mix, people can either (1) reference it as a reason to resist as a matter of fairness or (2) flock to it.  

Factor 7. The presence of multiple violent, nonstate groups competing for power…OR let’s call them competing initiatives or agendas for change

Interestingly enough this one plays out in many organizations every day (not the violence…the competing agendas).  If your organization has an entrepreneurial leadership culture, this can be a frustrating downside of it.  Individual leaders’ competing agendas get in the way of the macro change and stabilization agenda; and you fail as a result.

Factor 8. The level of government restriction on political or ideological dissent

So, clamps on free thinking can be a bad thing.  Interestingly, factor 7 is the yang to this yin.  The government is overly restrictive, so people resist change.  This is a matter of trust.  When Dear Leader tells you what to do or else but you don’t trust Dear Leader; you go looking for a way to sabotage Dear Leader’s agenda.

Factor 9. The level of consistency and/or agreement between a violent extremist group’s goals and the ideology of target populations

This one seems sort of simple:  If people agree that resistance is the best answer, and they do so in great numbers, then your change program is sunk.

Factor 10. The extent to which population and extremist groups perceive faltering government commitment to a counterinsurgency campaign

In corporate-speak, this one reads “the extent to which your senior executives fail to follow through on change commitments.”  Might seem easy, but it’s a failure mode found every day in every organization.  Senior leaders find something more interesting to do than to drive change day to day, week to week, and month to month.  People see the lack of attention and become resisters.

Factor 11. The capacity, resources, and expertise of violent extremist groups

This one is a bit tricky to draw as an analogy to corporate change and stabilization programs.  Certainly change resisters have to have the capacity to resist; but a lot of times it’s just about clout; and that’s why factor 12 is the kicker…

Factor 12.  The pervasiveness of social networks

Absolutely. If the social influencers in your organization aren’t the same people as the change leaders, then you probably have a problem.  It’s very important not only to co-opt the hierarchy of an organization, but also the social networks by getting to the thought leaders first.

In many organizations, the people who make change go aren’t the 35 year old MBAs but rather the 55 year old shop foremen.  Social networks matter.  What RAND is likely getting at is the ability for information and protection to flow below the government radar in unstable countries.   I’m saying the same thing matters in unstable companies.

So What? 

I write this because the language and approaches to counter-insurgency as they have developed over the past 15 years are both directly applicable to leading change in a given organization.  Each of these factors, perhaps with the exception of factor 11 which I had to squint at to really see a link, relates directly to your own probability of leading successful change in your organization.

Keep this in mind next time you think change is easy!

 

Belling the Cat Part 2: Greece’s “Innovation”

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Interesting commentary from Yanis Varoufakis, Finance Minister of Greece, published in the NYT a few days ago.

YOUR LINK

In the midst of a highly academic treatise on why his motives are really not to engage in any games, but rather to do “the right thing,” Varoufakis meets the strain a writer always does when he is forced to come up with the “SO WHAT?” to his argument.

What is his “so what” to the question of what Greece must do?

Well… Let’s let him tell you:

“Against such cynicism [about Greek motives] the new Greek government will innovate.”

Innovate.

In the midst of a house afire, the Greek finance minister proposes to pull a rabbit out of his hat.

In corporate environments, innovation has become a sort of conjured savior within strategic plans.

All that is left is to define what innovations, where, and when.

The Greeks are suffering from the same delusion, it seems.

This is another great example of high-minded rhetoric being used to avoid discussion of tough choices.

It’s belling the cat, all over again.

All that is left is to find the mouse who will bell the cat.

 

Stanford GSB: Mean Co-Workers Make Sense…

/0 Comments/in , /by

It turns out that modern corporate life is a justification in and of itself for people to be self-interested “jerks”…

While I’m not sure I fully agree (idealist that I am), some researchers at the Stanford Graduate School of Business have studied the phenomenon.

YOUR LINK

The operative passage from researcher Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford GSB:

“People need to take care of themselves,” Pfeffer says. “They need to stop looking for this mythical Santa Claus that’s going to be nice to them.” To the suggestion that this was a depressing assessment of cubicle life, Pfeffer responded, “what I find more depressing is instances when people misplace their faith and trust in organizations—when people who think their company will look after them meet horrible consequences.”

Amen to the concept of horrible consequences waiting in the wings for those who don’t align the values they espouse with the values that their organization upholds.  Amen to that indeed.

It’s an interesting and quick read, in any case.