The Importance of a Compelling Central Idea
In the early stages of the Vietnam War, U.S. Navy pilot James Bond Stockdale was shot down over enemy territory and captured. For more than seven years, from 1965 to 1973, Commander (later Admiral) Stockdale was the highest-ranking prisoner- of- war (POW) at the Hoa Lo Camp, otherwise known as the Hanoi Hilton, in the capital city of North Vietnam. He endured torture and deprivation beyond imagination. But James Stockdale also valiantly led his fellow POWs throughout their shared ordeal with great imagination and courage, helping the vast majority of them to survive their time in captivity physically and psychologically intact.
Stockdale used a variety of leadership techniques but, above all else, his team prevailed because he provided them with a common purpose.
Stockdale summarized the essence of his leadership during the time at Hoa Lo: "I distilled one all-purpose idea.… it is a simple idea.… an idea that naturally and spontaneously comes to men under pressure…. You are your brother's keeper."
Unity Over Self
This powerful concept that the well-being of the whole team was more important than the plight of any one individual- described by Stockdale as "Unity over Self"- was the compelling common purpose that allowed a disparate group of individuals to remain a cohesive team in an incredibly challenging environment.
Stockdale confronted mighty obstacles in leading his fellow prisoners. First, the men were physically separated, with no ability to communicate directly. Stockdale developed a communication strategy involving a wall tap code and other means of secret messaging which allowed him to continually lead and encourage his team despite their isolation.
Next, the team consisted of hundreds of individuals from very diverse backgrounds and experiences. Stockdale recognized and harnessed their diversity by giving them latitude.
Finally, Stockdale's men faced loneliness, deprivation and torture on a daily basis. Stockdale wrote later, "We organized a clandestine society…. with our own laws, traditions, customs, even heroes. [This explains how we could].… order each other into more torture…. refuse to comply with specific demands, [and] intentionally call the bluff of our jailers.…"
Stockdale succeeded in creating a cohesive culture with ironclad and widely-known rules which perpetuated itself and provided motivation and discipline to its members even under the most difficult of circumstances.
Of the 591 Hanoi Hilton POWs who returned safely, almost 80 percent remained in the military, with 24 of them advancing to the rank of general or admiral. A significant number of the returnees became leaders in business, law, government or politics. Fully 96 percent of the former prisoners were free of any symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. James Stockdale's brilliant and inspirational leadership went a long way toward ensuring that the men in his charge would return home to pursue healthy, productive lives.
Relevance to Today's Business Leaders
Why is this amazing story relevant to today's business leaders? Wilson Learning conducted a survey in 2006 of 25,000 workers in finance and high tech who asserted overwhelmingly that they needed a leader who could "convey clearly what the work unit is trying to do." This is an incredibly simple proposition, but many leaders fail the test.
Have you as a leader provided your team with a common purpose? Do team members understand and can they articulate that purpose? What is the central idea that drives your organization forward, through good times and bad? If you are fuzzy on these answers, you can bet your team is confused as well. Now is the time to step up and, with confidence and conviction, "convey clearly what the work unit is trying to do."
Monday, September 12, 2011
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Collaborate Effectively In Decision Making
The Battle of Gettysburg was the largest battle ever fought in the western hemisphere and a critical turning point in the American Civil War. The second day of the battle, July 2, 1863, was one of the bloodiest in American history, with approximately 20,000 combined casualties (killed, wounded, missing, or captured). As evening slowly gave way to night at the end of that terrible day, General George Gordon Meade, commander of the Union Army of the Potomac, called his entire leadership team together at his headquarters for a council of war. Meade knew in his own mind the outcome he desired on the battle's third day, but he also wanted to hear from his commanders and to achieve consensus regarding the Union strategy for the endgame. Meade instinctively understood the critical need, at this dramatic moment in time, to collaborate effectively in decision making.
Meade and his counterpart, the extremely capable Robert E. Lee, commanding general of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, were locked in mortal combat. Several weeks earlier Lee had begun an invasion of Northern territory and the two mighty armies had met accidentally, but with unspeakable fury, at the little crossroads borough of Gettysburg in south central Pennsylvania. By the end of the second day, after much desperate fighting, the armies lay in stalemate, watching each other warily across contested ground like two wounded but still very dangerous animals.
General Meade had established his headquarters in a tiny white farmhouse owned by the widow Lydia Leister. Earlier on July 2 he had wired his superiors in Washington D.C. to let them know it was his intention to "remain in my present position tomorrow…" Nevertheless, that night he gathered his top generals (eleven in all) to listen to their assessment of the situation. They assembled in a room no larger than twelve by twelve feet, illuminated by a single candle, and which was soon filled with a thick cloud of cigar smoke.
The discussion began informally, and turned to the issues of the dire condition of the army and the lack of supplies. Meade was quiet, offering only an occasional comment, and intent on hearing what his team had to say before offering his own judgment. Finally, with Meade's concurrence, his chief of staff proposed that the group vote on three critical questions: 1. Should the army remain in its present position? 2. If the army remains, should it attack or await the enemy's attack? 3. If the decision is to await attack, how long should it wait? After much give and take, the generals voted unanimously to stay in their present position, await attack, and to wait for not much longer than a day.
One of the participants, General John Gibbon, wrote afterward, "I recollect there was great good feeling amongst the Corp Commanders at their agreeing so unanimously, and Gen. Meade announced, in a decided manner, 'Such then is the decision.'" The generals left the meeting clear in the understanding of their mission and united in their common purpose to defeat the enemy the next day, which they succeeded in doing. This stroke of genius-- attaining clarity and consensus during a critical phase of the fight-- on the part of George Meade may have (more than anything else he did over the three days) won the Battle of Gettysburg for the North.
What can modern-day business leaders learn from the historical example of Meade's collaborative decision making? First, Meade recognized the criticality of pulling his team together for a face-to-face consultation. Sometimes, there is simply no substitute for a meeting in person, and skilled leaders understand precisely when there is a need to bring everyone into the same room. Ironically, Meade's adversary General Lee did not gather his commanding generals together for a war council at any point during the battle, and a serious lack of coordination resulted.
Next, Meade initiated a process that was perceived by all of the participants as fair. While it is true that Meade had already indicated to higher command his preference for remaining in place, he did not disclose his point of view to those reporting to him. Instead, he remained quiet and listened respectfully with genuine interest to what the others had to say. Each person had a chance to weigh in to the discussion and to vote on a particular outcome. When the members of a team feel that they have been given ample opportunity to express their points of view and to influence their leader, even if they disagree with the final decision, they are much more inclined to buy into the ultimate direction.
Finally, Meade's council of war provided absolute clarity to every individual involved as to what was expected of him for the next day. The fact that the decisions made were unanimous helped in achieving this effect but, even if there had been disagreement, the rationale for the chosen decision was clear and unambiguous.
On the morning of July 3, after the famous meeting but before the decisive combat that would bring victory to his forces, Meade penned a hurried letter to his wife: "Dearest love, All well and going on well with the Army. We had a great fight yesterday, the enemy attacking and we completely repulsing them-- both armies shattered…. Army in fine spirits and every one determined to do or die." This determination to defeat the Confederate enemy at all costs was in large part achieved as a result of George Meade's intuitive comprehension of the importance of effective collaboration when making a critical decision.
Meade and his counterpart, the extremely capable Robert E. Lee, commanding general of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, were locked in mortal combat. Several weeks earlier Lee had begun an invasion of Northern territory and the two mighty armies had met accidentally, but with unspeakable fury, at the little crossroads borough of Gettysburg in south central Pennsylvania. By the end of the second day, after much desperate fighting, the armies lay in stalemate, watching each other warily across contested ground like two wounded but still very dangerous animals.
General Meade had established his headquarters in a tiny white farmhouse owned by the widow Lydia Leister. Earlier on July 2 he had wired his superiors in Washington D.C. to let them know it was his intention to "remain in my present position tomorrow…" Nevertheless, that night he gathered his top generals (eleven in all) to listen to their assessment of the situation. They assembled in a room no larger than twelve by twelve feet, illuminated by a single candle, and which was soon filled with a thick cloud of cigar smoke.
The discussion began informally, and turned to the issues of the dire condition of the army and the lack of supplies. Meade was quiet, offering only an occasional comment, and intent on hearing what his team had to say before offering his own judgment. Finally, with Meade's concurrence, his chief of staff proposed that the group vote on three critical questions: 1. Should the army remain in its present position? 2. If the army remains, should it attack or await the enemy's attack? 3. If the decision is to await attack, how long should it wait? After much give and take, the generals voted unanimously to stay in their present position, await attack, and to wait for not much longer than a day.
One of the participants, General John Gibbon, wrote afterward, "I recollect there was great good feeling amongst the Corp Commanders at their agreeing so unanimously, and Gen. Meade announced, in a decided manner, 'Such then is the decision.'" The generals left the meeting clear in the understanding of their mission and united in their common purpose to defeat the enemy the next day, which they succeeded in doing. This stroke of genius-- attaining clarity and consensus during a critical phase of the fight-- on the part of George Meade may have (more than anything else he did over the three days) won the Battle of Gettysburg for the North.
What can modern-day business leaders learn from the historical example of Meade's collaborative decision making? First, Meade recognized the criticality of pulling his team together for a face-to-face consultation. Sometimes, there is simply no substitute for a meeting in person, and skilled leaders understand precisely when there is a need to bring everyone into the same room. Ironically, Meade's adversary General Lee did not gather his commanding generals together for a war council at any point during the battle, and a serious lack of coordination resulted.
Next, Meade initiated a process that was perceived by all of the participants as fair. While it is true that Meade had already indicated to higher command his preference for remaining in place, he did not disclose his point of view to those reporting to him. Instead, he remained quiet and listened respectfully with genuine interest to what the others had to say. Each person had a chance to weigh in to the discussion and to vote on a particular outcome. When the members of a team feel that they have been given ample opportunity to express their points of view and to influence their leader, even if they disagree with the final decision, they are much more inclined to buy into the ultimate direction.
Finally, Meade's council of war provided absolute clarity to every individual involved as to what was expected of him for the next day. The fact that the decisions made were unanimous helped in achieving this effect but, even if there had been disagreement, the rationale for the chosen decision was clear and unambiguous.
On the morning of July 3, after the famous meeting but before the decisive combat that would bring victory to his forces, Meade penned a hurried letter to his wife: "Dearest love, All well and going on well with the Army. We had a great fight yesterday, the enemy attacking and we completely repulsing them-- both armies shattered…. Army in fine spirits and every one determined to do or die." This determination to defeat the Confederate enemy at all costs was in large part achieved as a result of George Meade's intuitive comprehension of the importance of effective collaboration when making a critical decision.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Take Time To Concentrate
Way back in the old days (early 1990s), when I worked for Target, I used to exercise over the noon hour at the Northwest Arena Club in downtown Minneapolis. I remember watching with great comic amusement as a stressed out attorney that I knew would run countless laps around the indoor track while dictating into a hand-held recording device. I imagined his executive assistant struggling to transcribe his breathless memos. He was truly the Neanderthal version of today's "multitasker."
A recent New York Times front page story is entitled, "Hooked on Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price: Constant Use Takes a Toll on Concentration and Family Life." The article highlights the challenges faced by Kord Campbell, founder of an Internet start-up company. Campbell is so addicted to e-mail and the Internet that, "Even after he unplugs, he craves the stimulation he gets from his electronic gadgets. He forgets things like dinner plans, and he has trouble focusing on his family. His wife, Brenda, complains, 'It seems like he can no longer be fully in the moment.'"
Kord Campbell's saga- cautionary tale though it is- sounds familiar to most of us. Perhaps uncomfortably familiar. How much time do you spend sifting through and responding to e-mail on a daily basis? How much time surfing the web? How much do you love video games? Are you at a loss without your laptop, iPhone, or Blackberry? When was the last time you spent several hours, uninterrupted, working on a critical issue or problem?
In this age of astounding technical wizardry, smart business people still recognize that excessive devotion to our electronic lifelines can be a distraction and siphon time from more important matters. Though our ability to communicate has been vastly enhanced in recent times, our ability to focus has not. Awareness of this conundrum is key to enabling us to step back and carry out a very important leadership responsibility: taking time to concentrate.
Entrepreneur magazine published a piece in March 2010 called, "E-mail Is Making You Stupid." Business reporter Joe Robinson tells us that the average office worker checks e-mail 50 times and sends 77 instant messages daily. The typical employee loses more than two hours per day in productivity as a result of electronic interruptions. Computer chip maker Intel generated an estimate of how much money large companies lose annually from distractions caused by excessive e-mails: $2 billion. And the situation is not getting better. The E-Policy Institute warns that e-mail volume is growing by a rate of 66% per year. This electronic deluge not only costs companies dearly in productivity, it creates incredible stress, decreases job satisfaction, and diminishes creativity.
In his book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, technology author Nicholas Carr argues that the very way we think and experience the world has been dramatically altered by the Internet. Studies demonstrate that extended use of the Internet quickly and significantly alters the brain's neural pathways, creating a tendency to skim rather than read closely, become easily distracted, and learn only superficially. Research also demonstrates that people who read linear text- as in a book- comprehend and remember more than those who read text with numerous links- as on the Internet. Carr says, "Once I was a scuba diver in a sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski."
Some people claim to be able to manage myriad electronic inputs and remain highly productive because they are "multitaskers." Unfortunately, their imagined ability is a myth. Joe Robinson says, "The cult of multitasking would have us believe that compulsive message checking is the behavior of an always-on, hyper-productive worker. But it's not. It's the sign of a distracted employee who misguidedly believes he can do multiple tasks at one time. Science disagrees. People may be able to chew gum and walk at the same time, but they can't do two or more thinking tasks simultaneously."
Critics point to studies that suggest that some cognitive tasks, like visual perception and sustained attention, actually improve as a result of using screen-based technologies. Many scientists, however, suggest that more brain activity is not necessarily better brain activity. Developmental psychologist Patricia Greenfield asserts, "every medium develops some cognitive skills at the expense of others." She acknowledges that use of the Web has led to the "widespread development of visual-spatial skills," but simultaneously we have lost "deep processing" capabilities that are foundational to "mindful knowledge acquisition, inductive analysis, critical thinking, imagination, and reflection."
Some companies understand the new reality and are fighting back. Intel has implemented "Quiet Time" at two of its locations. During designated Quiet Time, no one is allowed to engage in messaging or phone contact. Employees are expected to concentrate and work quietly on their own. Companies such as Deloitte & Touche and U.S. Cellular have mandated restricted e-mail use and encouraged face-to-face meetings. They have also tried such ideas as "no e-mail Friday."
What can individuals do to carve out time to concentrate and get work done?
• Check e-mail only a few times daily, rather than continuously; let people know that you will check messages at 8 a.m., noon, and 4 p.m.
• Whenever possible, meet face-to-face or talk by phone as the preferred mode of communication.
• Prioritize your tasks for the day, and set aside time to focus quietly on those issues; don't simply respond to whatever is in front of you.
• Don't send an e-mail unless absolutely necessary, and resist the temptation to copy people that have no "need to know."
• Work offsite from time to time if your employer and work situation allows it.
Recognition of the potential adverse effects of the electronic bombardment that we all weather on a daily basis is the first step in dealing with the problem. Consciously and consistently creating time to focus and concentrate is the solution.
A recent New York Times front page story is entitled, "Hooked on Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price: Constant Use Takes a Toll on Concentration and Family Life." The article highlights the challenges faced by Kord Campbell, founder of an Internet start-up company. Campbell is so addicted to e-mail and the Internet that, "Even after he unplugs, he craves the stimulation he gets from his electronic gadgets. He forgets things like dinner plans, and he has trouble focusing on his family. His wife, Brenda, complains, 'It seems like he can no longer be fully in the moment.'"
Kord Campbell's saga- cautionary tale though it is- sounds familiar to most of us. Perhaps uncomfortably familiar. How much time do you spend sifting through and responding to e-mail on a daily basis? How much time surfing the web? How much do you love video games? Are you at a loss without your laptop, iPhone, or Blackberry? When was the last time you spent several hours, uninterrupted, working on a critical issue or problem?
In this age of astounding technical wizardry, smart business people still recognize that excessive devotion to our electronic lifelines can be a distraction and siphon time from more important matters. Though our ability to communicate has been vastly enhanced in recent times, our ability to focus has not. Awareness of this conundrum is key to enabling us to step back and carry out a very important leadership responsibility: taking time to concentrate.
Entrepreneur magazine published a piece in March 2010 called, "E-mail Is Making You Stupid." Business reporter Joe Robinson tells us that the average office worker checks e-mail 50 times and sends 77 instant messages daily. The typical employee loses more than two hours per day in productivity as a result of electronic interruptions. Computer chip maker Intel generated an estimate of how much money large companies lose annually from distractions caused by excessive e-mails: $2 billion. And the situation is not getting better. The E-Policy Institute warns that e-mail volume is growing by a rate of 66% per year. This electronic deluge not only costs companies dearly in productivity, it creates incredible stress, decreases job satisfaction, and diminishes creativity.
In his book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, technology author Nicholas Carr argues that the very way we think and experience the world has been dramatically altered by the Internet. Studies demonstrate that extended use of the Internet quickly and significantly alters the brain's neural pathways, creating a tendency to skim rather than read closely, become easily distracted, and learn only superficially. Research also demonstrates that people who read linear text- as in a book- comprehend and remember more than those who read text with numerous links- as on the Internet. Carr says, "Once I was a scuba diver in a sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski."
Some people claim to be able to manage myriad electronic inputs and remain highly productive because they are "multitaskers." Unfortunately, their imagined ability is a myth. Joe Robinson says, "The cult of multitasking would have us believe that compulsive message checking is the behavior of an always-on, hyper-productive worker. But it's not. It's the sign of a distracted employee who misguidedly believes he can do multiple tasks at one time. Science disagrees. People may be able to chew gum and walk at the same time, but they can't do two or more thinking tasks simultaneously."
Critics point to studies that suggest that some cognitive tasks, like visual perception and sustained attention, actually improve as a result of using screen-based technologies. Many scientists, however, suggest that more brain activity is not necessarily better brain activity. Developmental psychologist Patricia Greenfield asserts, "every medium develops some cognitive skills at the expense of others." She acknowledges that use of the Web has led to the "widespread development of visual-spatial skills," but simultaneously we have lost "deep processing" capabilities that are foundational to "mindful knowledge acquisition, inductive analysis, critical thinking, imagination, and reflection."
Some companies understand the new reality and are fighting back. Intel has implemented "Quiet Time" at two of its locations. During designated Quiet Time, no one is allowed to engage in messaging or phone contact. Employees are expected to concentrate and work quietly on their own. Companies such as Deloitte & Touche and U.S. Cellular have mandated restricted e-mail use and encouraged face-to-face meetings. They have also tried such ideas as "no e-mail Friday."
What can individuals do to carve out time to concentrate and get work done?
• Check e-mail only a few times daily, rather than continuously; let people know that you will check messages at 8 a.m., noon, and 4 p.m.
• Whenever possible, meet face-to-face or talk by phone as the preferred mode of communication.
• Prioritize your tasks for the day, and set aside time to focus quietly on those issues; don't simply respond to whatever is in front of you.
• Don't send an e-mail unless absolutely necessary, and resist the temptation to copy people that have no "need to know."
• Work offsite from time to time if your employer and work situation allows it.
Recognition of the potential adverse effects of the electronic bombardment that we all weather on a daily basis is the first step in dealing with the problem. Consciously and consistently creating time to focus and concentrate is the solution.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Use the Right Data
Some of the most serious and prevalent problems that plague modern business result from using the wrong data to make decisions, measure outcomes, and incent performance. Recently, business journalist Geoff Colvin wrote, "In business as in life, be careful what you wish for. I know a company that wished for a better return on equity. What could be wrong with that? It paid its executives according to that measure, and man, did they deliver. In some years the firm had the best ROE in the industry. It was winning big time. The firm was Lehman Brothers, now dead because managing for ROE caused executives to overborrow…. Wishing for the wrong thing- managing for the wrong ratio- killed the company."
The cautionary tale of Lehman Brothers is just one among many to come out of the Great Recession. These days, smart business leaders are meticulously careful to use the right data.
We are obsessed by numbers and have become increasingly good at measuring all manner of things. The July-August 2009 issue of Harvard Business Review states, "Data, computing power, and mathematical models have been transforming many realms of management from art to science. But the crisis exposed the limitations of certain tools. In particular, the world saw the folly of reliance by banks, insurance companies, and others on financial models that assumed economic rationality, linearity, equilibrium, and bell-curve distribution. As the recession unfolded, it became clear that the models had failed badly."
The measurement tools and models are not themselves necessarily flawed. Business leaders simply need to become more adept at comprehending and using the data they generate. HBR argues, "…. decision makers in every industry must take responsibility for looking inside the black boxes that advanced quantitative tools often represent and understanding their functioning, assumptions, and limitations."
Consider the incredibly controversial issue of executive and, specifically, CEO compensation. Duke University business professor Dan Ariely points out that numerous studies demonstrate that people will behave based upon whatever measures we use to evaluate them. It seems too simple to contemplate but, says Ariely, "Human beings adjust behavior based on the metrics they're held up against. Anything you measure will impel a person to optimize his score on that metric. What you measure is what you get. Period."
Chief executives are overwhelmingly evaluated based on a single data point: the value of their company's stock. Even measuring CEOs against several years worth of stock returns does not necessarily incent them to consider the long-term health of the enterprise they lead: they are still obsessed by stock price. It is not surprising, therefore, that because they are compensated based on that one measure, most CEOs spend an inordinate amount of time considering and working towards an improved stock price.
Professor Ariely says, "To change CEOs' behavior, we need to change the numbers we measure. Stock value metrics that focus on the long term are a start, but even more important are new numbers that direct leaders' attention to the real drivers of sustainable success. What are those numbers? …. How many new jobs have been created at your firm? How strong is your pipeline of new patents? How satisfied are your customers? Your employees? What's the level of trust in your company and brand? How much carbon dioxide do you emit?"
Geoff Colvin asserts that businesses should evaluate performance using a new metric, called "EVA momentum." Economic value added, or EVA (a measure used by some companies) is essentially profit after charges for all the factors of production, and an improvement in EVA presumably results in increased value. Yet some business thinkers believe EVA can still be manipulated. EVA momentum is defined as the change in EVA divided by the prior period's sales and, the argument goes, simply cannot be tinkered with. Consultant Bennett Stewart says, "It's the only performance metric where more is always better than less. It always increases when managers do things that make economic sense."
Even at the level of macroeconomics and public policy we see much current discussion about the data that informs decision making. Nobel prize-winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen produced a recent study that blames disproportionate focus on growth in the form of gross domestic product- the quantity of goods and services produced in the economy- for contributing to the world-wide recession. An unhealthy fixation on G.D.P. causes governments to overlook such problems as joblessness and environmental degradation, which are also important quantifiers of the overall health of the economy. Stiglitz says, "If you don't measure the right thing, you don't do the right thing," and he advocates for more attention on such benchmarks as income and consumption, availability of health care, and quality of education.
Temple University mathematics professor John Allen Paulos wrote an article recently in the New York Times Magazine called: "Metric Mania: Do we expect too much from our data?" Dr. Paulos says, "In the realm of public policy, we live in an age of numbers…. The problem isn't with statistical tests themselves but with what we do before and after we run them." He argues that measures in such areas as school performance and health care can be second-guessed, but that, "This doesn't mean we shouldn't be counting…. it does mean we should do so with as much care and wisdom as we can muster."
Albert Einstein supposedly said, "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." What measures do you use in your business to make decisions, assess performance, and reward behaviors? Are you careful and wise in your use of data, or do you rely on certain metrics just because you've "always done it that way"? The answers to these critical questions are essential to the future success of your business.
The cautionary tale of Lehman Brothers is just one among many to come out of the Great Recession. These days, smart business leaders are meticulously careful to use the right data.
We are obsessed by numbers and have become increasingly good at measuring all manner of things. The July-August 2009 issue of Harvard Business Review states, "Data, computing power, and mathematical models have been transforming many realms of management from art to science. But the crisis exposed the limitations of certain tools. In particular, the world saw the folly of reliance by banks, insurance companies, and others on financial models that assumed economic rationality, linearity, equilibrium, and bell-curve distribution. As the recession unfolded, it became clear that the models had failed badly."
The measurement tools and models are not themselves necessarily flawed. Business leaders simply need to become more adept at comprehending and using the data they generate. HBR argues, "…. decision makers in every industry must take responsibility for looking inside the black boxes that advanced quantitative tools often represent and understanding their functioning, assumptions, and limitations."
Consider the incredibly controversial issue of executive and, specifically, CEO compensation. Duke University business professor Dan Ariely points out that numerous studies demonstrate that people will behave based upon whatever measures we use to evaluate them. It seems too simple to contemplate but, says Ariely, "Human beings adjust behavior based on the metrics they're held up against. Anything you measure will impel a person to optimize his score on that metric. What you measure is what you get. Period."
Chief executives are overwhelmingly evaluated based on a single data point: the value of their company's stock. Even measuring CEOs against several years worth of stock returns does not necessarily incent them to consider the long-term health of the enterprise they lead: they are still obsessed by stock price. It is not surprising, therefore, that because they are compensated based on that one measure, most CEOs spend an inordinate amount of time considering and working towards an improved stock price.
Professor Ariely says, "To change CEOs' behavior, we need to change the numbers we measure. Stock value metrics that focus on the long term are a start, but even more important are new numbers that direct leaders' attention to the real drivers of sustainable success. What are those numbers? …. How many new jobs have been created at your firm? How strong is your pipeline of new patents? How satisfied are your customers? Your employees? What's the level of trust in your company and brand? How much carbon dioxide do you emit?"
Geoff Colvin asserts that businesses should evaluate performance using a new metric, called "EVA momentum." Economic value added, or EVA (a measure used by some companies) is essentially profit after charges for all the factors of production, and an improvement in EVA presumably results in increased value. Yet some business thinkers believe EVA can still be manipulated. EVA momentum is defined as the change in EVA divided by the prior period's sales and, the argument goes, simply cannot be tinkered with. Consultant Bennett Stewart says, "It's the only performance metric where more is always better than less. It always increases when managers do things that make economic sense."
Even at the level of macroeconomics and public policy we see much current discussion about the data that informs decision making. Nobel prize-winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen produced a recent study that blames disproportionate focus on growth in the form of gross domestic product- the quantity of goods and services produced in the economy- for contributing to the world-wide recession. An unhealthy fixation on G.D.P. causes governments to overlook such problems as joblessness and environmental degradation, which are also important quantifiers of the overall health of the economy. Stiglitz says, "If you don't measure the right thing, you don't do the right thing," and he advocates for more attention on such benchmarks as income and consumption, availability of health care, and quality of education.
Temple University mathematics professor John Allen Paulos wrote an article recently in the New York Times Magazine called: "Metric Mania: Do we expect too much from our data?" Dr. Paulos says, "In the realm of public policy, we live in an age of numbers…. The problem isn't with statistical tests themselves but with what we do before and after we run them." He argues that measures in such areas as school performance and health care can be second-guessed, but that, "This doesn't mean we shouldn't be counting…. it does mean we should do so with as much care and wisdom as we can muster."
Albert Einstein supposedly said, "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." What measures do you use in your business to make decisions, assess performance, and reward behaviors? Are you careful and wise in your use of data, or do you rely on certain metrics just because you've "always done it that way"? The answers to these critical questions are essential to the future success of your business.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Celebrate Entrepreneurship
I had the opportunity to work at the Best Buy Company from 2001 to 2009. Although the company was formed in 1966- almost 45 years ago- I was always surprised and impressed to see the founder, Richard Schulze, as a frequent presence at corporate headquarters. While Dick Schulze long ago turned over day-to-day operational responsibility and decision making to others, his innovative spirit, willingness to take risks, and drive for results are still very much a part of the corporate culture. Even though Best Buy is now one of the largest business enterprises in America with almost $50 billion in revenues and 150,000 employees, it is still a company that celebrates entrepreneurship.
It is absolutely fascinating to contemplate that every business in the world, including behemoths like General Electric (Thomas Edison), Wal-Mart (Sam Walton), Toyota Motor (Kiichiro Toyoda), and Mary Kay Inc. (Mary Kay Ash) started as nothing more than an idea in someone's head. That person either had a new and better idea, or got sick of working for someone else, or both. And he or she also invariably had a high tolerance for uncertainty and an intense determination to succeed.
It is this powerful spirit of entrepreneurship without which we could not survive and the world economy would crumble. While clearly not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur, we all desperately need and depend on these founding visionaries- whatever the size of the enterprise they invent- to continue to innovate, to strive, and to build.
There is a strong difference of opinion as to whether entrepreneurship can be taught. Are entrepreneurs born, or can they be made? If the increase in formal entrepreneurial education over the last thirty-plus years is any indication, many business schools believe the skills can be learned. Today, better than 2000 American colleges and universities offer classes in entrepreneurship, compared to a paltry 200 back in the 1970s.
Gregg Fairbrothers is the founding director of the Dartmouth Entrepreneurial Network, and he teaches a hugely successful course in entrepreneurship at the Tuck School of Business. In Fairbrother's class the students learn through experience; the vast majority of the work takes place outside the classroom. Students develop and present their own ideas for a startup, and then are tasked with refining their approach, testing in the marketplace, and pitching to potential investors to secure financing. Clearly, Fairbrothers believes that learning by doing in the hard school of the marketplace is the only way to teach entrepreneurship.
Fairbrothers also acknowledges that entrepreneurship is a difficult concept to define and measure with any precision. He suggests that entrepreneurs are characterized more by a set of identifiable traits than by what they do, and that the range of entrepreneurial behaviors can be plotted along a classic bell curve. In a recent Fortune Magazine article Fairbrothers says, "So the question is, can you take a point on that curve and move it? If 'entrepreneurial' is to the right, can you move it that way? I know I can move it that way. I've done it."
Entrepreneurship, therefore, is not a single trait that some individuals and organizations possess and others do not. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition, but rather a spectrum of behaviors that includes innovative approaches, calculated risks, and willingness to fail and try again.
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz recently held a series of brainstorming meetings with a group of his employees. Schultz was the entrepreneurial visionary behind the massive growth of the Starbucks brand. He left the company for a time only to return in 2008 as Starbucks struggled to maintain its impressive growth. The employee focus group helped in the effort to return to entrepreneurial roots. Schultz says in a recent New York Times interview, "We lost our way… [so] we went back to start-up mode, hand-to-hand combat every day. And with the kind of discussion and focus that probably we had not had as a company since the early days- the fear of failure, the hunger to win."
Among other things, Starbucks now works to give its stores a local feel that reflects neighborhood history and architecture, and even displays the work of local artists. The company places greater emphasis on satisfying regional differences among coffee drinkers; Sun Belt customers prefer cold drinks and those in the Pacific Northwest drink more espresso, for example. Starbucks coffee buyers no longer focus exclusively on purchasing only beans produced in sufficient quantity to supply all stores; they now also buy local blends made in small batches.
While the jury is still out, as of early 2010, Starbucks had seen healthy increases in revenues, same-store sales, and its stock price. Leadership guru Warren Bennis says of entrepreneurs like Schulz that they, "keep shaking things up and pulling the stakes out of the tent because they like the mud and the chaos of reinventing, and Howard has a bit of that in him."
Do you as a leader display entrepreneurial behaviors? Do you like to shake things up, try new ideas, and take the occasional calculated risk? How about the organization you work for? Where does it sit on the "Entrepreneurial Bell Curve?" Do you celebrate entrepreneurship or have you become bureaucratic and stagnant? No matter the age or size of your enterprise (think Best Buy Corporation), a conscious effort to cultivate and maintain entrepreneurial roots can provide a healthy boost in performance.
It is absolutely fascinating to contemplate that every business in the world, including behemoths like General Electric (Thomas Edison), Wal-Mart (Sam Walton), Toyota Motor (Kiichiro Toyoda), and Mary Kay Inc. (Mary Kay Ash) started as nothing more than an idea in someone's head. That person either had a new and better idea, or got sick of working for someone else, or both. And he or she also invariably had a high tolerance for uncertainty and an intense determination to succeed.
It is this powerful spirit of entrepreneurship without which we could not survive and the world economy would crumble. While clearly not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur, we all desperately need and depend on these founding visionaries- whatever the size of the enterprise they invent- to continue to innovate, to strive, and to build.
There is a strong difference of opinion as to whether entrepreneurship can be taught. Are entrepreneurs born, or can they be made? If the increase in formal entrepreneurial education over the last thirty-plus years is any indication, many business schools believe the skills can be learned. Today, better than 2000 American colleges and universities offer classes in entrepreneurship, compared to a paltry 200 back in the 1970s.
Gregg Fairbrothers is the founding director of the Dartmouth Entrepreneurial Network, and he teaches a hugely successful course in entrepreneurship at the Tuck School of Business. In Fairbrother's class the students learn through experience; the vast majority of the work takes place outside the classroom. Students develop and present their own ideas for a startup, and then are tasked with refining their approach, testing in the marketplace, and pitching to potential investors to secure financing. Clearly, Fairbrothers believes that learning by doing in the hard school of the marketplace is the only way to teach entrepreneurship.
Fairbrothers also acknowledges that entrepreneurship is a difficult concept to define and measure with any precision. He suggests that entrepreneurs are characterized more by a set of identifiable traits than by what they do, and that the range of entrepreneurial behaviors can be plotted along a classic bell curve. In a recent Fortune Magazine article Fairbrothers says, "So the question is, can you take a point on that curve and move it? If 'entrepreneurial' is to the right, can you move it that way? I know I can move it that way. I've done it."
Entrepreneurship, therefore, is not a single trait that some individuals and organizations possess and others do not. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition, but rather a spectrum of behaviors that includes innovative approaches, calculated risks, and willingness to fail and try again.
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz recently held a series of brainstorming meetings with a group of his employees. Schultz was the entrepreneurial visionary behind the massive growth of the Starbucks brand. He left the company for a time only to return in 2008 as Starbucks struggled to maintain its impressive growth. The employee focus group helped in the effort to return to entrepreneurial roots. Schultz says in a recent New York Times interview, "We lost our way… [so] we went back to start-up mode, hand-to-hand combat every day. And with the kind of discussion and focus that probably we had not had as a company since the early days- the fear of failure, the hunger to win."
Among other things, Starbucks now works to give its stores a local feel that reflects neighborhood history and architecture, and even displays the work of local artists. The company places greater emphasis on satisfying regional differences among coffee drinkers; Sun Belt customers prefer cold drinks and those in the Pacific Northwest drink more espresso, for example. Starbucks coffee buyers no longer focus exclusively on purchasing only beans produced in sufficient quantity to supply all stores; they now also buy local blends made in small batches.
While the jury is still out, as of early 2010, Starbucks had seen healthy increases in revenues, same-store sales, and its stock price. Leadership guru Warren Bennis says of entrepreneurs like Schulz that they, "keep shaking things up and pulling the stakes out of the tent because they like the mud and the chaos of reinventing, and Howard has a bit of that in him."
Do you as a leader display entrepreneurial behaviors? Do you like to shake things up, try new ideas, and take the occasional calculated risk? How about the organization you work for? Where does it sit on the "Entrepreneurial Bell Curve?" Do you celebrate entrepreneurship or have you become bureaucratic and stagnant? No matter the age or size of your enterprise (think Best Buy Corporation), a conscious effort to cultivate and maintain entrepreneurial roots can provide a healthy boost in performance.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Simplify and Prioritize
I know an executive who has a forty-page list of personal action items. Not forty items, total, on his to-do list. Forty pages, single-spaced, in a bound notebook. I have had professional dealings with this leader and I can tell you from personal experience that while he is a terribly busy man with a lot to do, he gets absolutely nothing done. He does not follow up on the most basic tasks, like returning phone calls or responding to e-mails. He cannot be counted on to deliver an outcome on anything. He tries to do everything, yet he accomplishes nothing. He is in a position of real power and his organization suffers greatly for his complete lack of focus. He has failed to adhere to that most fundamental yet important leadership principle: simplify and prioritize.
Simplifying and prioritizing starts with each of us as individual leaders. If we don't know what we are trying to accomplish in our own jobs, then there is no chance that the teams we lead will be any better focused.
In a recent interview the CEO of Continental Airlines, Lawrence Kellner, was asked how he manages his time. He replied, "I used to have a long, long to-do list. At the end of the day, I'd see which ones got done. Then five more notes might be on my desk, and I'd throw them on the list. I realized I was often doing what came to me as opposed to what was really important. So I started saying, 'O.K., what are the three most important things I need to do today?' And if No. 1 is a 12-hour task, then I'll spend the day working on it. I need to decide what's the most value-added thing I can do." In short, Kellner succeeded in taking charge of his professional life by proactively prioritizing his efforts, rather than simply reacting to whatever was in front of him. How well do you practice this skill as a leader?
Once we have our own priorities in order, the next task involves making sure our organizations and teams know what their priorities need to be. Again, Kellner is a model of good leadership in this regard. He says, "When I became CEO, I started ending each of my three most important meetings each month by saying, 'O.K., here are the three most important things we're doing. Here are the three priorities." His followers at Continental were no doubt grateful to him for explaining in clear and concrete terms exactly what he expected of them.
Great leaders instinctively understand that their teams are looking to them to identify just a small handful of key objectives, three or four at the most, and to communicate those objectives effectively. William Green is the chairman and chief executive of Accenture, the global consulting, technology services and outsourcing company. Green relates a story about how he was able to simplify things for a group of brand new employees: "I once sat through a three-day training session for new managers. I counted 68 things we told them they needed to do to be successful. And I got up to close the session, and I said there are three things that matter. The first is competence… The second one is confidence… The third thing is caring…" From 68 things to three. Again, this group of Accenture managers surely appreciated their chief's willingness to help them prioritize in their jobs, and in their leadership journey.
Cristobal Conde is the president and CEO of SunGuard, a software and IT services company, and he was notorious early in his career for micromanaging and making every decision himself. He soon realized the futility of this approach. He recalls, "That was in the early 90s, and that experience convinced me that the right way to do it is the opposite, which is to hold people accountable, to really restrict the number of things you say to them, and to decide the one or two things that are most important. You have to do that consistently over a year before you start having an impact." Indeed, it takes time to hammer a message home, but if it is simple and consistent, people will eventually respond and deliver.
Alan Mulally has been the president and chief executive of Ford Motor since 2006, and has led that company to extraordinary levels of achievement and value creation in an incredibly challenging time for the auto industry. Mulally is another leader who stays focused on a few key objectives. He says, "I've moved to a place where I'm really focused on four things. I pay attention to everything, but there are some things that are very unique to what I need to do as a leader. One of them is this process of connecting what we're doing to the outside world… A second focus for me is: What business are we in? What are we going to focus on? The third one is balancing the near term with the longer term… And then I really focus on values and standards… I'm the one who needs to focus on those four things, because if I do that, the entire team will have an understanding of them."
Albert Einstein once said, "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius- and a lot of courage- to move in the opposite direction." The best leaders have an uncanny ability to simplify what is complex. They know what is truly important and what is not. They can identify the most critical challenges before them and prioritize those challenges so as to maximize their precious time. And they communicate these simple priorities to their team, again and again, in a way that helps people know how to direct their own efforts and to achieve results. Great leaders are incredibly adept at simplifying and prioritizing.
Simplifying and prioritizing starts with each of us as individual leaders. If we don't know what we are trying to accomplish in our own jobs, then there is no chance that the teams we lead will be any better focused.
In a recent interview the CEO of Continental Airlines, Lawrence Kellner, was asked how he manages his time. He replied, "I used to have a long, long to-do list. At the end of the day, I'd see which ones got done. Then five more notes might be on my desk, and I'd throw them on the list. I realized I was often doing what came to me as opposed to what was really important. So I started saying, 'O.K., what are the three most important things I need to do today?' And if No. 1 is a 12-hour task, then I'll spend the day working on it. I need to decide what's the most value-added thing I can do." In short, Kellner succeeded in taking charge of his professional life by proactively prioritizing his efforts, rather than simply reacting to whatever was in front of him. How well do you practice this skill as a leader?
Once we have our own priorities in order, the next task involves making sure our organizations and teams know what their priorities need to be. Again, Kellner is a model of good leadership in this regard. He says, "When I became CEO, I started ending each of my three most important meetings each month by saying, 'O.K., here are the three most important things we're doing. Here are the three priorities." His followers at Continental were no doubt grateful to him for explaining in clear and concrete terms exactly what he expected of them.
Great leaders instinctively understand that their teams are looking to them to identify just a small handful of key objectives, three or four at the most, and to communicate those objectives effectively. William Green is the chairman and chief executive of Accenture, the global consulting, technology services and outsourcing company. Green relates a story about how he was able to simplify things for a group of brand new employees: "I once sat through a three-day training session for new managers. I counted 68 things we told them they needed to do to be successful. And I got up to close the session, and I said there are three things that matter. The first is competence… The second one is confidence… The third thing is caring…" From 68 things to three. Again, this group of Accenture managers surely appreciated their chief's willingness to help them prioritize in their jobs, and in their leadership journey.
Cristobal Conde is the president and CEO of SunGuard, a software and IT services company, and he was notorious early in his career for micromanaging and making every decision himself. He soon realized the futility of this approach. He recalls, "That was in the early 90s, and that experience convinced me that the right way to do it is the opposite, which is to hold people accountable, to really restrict the number of things you say to them, and to decide the one or two things that are most important. You have to do that consistently over a year before you start having an impact." Indeed, it takes time to hammer a message home, but if it is simple and consistent, people will eventually respond and deliver.
Alan Mulally has been the president and chief executive of Ford Motor since 2006, and has led that company to extraordinary levels of achievement and value creation in an incredibly challenging time for the auto industry. Mulally is another leader who stays focused on a few key objectives. He says, "I've moved to a place where I'm really focused on four things. I pay attention to everything, but there are some things that are very unique to what I need to do as a leader. One of them is this process of connecting what we're doing to the outside world… A second focus for me is: What business are we in? What are we going to focus on? The third one is balancing the near term with the longer term… And then I really focus on values and standards… I'm the one who needs to focus on those four things, because if I do that, the entire team will have an understanding of them."
Albert Einstein once said, "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius- and a lot of courage- to move in the opposite direction." The best leaders have an uncanny ability to simplify what is complex. They know what is truly important and what is not. They can identify the most critical challenges before them and prioritize those challenges so as to maximize their precious time. And they communicate these simple priorities to their team, again and again, in a way that helps people know how to direct their own efforts and to achieve results. Great leaders are incredibly adept at simplifying and prioritizing.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Communicate, Communicate, Communicate
Drew Gilpin Faust is a noted American historian who specializes in the history of the South and, in particular, the changing roles of women during the period before and during the Civil War. She taught for many years at the University of Pennsylvania and is the award-winning author of several books. In 2001 she became the head of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and, in 2007, she was named the first female president of Harvard University.
In a recent interview in the New York Times, Gilpin Faust describes the leadership lessons she learned in transitioning from her role as a scholar to that of an administrator with responsibility for a team of people and a large, complex organization. She says, "They have to do with understanding the context in which you are leading. Universities have enormously distributed authority and many different sorts of constituencies, all of whom have a stake in that institution… I spend a huge amount of time reaching out to people, either literally or digitally, and with alumni networks all over the world, so that I can connect. Leadership by walking around- that's a digital space now, it's virtual space."
Good communication is the key to effective performance, innovation, and change in any organization. And the message must be hammered home repeatedly. Gilpin Faust says, "When I came to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, many people wanted to help. An alum who was an expert in turnarounds said, 'One lesson about change in any organization- communicate, communicate, communicate.'"
Susan Docherty, who heads up the United States sales, service, and marketing team at General Motors, echoes Gilpin Faust's point of view concerning uniformity and persistence in communication. Docherty says in a recent interview, "Whether you have a really small team or a really big team, communication needs to be at the forefront. It needs to be simple. It needs to be consistent. And even when you're tired of what the message is, you need to do it again and again and again, because everybody comes to the table with a different perspective and a different experience. The same words mean different things to different people."
The global consulting firm Watson Wyatt reports in a survey just released for 2009-10 that companies that communicate effectively provided a 47% higher return to their shareholders over the five-year period from 2004 to 2009. The report states, "In challenging times, companies are forced to make tough decisions and deliver difficult messages. But our study found that high-performing companies don't shy away from tough messages. They make communication a priority and use every tool available to reach out to a workforce in desperate need of information and direction."
Specifically, the Watson Wyatt study reveals that the companies that communicate best are very courageous in their employee communication. Watson Wyatt refers to this skill as "telling it like it is." Instead of shying away from difficult messages in an attempt to protect their people, these companies train and encourage their managers to focus on constant, effective communication, especially during times of uncertainty. "Highly effective communicators," says Watson Wyatt, "say more, not less." The study shows that when people are told what they need to know, even if the news is bad, their performance actually improves.
The best companies also promote innovation through their communication plans by encouraging employees to think creatively about work processes, job tasks, and productivity measures. Even the communication plans themselves reflect an innovative spirit. They use multiple channels such as intranet updates, wiki, blogs, and e-mail, as well as face-to-face dialogue where possible. The report asserts, "… taking the initiative to try new tools to reach a culturally diverse and geographically dispersed audience is the hallmark of effective communication." This is the essence of "leadership by walking around in a virtual space" that Drew Gilpin Faust describes.
The highest performing companies are disciplined in their approach to communication. They set direction and measure results to ensure that employees not only know what they are supposed to be doing, but why. They make sure that employees are given good direction, but also helpful context. The result is a more engaged team. Outcomes, both good and bad, are measured closely and shared with the team.
Finally, the Watson Wyatt report emphasizes that a critical component of any solid communication plan involves listening to employees. Good communication ensures alignment, but if companies are not confirming understanding and listening to feedback, then alignment can be compromised.
Clearly, those organizations- whether they are a major university or a small business- that develop simple, consistent messages and repeat them constantly through multiple channels perform best over time. Gilpin Faust sums up the point well when she talks about her most critical lesson in communication: "Someone would say, 'Well, you've never talked about X,' and I'd say, 'I've talked about it here, here, and here. I talk about that all the time. Then I realize that all the time isn't enough. You have to do 'all the time and more.'"
In other words, communicate, communicate, communicate.
In a recent interview in the New York Times, Gilpin Faust describes the leadership lessons she learned in transitioning from her role as a scholar to that of an administrator with responsibility for a team of people and a large, complex organization. She says, "They have to do with understanding the context in which you are leading. Universities have enormously distributed authority and many different sorts of constituencies, all of whom have a stake in that institution… I spend a huge amount of time reaching out to people, either literally or digitally, and with alumni networks all over the world, so that I can connect. Leadership by walking around- that's a digital space now, it's virtual space."
Good communication is the key to effective performance, innovation, and change in any organization. And the message must be hammered home repeatedly. Gilpin Faust says, "When I came to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, many people wanted to help. An alum who was an expert in turnarounds said, 'One lesson about change in any organization- communicate, communicate, communicate.'"
Susan Docherty, who heads up the United States sales, service, and marketing team at General Motors, echoes Gilpin Faust's point of view concerning uniformity and persistence in communication. Docherty says in a recent interview, "Whether you have a really small team or a really big team, communication needs to be at the forefront. It needs to be simple. It needs to be consistent. And even when you're tired of what the message is, you need to do it again and again and again, because everybody comes to the table with a different perspective and a different experience. The same words mean different things to different people."
The global consulting firm Watson Wyatt reports in a survey just released for 2009-10 that companies that communicate effectively provided a 47% higher return to their shareholders over the five-year period from 2004 to 2009. The report states, "In challenging times, companies are forced to make tough decisions and deliver difficult messages. But our study found that high-performing companies don't shy away from tough messages. They make communication a priority and use every tool available to reach out to a workforce in desperate need of information and direction."
Specifically, the Watson Wyatt study reveals that the companies that communicate best are very courageous in their employee communication. Watson Wyatt refers to this skill as "telling it like it is." Instead of shying away from difficult messages in an attempt to protect their people, these companies train and encourage their managers to focus on constant, effective communication, especially during times of uncertainty. "Highly effective communicators," says Watson Wyatt, "say more, not less." The study shows that when people are told what they need to know, even if the news is bad, their performance actually improves.
The best companies also promote innovation through their communication plans by encouraging employees to think creatively about work processes, job tasks, and productivity measures. Even the communication plans themselves reflect an innovative spirit. They use multiple channels such as intranet updates, wiki, blogs, and e-mail, as well as face-to-face dialogue where possible. The report asserts, "… taking the initiative to try new tools to reach a culturally diverse and geographically dispersed audience is the hallmark of effective communication." This is the essence of "leadership by walking around in a virtual space" that Drew Gilpin Faust describes.
The highest performing companies are disciplined in their approach to communication. They set direction and measure results to ensure that employees not only know what they are supposed to be doing, but why. They make sure that employees are given good direction, but also helpful context. The result is a more engaged team. Outcomes, both good and bad, are measured closely and shared with the team.
Finally, the Watson Wyatt report emphasizes that a critical component of any solid communication plan involves listening to employees. Good communication ensures alignment, but if companies are not confirming understanding and listening to feedback, then alignment can be compromised.
Clearly, those organizations- whether they are a major university or a small business- that develop simple, consistent messages and repeat them constantly through multiple channels perform best over time. Gilpin Faust sums up the point well when she talks about her most critical lesson in communication: "Someone would say, 'Well, you've never talked about X,' and I'd say, 'I've talked about it here, here, and here. I talk about that all the time. Then I realize that all the time isn't enough. You have to do 'all the time and more.'"
In other words, communicate, communicate, communicate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
