Lessons Learned for Better Leaders and Outcomes #2
Prologue
We interrupted our series of articles to introduce The Inner
Circle. This issue returns us to the Ten
Lessons Learned from Thirty-Five Years in Consulting written by Joe
Bockerstette. Our February issue
discussed the first two lessons learned –
1. Success depends far more on the
client than the consultant.
2. Figuring out what’s wrong isn’t
that hard.
This issue focuses on lessons:
3. Leaders don’t know how work
actually gets done.
4. Leaders and managers also don’t
understand process.
5. Companies measure what’s easy,
not what’s important.
In addition, we are incorporating a column in UPDATE
dedicated to case studies from The Inner Circle. While we will always respect the
confidentiality of our relationships, we feel the sharing of the essence of
some of our engagements to be illustrative of the issues confronting corporate
leaders.
Introduction
We continue our 2017 UPDATE series on an article/post we
read delineating Ten Lessons Learned from Thirty-Five Years in Consulting
written by Joe Bockerstette, a principal at Business Enterprise Mapping. We are
addressing a few of Joe’s lessons learned in our 2017 issues of UPDATE and expound
on them based on our experiences. This
issue focuses on lessons:
3. Leaders don’t know how work actually gets done.
4. Leaders and managers also don’t understand process.
5. Companies measure what’s easy, not what’s important.
# 3 – Leaders don’t know how work actually gets done
In the early 2000s, we worked with a large
telecommunications company in one of their specialized divisions. Part of our charge was to create a 360° instrument unique to
their business unit. We did an extensive
survey of competencies. Two of the
competencies were Business Process and Business Knowledge. The 360 instrument is a valuable tool for
leaders because their superiors, their peers and their subordinates assess
them. Therefore, while Business Knowledge and Business Process were two of the
key competencies, the actual day-to-day workings of the organization are
difficult to get one’s arms around. I had one CEO readily admit that he did not
know what was happening at the working level of his organization. In another situation, a senior division
leader who was responsible for about 30% of the company’s profit realized two
months after the year’s end that he missed the mark by 90%. Reasons for these missed marks and
shortcomings are complex and we certainly don’t want to trivialize them, but
one of the reasons involves leaders diving too deep into what they perceive as
important rather than realizing what’s really important. There is a belief that pouring over
spreadsheets reveals all about a project, until the old adage of garbage in =
garbage out. The 90% shortfall, after a
very intense team “Come to Jesus” meeting, resulted from some small targets
being missed that were rolled over to the next reporting period with the
anticipation that they would be completed. When they weren’t and additional
ones were added to the deficiency list, those were rolled over. It didn’t take
long before the project was in trouble. The Division head focused so much on
computer screens, to an extent that he was completely out of touch with the
work that was and was not getting done.
Then there is the mushroom syndrome, where the leaders is
perceived as an obstacle to work progress such that those actually doing the
work treat the leader like a mushroom by keeping him or her in the dark and
feeding them what they want to hear.
Again detaching the leader from the real work. These are few examples of how it can happen,
and we believe all our readers know of many more examples. Fundamentally a leader must be tied in, not
distracted, focused on the important things, and balance his or her priorities
such that they remain close to the work of their people. The leader must have clear knowledge of how
work is being done, challenge questionable activities but not get so involved
that nothing happens without the leader’s approval and hence the leader becomes
an impediment to work getting done.
#4 – Leaders and managers also don’t understand process
Processes are what make things happen in an organization. A process defines the steps necessary to
achieve a result. It may be how items
are procured or how an insurance claim is to be processed or how pipes are
welded together. In other words, process
defines how things get done. There are
formal documented processes and there are informal, probably not written anywhere,
processes. Both exist in every
organization. Let’s take a look at both
and then examine how they work with – or against – each other.
Documented Processes:
These are processes, where the organization develops steps specifying
how something is supposed to be done.
Some are detailed step-by-step instructions and some are more
generalized giving, if you will, an outline of the steps. In some cases, an organization provides a
policy document serving as a process document.
The amount of detail in documented processes varies widely. The intent is to instruct/direct employees
how to approach and accomplish a particular process. As we will discuss below, the intent may be
good, but the execution, particularly over time, falls away from the documented
process. Most large to medium companies,
we have found, have documented processes.
With smaller companies it varies.
Informal Processes:
These are generally not recorded anywhere. They develop, over time, by the employees who
do the work. Employees find how they can
best achieve the final objective of the process and start using other ways to
get the job done. Informal processes
exist in companies of all sizes, and reflect the actual way things get done and
results achieved. Are these informal processes effective? Generally yes, but they are often far from
efficient. Just like legends handed down
verbally, the informal processes are handed down to new employees and often get
tweaked in the telling. It’s like the
party game of “whisper down the lane” where one person tells another and it
continues on from person to person until the final person is told something
that frequently varies widely from the original. Informal processes get things done but often not
the best and most effective for the organization. Therefore, over time the informal processes change
and evolve.
Documented and Informal Process Interaction: Even with formal documented processes, there
will be informal processes employees use to do the actual work. As discussed in #3 above, in far too many
situations leaders of organizations have no idea how things actually get
done. Unless they were previously part
of the actual process they may be familiar with a formal process but probably
have no idea what the informal processes are and how they are intertwined with
the formal process. Our experience has been, when trying to help
an organization improve their processes; the leaders of the organization only
think they understand how the processes work.
They may know how they should work, but are generally totally unaware of
how things actually work.
Existing formal processes, in place for a long time, may change
due to short-term circumstances adding steps added along the way as work-arounds
for specific issues. As a rule, additional
steps aren’t eliminated when the short-term situation goes away, and too frequently,
the process becomes so cumbersome and unworkable, employees develop their own
informal processes to keep the wheels moving.
We have seen cases where the informal process is completely different
from the formal process, but since the end results are there, the
organizational leaders may be blissfully ignorant of how those results are achieved. Interestingly, when one analyzes the flow of
how the process actually works and factors in the informal processes, the
actual process flow is indistinguishable from the formal process flow.
Processes are critical to accomplishing work with proper results. However, without periodic process review, including
those who actually work the process, the process will become bloated and inefficient,
to the point that, if the employees do not develop informal processes, work
might not get done. Why are process
reviews not conducted more frequently? A
big factor is the leaders and managers not understanding the process and not
asking the employees, who are using the process, for feedback and
recommendations. A process review is not
rocket science, but the leaders of the organization have to recognize the need
and want to see improvements and it takes a little work.
#5 – Companies measure what’s easy, not what’s important
Assessment as a proactive tool illustrates how an organization can
preempt problems. It becomes the age-old
issue of don’t ask the question if you are not ready for the answer. Assessment tools exist to respond to issues/challenges
affecting the health of an organization; and typically, an independent
assessment yields the most valuable perspectives. So once issues are identified and corrective
measures taken, how does an organization know if the desired result was
achieved? This is where measurement
comes into play. Key Performance Measures are important to the success of any
organization. If the right performance measures
are not identified and used, significant consequences result.
Too frequently, determining what and how to measure is not afforded
the thought it needs. Determining what
to measure and how to measure it takes work.
Unfortunately, the old accounting joke of “figures don’t lie but liars
figure” can be applied to performance measures.
It is relatively easy to identify some measures, but those measures may
not really tell how a process or organization is performing. A measure of “how many widgets produced per
hour” may not really tell much about the effectiveness of an organization or a
process. Good measurement takes thought
and goes into more depth. Frequently a
series of more detailed measures reveals the truth.
“Assessment is a necessary element of ensuring an organization is
functioning effectively. The design of an integrated assessment
methodology/plan is essential to appropriate follow up action and
improvement. Assessments designed and
conducted in an improper context can yield inappropriate findings and
information, which typically lead to inappropriate action.”
Our experience demonstrates that the necessary drilling down into
an issue is the usually deferred over the choice of a more expeditious slice
off the top; then measuring the result of whatever initiative is determined to
address this rather superficial issue.
Conclusion
The interesting contrast is when leaders know how work gets done,
when they understand Business Process and when they measure the right things
not the easy ones; these organizations become successful and as Jim Collins
says in his book Good to Great:
·
All good-to-great companies begin the process
of finding a path to greatness by confronting the brutal facts of their current
reality.
·
When you start with an honest and diligent
effort to determine the truth of your situation, the right decisions often
become self-evident.
·
A primary task in taking a company from good-to-great
is to create a culture wherein people have a tremendous opportunity to be heard
and ultimately, for the truth to be heard.
Again we see that Joe Bockerstette’s Lessons Learned are in fact
right on target with our experiences and provide lessons that should be studied
by leaders who want to be truly effective.
Inner Circle Case Study
A few months ago, a CEO, whom we had known, approached one
of our principals in the Inner Circle.
This CEO asked to spend a few days with him. Because they had known each other fairly
well, he agreed, unsure of a specific reason for the visit.
As part of our inner workings, we discuss such requests to
ensure we respond as professionally as possible and provide value for the time
spent. We held a conference call to sort
out expected issues based on what we know about the CEO, as well as methods to
employ during the engagement, and/or cues to be aware of that might change our
approach. In this particular case, we
agreed that listening would be the primary technique. Listening is one of the most important
communication methods. Keen listening
skills afford insights as well as time to assimilate the message received in
order to provide valuable insights. In
many cases, just having someone trusted listen is beneficial.
Since the overall engagement was loosely structured, the
first day was rather touristy, sightseeing, etc. Consistent with our listening strategy, day
two purposely remained open and unplanned, to develop as the CEO desired. The weekend as a whole was relaxing and
enjoyable for both, and the outcome, we believe, was as the CEO desired. As we recapped the engagement we felt the CEO
needed to get away, needed time for some head clearing in a different
environment with a trusted person, who is uninvolved in the CEO’s day-to-day
work; but knowledgeable and considered a colleague.
This demonstrates that the
Inner Circle is more than discussing work related issues, but also an
opportunity to reduce stress, enjoy time away from the daily grind, and an
overall head clearing experience in a safe environment where issues can be
raised as necessary
