Lessons Learned for Better Leaders and Outcomes

Prologue

What you can’t measure you can’t improve has been a mantra for improvement initiatives for years. Several years ago, we wrote with the contributions from our friend Tony Ameo about performance measures.  Another aspect of improvement is bench-marking.  We are firm believers in bench-marking as ways of externally checking an organization.  What do others do, how do they do them and what can we borrow from that knowledge to help improve the companies we consult with.  We like to think we practice what we preach, but bench-marking a small consultancy can be a difficult endeavor (perhaps a topic for a future issue).  However, we are continually on the lookout for lessons learned; when we saw Joe Bockerstette’s post on LinkedIn titled Ten Lessons Learned from Thirty-Five Years in Consulting; it hit home.  We contacted Joe and asked if we could use his lessons learned as a backdrop for our 2017 UPDATE series and he graciously agreed.  These lessons learned dovetail nicely into our last issue.

Introduction

Welcome to our 2017 UPDATE series.  This year we are focusing on an article/post we read that delineated Ten Lessons Learned from Thirty-Five Years in Consulting written by Joe Bockerstette who is a principal at Business Enterprise Mapping. While a relatively short post, it was quite powerful for us because it validated many of our observations and topics we have written about.  Joe’s ten lessons seemed to form a nice backdrop for our 2017 articles.  This being our first article, we will introduce the 10 lessons and then drill down into the first two.

Often we face the question: why do we do what we do, which is a very good question.  We can tell you what we do and how we do it, but answering the why is a challenge.  One answer is independence.  We believe we offer a very personal level of professional service that does not carry corporate baggage or any ulterior motives.  We believe we can be clean and honest with our clients and always reserve the right to walk away if we feel we pressured to compromise our values.  Having been in this business for over 30 years we have the privilege of working with great people and companies, gaining a breath of experience and fortunately a track-record of successes;  but bench-marking can be difficult.

While we believe we are doing fine based on the longevity we have with our clients, as well as a healthy new client influx, it is nice to get an external perspective of how are we doing.  Do our observations make sense beyond our sphere?  When we draft our newsletters, we attempt to reach beyond the traditional, challenging ideas, thoughts and practices.  Again, bench-marking is difficult.  So, when we see something validating our experience, observations and beliefs, we get excited.   Our purpose in this 2017 series of articles will be not to extol the virtues of consulting but to present important lessons on effective leadership.

Ten Lessons

Joe’s post on LinkedIn caught our attention because the ten lessons learned were spot on and validate our observations from years of consulting.  They are:

1. Success depends far more on the client than the consultant.

2. Figuring out what’s wrong isn’t that hard.

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.

6. Change is simple, just not easy.

7. Leaders would rather hire superstars to solve problems than solve problems.

8. Industry experience is overrated.

9. Corporate politics stops improvements.

10. Great clients have a will that delivers successful outcomes.

Addressing all ten in one article is not realistic for our UPDATE newsletter, so we are going to address a few in each of our four issues for 2017 from our perspective.  Our first issue focuses on # 1 - Success depends far more on the client than the consultant; and #2 - Figuring out what’s wrong isn’t that hard.

In past Update articles, we have discussed how improvement efforts depend on a true and active commitment at the top of an organization and how active commitment sets the tone for participation by the rest of the organization.  Let’s look at the first of these lessons:

# 1 - Success depends far more on the client than the consultant

When we started consulting, marketing was a necessary endeavor but not something we were particularly adept at.  We felt that our job was to sell ourselves, then our consulting approach.  Fortunately, most engagements were successful, but not all.  In trying to understand the successful and the not so successful engagements, we saw common threads realizing there were common characteristics of our clients that affected the success of the engagement.  We realized in addition to marketing ourselves we had to assess the potential client to ensure they were the right people to drive improvements and the organization’s success.  The criteria we developed for our ideal client included:

• All aggressive –
  These individuals were willing and able to take charge and make things happen.   They were committed to the organization and wanting to make changes happen so the organization would thrive.
• Variety of levels of Supervision –
  We found that our success was not at any particular level within the organization.  We found we were successful at multiple levels, provided these individuals possessed these characteristics.
• Not risk adverse –
  Willing to “upset the apple cart” to gain improvement.  In our case, being a small firm carried risks, but one they were willing to accept to achieve organizational success.  There have been times when we experienced challenges because we did not have deep pockets or bench strength, or the panache of a larger more recognizable firm.  Our ideal clients focused on outcomes rather than perception.
• They can “handle the system” –
  These individuals could maneuver through their bureaucracies to move the agenda forward.  They could sell the improvements to those below and above them in the organization.
• Target individuals vs. Topics –
  Jim Collins hit this characteristic when he stated in his book Good to Great, get the right people on the bus and they will be able to take you anywhere you need to go.  Our Ideal Clients focused on getting the right people involved in the change effort both internally and externally. 

Not everything went smoothly.  Finding the Ideal Client was and is a challenge. In businesses and or companies where we had connections we were able to do some research in advance so we got as close to the person or people we needed to, but that certainly had limitations.  So in order to qualify or get closer to the ideal person we had to do a bit more work.  In these cases, we applied, selectively, the following criteria:

• Who is the ‘right’ person –
  It takes work to identify the ‘right’ person and it takes more work to ensure that person would be assigned the lead for the consulting engagement.
• Do you use outside services –
  Is there an aversion to using outside services.  If so, what can we bring to the table to show how an independent approach is beneficial?
• What current ongoing project –
  Learning what work or endeavors were considered important helped us focus either our approach.
• What current anticipated projects/need –
  How did what we were proposing integrate with other planned needs?
• What is the budget cycle and $ sign-off authority –
  This item is keenly important.  A few examples: If we were dealing with a senior executive, budget cycles and sign-off authority was a moot point. If they wanted something done or believed in a particular endeavor, it happened.  In a more planned context of projects, budget cycles and sign-off authority became important.  An Ideal Client could make things happen.  Without this authority, all the good intentions meant nothing.

In contrast, engagements that did not fulfill our criteria resulted in less than ideal conclusions, as stated above; fortunately, those were few and declining over the years as we refined our process.  Engagements where our clients and the people we worked with met our criteria were interesting, engaging and beneficial for both the client and us. 

Why are we discussing the marketing of consulting work?  Because these characteristics apply to successful managers and provide strong leadership within any organization.  An organization succeeds because of leadership.  We always try to focus our Update articles on leadership.  The 10 Lessons that are providing the backdrop to our 2017 Update articles are lessons not just for consulting but also for building and growing successful organizations.

#2 – Figuring out what’s wrong isn’t that hard.

Several years ago, we wrote an article that likened figuring out what is wrong within an organization as misplaced pieces of a puzzle rather than mysteries.  In reality, the challenges facing businesses today are not mysteries.  We believe success in addressing the challenges comes from a clear understanding of the issues.  The issues and many of the answers reside within the organization and are identifiable.  Therefore, rather than mysteries, which contain unknown components, organizations face misplaced puzzle pieces.  The pieces are there; what we do, with our clients, is to sort and reshape the pieces so they all fit together. 

 

Frequently managers think they understand what is wrong in their organization.  Their definition of a problem typically is the primary reason behind our engagement.  Sometimes these definitions are accurate, but sometimes leaders are not close to defining the real problems.  One of our challenges and a key to the success of the engagement is a clear definition of the problem.  As we will address in our next article, leaders don’t always know how work gets done.  To gain a clear and true understanding; those who “are in the trenches” must be involved not just with the improvements and changes, but first with helping to define what is wrong.  These “trench dwellers” may be wrench turners, accountants, first level supervisors, customer service folks on the phone with the customers, etc. 

Achieving this understanding involves tapping into the best thinking of those who confront these issues and then designing the necessary changes.  In order to achieve this insight, it is important to create both the environment and framework to identify and sort out the issues, assist organizations regain a sense of purpose and focus, establish an overall improvement design, create real and achievable improvement initiatives and establish the whole picture of its existence. We help organizations shape or re-shape their pieces to solve the puzzle, facilitating tangible outcomes while institutionalizing cultural change.

As noted, rarely is it rocket science to figure out what is wrong in an organization.  It takes involvement at all levels and more importantly listening on the part of the leader.  After listening, the leader must separate the facts from the “venting” and pull those facts together into a clear and accurate problem definition.  As consultants, we work hard with our clients to gain a clear problem definition that sets the stage to move forward with focused and effective resolution initiatives.

Conclusion

When we first read Joe Bockerstette’s Ten Lessons Learned, we thought they formed a great backdrop for us to provide our perspective on the same lessons, interjecting our real world experiences in the context of leadership.  Another goal for this year is to abbreviate the length of our articles.  Keeping them shorter and hitting the high points. Therefore, we will address the next few Lessons in our next Update issue.  Keep in mind we feel these are key leadership issues and many that we have previously addressed in past Update articles.  We feel these are important issues in building strong and effective leaders at all levels of an organization.

Leadership – “Landia” – Organizational Environment

Prologue

Several years ago we characterized the issues facing businesses as puzzles.  We stated that few mysteries remain in the business world, but there are many more puzzles.  Shaping the pieces of the puzzle and fitting them together into a cohesive effective organization is the real challenge. The issues are typically known, or can at least be identified.  Rather than mysteries, which contain unknown components, what businesses face are puzzles. The pieces are usually there, but most likely need to be re-shaped so they all fit together. We use the concept of Landia to highlight the selection and shaping of puzzle pieces into an effective, vibrant organization.  The mechanism to shape the organization with all its pieces and Landias is Contextual Leadership.  While our discussion of Landia started a light hearted representation, it is a very real challenge to leaders.  Applying the concepts of Contextual Leadership is the focus of this article.

Introduction

In our last article in a rather tongue and cheek manner we introduced the concept of one’s “-Landia” (“Portlandia”, e.g.).  Over the past several years, we have been writing about leadership, particularly Contextual Leadership.  If we examine the two concepts of -Landia and Contextual Leadership together and couple them with organizational environment, we see how leadership can affect the culture and effectiveness of an organization.

A brief refresher on Contextual Leadership:

Contextual Leadership differs from the historical view of leadership development and/or leadership training as what seemingly successful leaders or celebrity leaders do. 

Contextual leadership attempts to understand the dynamics of leadership and leadership responsibilities.  Unpacking these dynamics and becoming aware of how to maximize the tangibles, leaders can begin to recognize how to respond successfully and lead their organizations.  Contextual leadership is a framework to build upon.  It recognizes that various situations may have different contexts from the expected norm or one’s previous experiences.

Contextual leaders are those people who are able to:

·         Recognize and understand the culture of the organization and its people

·         Use their attributes and apply their experience and competencies in an enlightened and effective manner to achieve positive results for the organization, its people, and its stakeholders

·         Not do blindly what may have worked for them before in some other context!

For more on this please contact us or visit our website Newsletter button, you will find detailed articles on Contextual Leadership.

First, despite the light-hearted approach we took to the concept of -Landia, -Landia is real.  Each and every one of us has our own -Landia.  -Landias can overlap and -Landias can be distinct and different with little commonality.  We see them everywhere and every day. Sometimes this perception is conscious and sometimes unconscious.  Consider entering a social event where you may or may not know people.  The first thing we tend to do is look for someone we know, then someone who we may perceive as having some common characteristic with whom we can begin building rapport.  Once we start talking we are looking for overlapping -Landias.  When we identify the -Landia overlaps, barriers come down.  In contrast, if through initial conversations we see little overlap in our –Landias, we tend to move on and begin the process again.  This example was simplistic.  Now if we believe we can expand our perspectives by seeking people whose -Landia is different and then work to bring the two together in a manner that begins building rapport, a synergistic effect can happen.  People too often look for common -Landias and overlook the opportunity to expand the discussion and expand their own horizons by engaging with different -Landias.  So let’s translate these examples into an organization. 

Balancing -Landias – a leader’s responsibility

In past articles we have discussed using tools like Myers-Briggs to identify “personality types”, recognize different types, and make those types work together productively.  It is the same with –Landias, perhaps to a greater extent, since they are more diverse and not as easily categorized as an MBTI grid.  However, those -Landias come together in an organization and must function to advance the organization.  If an organization had only similar -Landias it would not only be boring, it would eventually stagnate.  There would be no one to challenge ideas and bring different perspectives into the organizational thinking. 

The leader of an organization must recognize that he/she needs different -Landias, different perspectives, and different thinking to build a productive and progressive organization.  The challenge for the leader is to find those different -Landias and then mesh them into a cohesive unit.

You want enough overlap in the right areas and sufficient diversity to ensure broad perspectives and thinking consistent with the Vision and Mission of the organization.  This diversity, however, does often create some conflict and head-butting between staff members whose -Landias are divergent.  Leaders have to seek different -Landias, but then must monitor and control the diverging -Landias to create a cohesive unit.  Easy to write, but not particularly easy to do.  Instead of focusing solely on the mission, but leaders must put equal--and sometimes more--effort into the human interactions within the organization.

The imperative for leaders is to create an environment that understands different -Landias exist and appreciates their value to the organization, to realize that Contextual Leadership provides insights into effective leadership in order to build an organizational culture that respects varying -Landias, and to utilize those contextual qualities, attributes and experiences to achieve the mission of the organization.   While this concept is certainly not new, it suggests that the dynamics of -Landias provide a fresh way of looking at building a cohesive and well-functioning team.

Creating culture and changing culture

Organization culture is often misunderstood and dismissed as a “foo foo dust”.  But it is real and critical to an organization intent on achieving its mission and thriving.   The culture of an organization develops over time.  Culture is influenced by the leader, more or less, depending on his/her leadership traits and personality.  Just to shed a bit more light on the topic, the type of organization plays a tremendous role in a leader’s ability to affect a cultural change.  We use this example in our presentations.  As a former nuclear submariner, I experienced a few changes of command.  As one Captain physically leaves the ‘boat’ and the new Captain boards, the culture can change almost as quickly.  The hierarchical chain of command, the closeness of the physical environment, and the criticality of mission and potential danger of operating a nuclear submarine all have a significant influence on culture.  Hence a new Commanding Officer can rather readily, and almost immediately, affect culture change.  Contrast that with a Not-for-Profit organization that has both employees and volunteers.  A leadership change has a completely different impact and effect.  It can take years for change, much less cultural change, to take place.

Culture is also influenced by the members of the organization and the history of the organization.  The various -Landias within impact that influence.  The impact can be positive or negative depending on how the -Landias interact and are managed. Building a positive and healthy culture is one of the biggest challenges for a leader.  The mission is the goal, but achieving that goal requires an effective organization that recognizes the goal and is committed to working together. 

Workforce planning – hiring for culture, and balancing -Landias

Perhaps one of the costliest and potentially disruptive functions within an organization is planning human resource needs and then hiring people.  Planning a workforce is complex and a long term initiative, and hiring the right people can be even more difficult.  With current employment laws, when hiring goes awry, significant direct and indirect costs impact the organization.  A person may fulfill all the technical requirements of the position description, possess the requisite education and experience, but if that person does not fit the organizational culture no one is happy.  It is important to note we are not suggesting the IBM Gray Suit model.  Cloning people is typically not in the best interest in any context.  We recognize certain expectations exist within any culture, and if those expectations are not communicated at the onset, current employees and new hires can potentially clash, or at a minimum, experience unnecessary stressors in the workplace.

When a Not-for-Profit organization engaged our services, as part of that work we modified their overall hiring process.   The team of employees we were advising became aware of how culture was impacting their hiring and retention process; consequently, they realized the financial (and disruptive) impact bad hires had on the organization.  We systematically changed their process into a “Hiring for Culture” context.  

-Landia plays a major role in the success of a Hiring for Culture strategy.  The goal is not to have a -Landia diagram that is neat, symmetrical, and overlapping uniformly.  (That is something that is probably impossible.)  What this concept strives for is a balance of -Landias, where people bring unique and special skills, knowledge, experience, and attributes to the organization all within the context of balance.  For this diversity to be successful, the people within an organization must also be aware of the concept of -Landia, learn to respect differences, realize the benefits of differences, and also realize that healthy conflict is part of a healthy organization.  The negative impact of Group Think is extremely serious.

The onus is on the leader to be aware of -Landias and how they can interact both positively and negatively.  In addition, the team members must recognize people are different and not everyone thinks or acts like they do.  And to achieve the mission of the organization and to help the functioning of the organization, they must accept differences and be willing to learn to work together.  Such a transition will not always be smooth.  Differences can be frustrating and lead to friction.  The leader must take the different -Landias and point them in the same direction and lead the effort to overcome the differences to achieve the goals.

Clearly, workforce planning is a key to helping the leader find and nurture diverse team members and instill a common goal and direction.  He/she must always be aware of -Landia interactions to keep the team functioning and headed toward the organizational goal.  To do so requires the leader to expend more effort on the human aspects of the team than on the technical aspects.  For some, especially in technically oriented organizations, human interactions are not a “normal” focus and can take a concerted effort, bringing context into the discussion.  The context created in a technical organization is different than the context of a marketing or sales organization.

Conclusion

We continue our discussion on -Landias by reintroducing contextual leadership.  Each individual’s -Landia is unique, while individuals in an organization contribute to its culture.  Divergent -Landias are a necessary part of a successful organization.  A key aspect—and challenge—of building a high-functioning organization is for the leader to find and nurture divergent -Landias.  Taking each of the individual -Landias, building on strengths and meshing them together into a productive unit may be one of the biggest challenges a leader faces.

Wishing you the best for the upcoming Holiday Season, and don’t hesitate to call or write when the puzzle pieces don’t seem to fit or if different pieces will help fill-in the gaps.