Implementation is so difficult for many organisations that we have dubbed this the Bermuda Triangle.  Indeed, recent research shows that only 10% of carefully formulated strategies achieve their full promise. Sounds like plenty of room for success through low-hanging fruit then.  That does not necessarily mean it is easy but performance in this area could certainly be improved given how tight finances and other resources are going to be for the foreseeable future.

“What’s going on?” “Can we make this work?” “What do you think?” Three normal questions. Do we get honest answers? Jim Collins in Good to Great talks about facing the brutal facts; history tells us of lots of situations where groups working together failed to face the brutal facts - whether it be Hitler in the Führer bunker or airlines where the crew did not challenge each other with fatal consequences. The ability to gather all the information needed; to encourage the introverts to share, the nervous to be bolder and the reluctant to take some risks is a key leadership skill. Given the long term impact of many of the decisions we are making at the moment, leaders need the ability to ensure people are engaging in conversation, thinking things through robustly and challenging “group think”.

It is worth reflecting - next time you ask “can we make this work?” how do you get your colleagues fully engaged? How might you challenge them to raise their game in the next round of decision making?

Making the right decision can be a tricky balance. Speed may be of the essence in these challenging times, but judgement can be severely impaired by haste – in the words of author and mountaineer Jim Collins, “Those who panic die on the mountain.”

So, strike whilst the iron is too hot and you may end up burning your fingers! On the other hand, a protracted delay can be equally damaging. Aside from the risk of missing the boat altogether, a key negative factor in the decision making paradox is too much information.

In a recent presentation, Malcolm Gladwell – celebrated author and story teller extraordinaire – described the work of psychologist Stuart Oskamp, an expert in the field of attitudes research.

Oskamp studied the attitudes of a panel of clinical psychologists and psychology students in their assessment of a 29-year-old subject, Joseph Kidd. Participants were given a brief extract of Kidd’s case study and then asked to complete a questionnaire and estimate the accuracy of their responses. They were then given a second extract and asked to repeat the questionnaire and again estimate their success. This was followed by a third and fourth extract, building a series of actual scores and accuracy estimates. The results were quite illuminating. Despite the accuracy of their answers increasing by only 2% after 3 additional extracts, the panel’s assessment of their judgement had grown by a further 20% - a disturbing level of over-confidence!

With the weight of a fragile economy pressing down on organisations, it is tempting for some decision makers to be seen to act quickly - often at the expense of careful reflection and logical thought. Conversely, as our work with senior leaders often reveals, there is often a level of over-caution that stifles opportunities. Fortunately, poor judgement is a leadership sickness that can be remedied with effective coaching support and intentional strategic reflection.

As Oskamp’s research demonstrates, sometimes it is unwise to agonise. Make your decision and organise!

One of the truths at the heart of popular business guru Jim Collins’ research is that it is disciplined people, disciplined thought and disciplined action that helps an organisation move from Good to Great. This is strongly reinforced by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers - which claims to uncover the secrets behind people’s success.

One of the key facts he comments on is the 10,000 hours rule  - based on German research on high quality musicians. They demonstrated with violinists that those who practised for eight thousand hours by the time they were 20 were good - those that practised for 10,000  hours were world class. This research was followed up with pianists yielding the same results. Later research reinforced the 10,000 hours rule with chess players, ice skaters, fiction writers, composers etc. Gladwell shows The Beatles got to be world class through 10,000 hours of live playing and practice together. Bill Gates did an incredible 10,000 hours of computer programming  by the time he dropped put of Harvard and set up his own software company. Clearly, talent and personality link in here - to give the drive to do all that practising. But the essential point from Gladwell’s research is that great performance is not an accident - people have worked at it.

Gladwell also looks at a list of the 75 richest people in world history - 14 are American men born between 1832 and 1839. This was an incredible time of opportunity and growth and these men used their vision and talent to great advantage.  Another group emerged in the 1950’s - well positioned to lead the IT revolution. So we have people with well honed skills and abilities who are able to take best advantage of the opportunities that come their way. Gladwell goes on to talk about matching these “advantages” with the ability to work with others

“No one - not rock stars, not professional athletes, nor software billionaires and not even geniuses - ever makes it  alone”

So how does this link to leadership and the challenges of facing change in the 21st century? To a degree Gladwell’s first book The Tipping Point gives some interesting pointers here. When does a change or trend become contagious? We have the recent case of British Airways trying to get staff to accept no wages for a month - will that remain an isolated incident or will every firm be doing it?  What habits will change over the coming years - will crime increase? Will everyone stop taking foreign holidays? Leaders need to watch for the signs - to observe when a trend suddenly becomes the accepted norm. 

That then leads to the question, does Gladwell give any clues on leading change in challenging times? He points us to look at those who have had their 10,000 hours of practice in leading change - those who have been successful either in leading extensive transformations in recent years, but also those who have mastered the process of handling change in past times of crisis and turmoil. Those who lead now - people born in the 1960’s and 1970’s - may be about to start a long period of honing their skills during times of change, innovation, more effective working. Their ability to emerge from this period as world class deliverers of change will depend on how much practice they get in shaping the future, how they find and utilise the talent and change experience around them and bringing people with them.

Away days are often seen as an unwelcome interruption to normal day to day running of the organisation, like an unwanted present or visitor. So the preparation, if any, is typically rushed or sparse. Many managers do not clear the everyday operational clutter in their minds to make space for focussed thoughts on the agenda or issues for the day.

Yet the preparation for away days is critical. The thinking time and shifting of mind sets away from the normal day to day operational realities enables participants to contribute and be engaged with the topic of the event. The world back at the office can operate without you - it does when you are on holiday - but on those occasions we tend to plan more and put things in place.

Away days are also opportunities to build on existing or new relationships as well as tap into each others’ expertise, experience and knowledge. Interestingly more and more people who join an organisation attend away days even before or soon after they start work. First impressions can be lasting impressions in these instances; someone new to an organisation needs to prepare well with disciplined thoughts and disciplined action in creating a positive credible impression. This may augur well for long term collaborative working and quicker access to resources.

In fact the G20 meeting is an away day for the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the world. We can see all participants have issues back at home, but despite this they have a common purpose and their preparation has been thorough in looking to:

• Stabilise the Global Economy
• Introduce a more rigorous controls on the financial sector
• Put the economy back on track for sustainable growth

All of these have a huge impact on what is going to happen in the future. The French and Germans seem to favour more rigorous regulation and have even before the away day made their feelings clear by trying to influence the event. They could not have done this without some disciplined thought beforehand. Obama is new to the team so he will be using some of his time to make a credible impression for building and maintaining new relationships with other nations.

Are these the right things for the G20 to focus on or will they disappear into the Bermuda Triangle like some other G20 issues like the eradication of poverty!?

Team away-days (it seems to me) can be real fun and as an objective this can be valuable in its own right.  In many cases however, managers and their teams go into these experiences needing and expecting far more than a brief detour from the harsh realities of day-to-day business.  The aim is sometimes stated as, “…creating a more resourceful and collaborative team environment that is not restricted to ‘away-days’ only”.  Somehow, something is lost in translation.  

In respect of this problem, I find Jim Collins’ idea about discipline really helpful.  He talks about organisations needing: Disciplined Thought; Disciplined People; and Disciplined Action.  Otherwise, great promises and plans degenerate into something of a Bermuda Triangle where ideas disappear without trace.  Of course, measurement is crucial in terms of making and keeping things happen.  That is, if we measure the right things and not too many things!!  

What are your observations and experience?

I just want to point you in the direction of a strong article written by the Dan Oestreich, an American writer, on how to handle redundancies in a way that is consistent with how your business would also handle growth:

There is no beautiful way to do reductions and layoffs. But pain can be reduced significantly if the process is guided by values greater than the dollars that must be saved. I am not suggesting that the need to cut costs should be avoided; I’m saying the “what” and the “how” should be guided by how the enterprise has already defined itself. Either the values it says it lives by are important or they are not. One thing that I am certain about, given my line of work, is that most of us contain a highly sensitive wire about others’ hypocrisy. As a consequence, we keep looking for advice about how reductions can be conducted without setting off the wire.

It’s a long and thoughtful piece and you can find the rest here.  Image from Pulpolux !!! on flickr.

 

“Most interesting was the horse. Since the eyes are mounted on the side of a horse’s head, the sharpness in the video screens was exactly opposite that of a human being. Humans see peripheral objects, at the corners of our eyes, as blurred and distorted; but we see the centre in sharp focus. Horses, at least according to this Japanese representation, see the peripheral as sharp. When they look, at the centre, the place where their eyes meet, the image is distorted and elongated”

Gary Neilson wrote a good article recently on the Secrets to Successful Strategy Execution. He argues that a lot of things get in the way of organisations turning ideas into action.  I think he has some very useful insights.

• Structural change is very tempting at times but it often ignores the root causes of an organisation’s weaknesses. 
• Poor decision making clogs up the organisational arteries. Do your decision making processes help to get things done, or do they slow them down?
  Is everyone clear about the decisions and actions they are accountable for, or are the guidelines unclear?
• Can key up-to-date information – market changes, customer concerns, finance worries – get through to the decision makers quickly bearing in mind that often decision makers are on the ‘front line’?
• Are decisions second guessed with people further up the hierarchy changing things? Where too many people vet decisions, accountability and commitment to get it right declines. When managers interfere with decisions they are in danger of undermining local experts and managing their own time unproductively.
• Does information flow freely or have you got silos? Do managers have enough information to make joined-up decisions?
• Do front-line managers have the information they need to understand the bottom line impact of their decisions?

I see some of these errors repeated in most of the organisations I work with, and I make some of them myself. In today’s climate, however, we need to be looking at unproductive behaviour, and some of these can be really expensive!

Senior Managers did not get to be Senior Managers by being stupid… okay, there are a few exceptions to the rule but they really are exceptions. Senior Managers are technically competent, they bring a lot of expertise and awareness to their roles. All things being equal, however, technical competence does not separate the good from the great - or the quick from the dead!

Relationships are key. Great Senior Managers are differentiated not by what they know, but by how they act. They do not constrain their capable people, take them for granted, or expect the impossible.

But they do challenge, release, enable. At times like these we need clarity of thinking, great decisions and excellent implementation. Great Managers realise the onus is not on them to provide these themselves, but to release them in others.

I remember an excellent Sales Director I worked with. We worked hard to produce a proposal for him that we really thought was the best way forward. He made us go back and trim something off it and we thought we were doing the impossible! But, as we worked at it we found ways to address his concerns. He had got us thinking ’til our brains hurt - and he was right to do so.

What is the value of sharp thinking to your organisation right now? What impact will it have if you can have some “breakthrough” ideas? How can you enable innovation? Your ability to enable your team “to bring their brains to work”, to fully engage the challenges and opportunities facing you, will have far more impact than your personal expertise alone. Peter Drucker once said, however:

“Half the leaders I have met don’t need to learn what to do. They need to learn what to stop”.

We often have behaviours that get in the way - we may be very competitive and hold others back, we may need to add our ideas and imprint to things and stifle objectivity, we may undermine others by our remarks, we may come across as negative - the list goes on. Do you understand the flaws that you have that can hold others back?

At Caret we see sharp thinking, new radical ideas, issues linking together, problems solved every day in our privileged role as organisational consultants. We also see many barriers to effectiveness, but we are convinced the talent, the ideas, and the need to succeed are there - go out and tap into it!