The Whole Truth... Making Sense out of Organizational Problems

When things go wrong in organizations, even technical failures, the first reaction of many managers is to find who is at fault. The reasons for organizational breakdowns, however, are less likely found in people and personalities than in systems and structures.


It makes sense to start looking for flaws in individuals; people are the agents of organizational functions afterall. It is a fallacy, however, to reduce analysis of organizational problems to the personality attributes of one or more parties.

To be fair, managerial misperceptions are usually based upon listening to the way in which the people describe their circumstances. The most common explanations I hear for breakdowns in organizational systems are:




• * A personality conflict.

• * A communications breakdown

• * Someone lied.



While there may be some truth to each of these explanations (obviously people are involved) the truth of the matter is that breakdowns in organizational settings are more likely rooted in the setting itself, not the people. The two most over-looked explanations of why things go wrong are organizational structure/systems and organizational culture.

The way in which organizations structure how decisions are made, implemented and communicated and the cultural values that guide how those decisions are many times a better explanation of what has gone wrong than the deficiencies of any one person or a group.

Of course, individuals and the personality traits of people surely color the way in which these problems are expressed, but the “spin they put on the ball” should not distract from the fact that the ball was already in flight. Good analysis looks beyond the individual and seeks the source of the problem deeper in the organization itself.

Here’s an example. . Sally is a division manager; George is a human relations specialist and they routinely struggle over policy issues. He sees her as a “loose cannon;” she sees him as a “tyrannical bureaucrat.” Their public discussions and private communication are increasingly acrimonious, to the point that their supervisor, after repeated efforts to get them to work together, calls me.

Their boss tells me there is a “personality conflict” between two of her key managers and I’m asked to fix it. Sure enough, I interview everyone and the accounts are pretty much the same. Sally lists all of George’s undesirable traits and writes him off as “impossible to work with.” I hear the same story about Sally from George and he tells me “I can’t work with her anymore.”


There's plenty of data to point to a personality conflict, but now is the time to look beyond the personal aspects of the conflict. The personalities are relevant, but not central to the explanation of what’s gone wrong here. There is value in interpreting their conflict to be a symptom of something wrong in the organization itself, either a systematic problem or a conflict in cultural values.

Turns out the problem with Sally and George really had to do with the roles they were assigned. Sally really objected to having to get many of her decisions approved by George who was neither her superior nor in her reporting line. In carrying out the responsibilities of his role, George was perceived (correctly) by Sally as a road-block and a time-sink that got in the way of her trying to carry out the responsibilities of her role (which led George to see Sally [correctly] as pushy, impatient and disrespectful). And, of course, the more Sally objected to George’s “interference,” the more he felt disrespected by Sally and the more difficult it became for her to get assistance from him.

That’s just an example, but I hear them every day. If it isn’t a dispute about roles and responsibilities it’s a conflict over contrary values bred within the same organization. I could have taken the same example and shown how it exemplified the values of productivity and efficiency held by the operational manager, Sally, and the values of policy and rules held by an HR staffer, George. I’ll use another blog post at a later date to describe the conflict inherent in any social enterprise as operational, managerial and technical values collide (it ain’t pretty).

Ok, so what is the truth? It’s there, but you have to work to figure it out. Just keep in mind: everyone’s position in an organization allows for a unique, but distorted view of the truth. To solve organizational problems you need to learn how to combine these various accounts and come to a sense of what may be true. In fact, understanding the source and nature of the distortions may explain much about why people think and act as they do. While it’s tempting to see problems as tied to the personalities of the people involved, quite often the root causes are to be found in the structure, systems and cultural values of the organization itself.

This is part of a more extended discussion on truth, honesty and lying in general.  If interested check out this blogpost: 

http://dukeonline.blogspot.com/2010/06/getting-to-truth-of-matter-honesty-and.html

A Little Night Reading

I endure alot of airport and flight time blanking out everything around me.  I've found a good mystery novel is the best antidote for screaming babies, cramped seating and the third showing the Shrek. Mystery series work best for me and I'm sharing a list of my favorites here (with appreciation to my brother-in-law, Skip Corsini, who takes an interest in what others read).  My picks:

Laura Joh Rowland…. The Ichiro Sano series. He is the Shogun's Most Honorable Investigator of Events, Situations, and People in 16th Century Tokyo. Really clever complex plots; lots of political intrigue and intriguing detail about Japanese society and culture.

Michael Connelly…. Everybody knows these. I love hard-boiled Detective Harry Bosch and have traced out, with the help of my friends the Zugsmiths, Harry’s important sites on my last trip to LA. The Bosch books are backed up by some related pieces with plots tied around people connected to Harry. About as cynical as it gets.

Randy Wayne Williams…. The Doc Ford series… marine biologist by day, CIA operative by night. If you like boats and the gulf side of Florida, these are fun.

Homer Hickam… author of October Sky, he’s got a nifty little set that takes place during WW2 off the Carolina coast… Josh Thurlow series. Like Williams, water and boats are a great mix.

John Burdett… Sonchai Jitpleecheep… Harry Bosch in Bangkok. Wonderful infusion of Buddhist thought applied to crime solving. Noir orientale. Not for the faint of heart.

Carl Hiassen… more Floridiana, but a terrific writer with a great light touch and delightful characters with off-center views of the world.

Steven Saylor… I wanted to know about ancient Rome and these have been a great introduction to what life must have really been like, including the bad guys. Who could resist Gordianus the Finder?

Bruce Alexander… the Blind Beak of Bow Street, Magistrate Sir John Fielding, is assisted by his ward, the orphaned Jeremy Potter, and the derrring Bow Street Runners in cleaning up murder and mayhem in 19th Century London. Alexander died a couple of years ago, but this wonderful series of 12 is a great read.

Stieg Larsson… all in the news. Detailed plots takes forever to unfold, but compelling reading. Mikael Blomkvist and Lisabeth Salander (the Thin man and Nora they’re not) make a great team. Who knew Stockholm was so kinky!

I.J. Parker… another medieval Japan series.

Sujata Massye… more Japan, but modern with a great protagonist, Rei Shimura, a Japanese-American antique dealer, solving murders in the Bay Area and Tokyo.

Lester Eldridge… not technically mysteries, but a readable set of maritime stories based on Civil War events. Rory Dunbrody, CSN and Tobias St. John, USN set against each other across the Atlantic.

I'm sure you know of other fascinating series, drop me a note duke@pnwconsult.com and pass on your favorites.

Use Your Competitive Advantage to Dominate the Market

Among the back to basics ideas I am championing these days is getting the most out of your competitive advantage.   Problem is most people don;t know where they stand against their competition.


Competitive advantage refers to the ability of an organization to draw upon its distinct properties to occupy a better market position than your competitors as far as clients are concerned. This idea originated with Michael Porter in, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance.


Porter recognized that corporations and nations alike gained marketplace advantage from things like access to natural resources or a highly skilled labor force. Over time the conventional use of the term has come to indicate anything that makes you or your firm more desirable to your clients and customers.


What’s most important is your ability to accurately identify and exploit your advantage against those of your competitors. You cannot, however, profit from those advantages unless you know what they are and how they line up against the advantages possessed by your competitors.


This is a simple idea with profound implications… understanding your true competitive advantage allows you to position your organization in such a manner that competitors find it too difficult or costly to pursue your clients. Clever application can lead to an unassailable position in your niche of the market.


To do this you have to identify those features of your business that separate you from the competition in ways that clients deem valuable. This requires some careful analysis, because there are many things your clients believe are valuable, for you and your competitors… those traits you both share are NOT competitive advantages. Clients expect firms to work hard and be honest.


You’re not going to be able to point to honesty and hard work as competitive advantages.



You find your competitive advantage by assessing your traits and determining which ones imply value to your clients and present an advantage in the marketplace. Advantages could be as obvious as location, access to certain types of resources or years of tested experience. I have one client whose competitive advantage is control over a few blocks of warehouses in a small city next to a large urban market. To compete against him would take too much resource for a competitor to gain market dominance. And if they did, many larger competitors, wouldn’t find it big enough for them.


Another client’s competitive advantage is that the firm manages a rather complicated process that would be very difficult and costly for competitors to replicate. In fact my client concedes the “easy part of the business” to his competitors choosing to address the complexities of the one he dominates.


For example, my nickname “Duke” has been a tremendous competitive advantage, as has my uncommon given name, Lowell. “Duke” is a brand of sorts and it’s my job is to make sure that clients pair the name with valuable things like strategic planning or executive coaching.


Analyze your firm next to your competition. Ask what they do better than you and what they possess you don’t. Look for what is unique to you. Your list of traits will be long, but you can eliminate most of those items… many are of no real advantage and, if possible, you don’t want to compete head-to-head on them. Remember, you want to gain separation from the competition. Your aim is to occupy an unassailable market niche. Concede their advantages to your competitors; beat them on the unique value you bring to the market.


Talk to your clients to get inside their decisions. It may be your advantage to them


Is something you didn’t know and is not directly related to what you perceive as valuable. I once won a big contract because the client liked the fact that I was a white-water rafter (his brother was one, too).







Knowing and exploiting your competitive advantage goes hand in hand with relationship marketing. Market position is partly defined by how you are bound together by the highly personalized advantages you bring to the market. You are linked to clients (socially as well as commercially); these points of connection represent markets where your affiliation is an advantage. If this is a new idea to you, check out a webinar I did for NAR… it will help you build and maintain client relationships: https://realtor-org-commercial.webex.com/realtor-org-commercial/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=EC&rID=41044467&rKey=6c1a68096ee744bc






You may be surprised at what works to your advantage. I once asked a client, who was a master sales professional in his own right, “How would you market me?” He asked me to recite my elevator speech signifying in which I cite my professionalism, wisdom and diligence. I was somewhat put back by his answer. “Everybody markets themselves in terms of those things. You know what you’re good at?” Sheepishly I had to admit that I didn’t. He told me. Since it’s a proprietary secret I’m not going to share it with you, but I changed my marketing strategy and won business.


A good way to find your distinct competitive advantages is to take a close look at your mission. Your mission should be a clear statement of the competitive advantage you bring to the market… a proclamation of what you do that places you in the same market as all your competitors, but also separates you from all of them in terms of the unique value you bring to your clients.


The lesson is clear: compete using aspects of you and your business that are advantageous to you and you alone. Make it hard, if not impossible for anyone to compete directly against you. Dominate your market niche and, if you can, stay out of others.

The Perfect Manhattan Revisited

I’ve discussed the merits of a well-made Manhattan before. I’ve even gone so far as to claim the definitive recipe for the “perfect” Manhattan. Pride truly goes before a fall. It is with bittersweet emotions that I am forced to concede that my championship Manhattan recipe has been unseated, replaced by one concocted by my son, Matthew.


Matt, having spread the gospel of my Manhattan-shaking prowess provoked the curiosity of his colleagues in the Washington State Attorney General’s office. As one might expect, inquiring legal minds demanded evidence to support my claim, so at the invitation of John Long, a fellow AG who agreed to act as host, I entered the first, perhaps annual, “Manhattan Project.” When the last glass was drained, I fell aside defeated at the hands, irony of ironies, of Matt.

So how did Matt do it? It has to do with cherries and sweet Vermouth. He took the fundamental Manhattan dictum to heart: if you err, err to the sweet. He found truly exceptional tasty sweet Vermouth, Vya, crafted in the Central Valley of California. Not too sweet and very smooth, this vermouth is an aperitif and a couple of glasses of Vya may cause you to set aside the mixing of cocktails altogether. Matt also figured out that the cherry makes a big difference and he dismissed the traditional Maraschino in favor of regular canned cherries marinated overnight in Vya. Matt adds a dash of bitters, too.

Matt’s recipe:

Start with a chilled metal cocktail shaker. Add ½ cup crushed ice.


Pour in 3 ounces of top shelf bourbon (I prefer something smooth like Makers Mark).


Add 1 and 6/10 ounces of sweet vermouth (Vya preferred, Martini and Rossi is a good second).


Splash a dash of cherry juice and a dash of Angostura bitters.


Shake vigorously, until the OUTSIDE of the frosted shaker is really cold.


Pour gently into a chilled glass (add a Vya marinated-cherry to the bottom of the glass before pouring).


Enjoy

Next newsletter I’m ready to take on the challenge of the best cheeseburger again. Recommendations?

Comments on the End of a Ballplayer's Career

On April 10, 1989 I saw Ken Griffey, Jr. hit his first major league home run.  The news of his mid-season, but not unexpected, retirement last week still came as a shock.  In my life as a baseball (more on my life through baseball) fan no player captivated me the way Griffey did.  If I were at home listening in the background to a game on radio or TV, I’d always stop what I was doing if Junior came to bat… as much out of expectation that something special would happen as out of respect.

Even when he was young… and he came to the big leagues when he was 19… he carried himself with an easy confidence and expressed a joy of the game that just made you watch him.  And he delivered.  Not just through his hitting, but with extraordinary feats in the field and on the base-paths.  He simply did things I had never seen before.

Every Mariner fan (and I assume Cincinnati Red fans who rooted for Griff when he went there as a free-agent) has those moments locked into their memories… the Spiderman catch or the Wetteland home-run or the dash from first to home on Edgar’s memorable double.   These are events so well known that any resident of Puget Sound recognizes the meaning and significance of those iconic images at first glance.

My son Matt and I were privileged to have a great view of Griffey’s daring race to home in the fifth game of the ’95 Yankee play-off.  On October 8, he and I were sitting up a little ways behind third base… high enough to see Edgar’s line drive hook down the left-field line and then look back to catch Junior already around second bearing for third.

Griffey was fast and I’ve seen plenty of runners make that cut, but I have never seen anything like Junior as he turned.  He ran with a power and urgency, a resolve and focus… every part of his body seemed to be pumping hard.  He flew more than ran and Griffey, who was a bigger man than he looked, resembled the biggest most powerful running back I’d ever seen.  He reminded me of a thoroughbred race horse, every muscle and sinew stretching to its limit.

As Junior closed in on third, the realization emerged that he wasn’t going to stop and I remember yelling to Matt through the din of the crowd’s upraised voices, “he’s coming home!”  A glance to left, to see if the outfielder, Gerald Williams, had started to throw home, then back to Griffey who blew through third.  The throw, the slide, the euphoria!  He was safe, the Mariners won, there was more October baseball in the offing.  It was a moment. 

It was the moment and in that second every Mariner fan felt what fans felt when Thompson belted Branca’s pitch or when Don Larsen threw his last strike or when Mays tracked down Wertz’s line-drive deep in the centerfield of the Polo Grounds.  All the “next years”, the promising Aprils turned into galling Augusts, the missed pitches, errors, passed balls and zeroes were replaced by the elation of winning when it really counted.

Remember, before and since, the Mariners have been a pretty dismal team and until 1995 they had never made the play-offs, much less contended for them.   Quickly down 0-2 in a five-game divisional series the fresh thrill of winning was about to be replaced with the familiar taste of disappointment.  Somehow the team, under the gruff leadership of Lou Pinella, fought its way back.  They won games three and four.  So, as Griffey hurtled towards home, he truly carried the hearts of every dedicated M’s fan with him.

Many claim that he saved the franchise and that may not be hyperbole.  The team’s winning at that moment turned the tide of public and political opinion, which led to a new ball park and conditions that motivated ownership to stay in Seattle.  If he didn’t save baseball, he surely got enough people to feel the team was something they wanted to keep in their city.

Later photographs show Griffey with a huge smile at the bottom of a pile of celebrating players (who were surely as astounded at Martinez’ double, Griffey’s dash and the team’s extraordinary comeback as Matt, I and everyone else who watched).   That image of “the kid” captures the contentedness that anyone who has ever played baseball, at any level, knows to be found in a game that takes place on open green fields in the soft twilight of a late summer afternoon.  

I have another, personal memory of Griffey, one I can’t be document, but remembered clearly.  I know it happened and while I am sketchy on the details, the image is clear in my memory and, once again, rich in meaning about Junior, the Mariners and baseball.  A few days before the M’s improbable comeback against the Yankees, the Mariners had been involved in an even more unbelievable series of events: a pennant race.  They crawled back from seven games behind to catch the Angels and force a one-game play-off for the division lead (and the right to play the Yankees for the division championship).

A one-game play-off!  Again as a baseball fan, living under the gloomy skies of the Pacific Northwest, our first foray into any kind of baseball post-season play turned out to be a wonderous gift:  a dramatic, winner-take-all contest… the stuff of legend… 1951, Bobby Thompson, Ralph Branca… could we be any more blessed?

And the day was perfect… sunny, crisp.  True October baseball.  Dreamed of but never seen in Seattle.  I’d managed to get three tickets and Matt and I along with my teaching buddy, Chuck Nisbet, joined the throngs headed into the Kingdome.  A domed stadium is not an appropriate venue for an outdoor sport, but this is what the Gods of Baseball meted out to long-suffering, dedicated M’s fans.  This over-size, mushroom-shaped cement palace was what we got and it was home. At least the domed acoustics amplified the crowd noise.  It was loud.

We entered the stadium, way back beneath the second-deck overhang on the first level, between home and first.  Here’s the hazy part. I don’t know when this occurred.  Was there infield warm-up before the game?  Was it as Junior ran out to the center before Randy threw his first pitch?  I know it was before the game started, I’m sure of that. 

The dome was packed and there was an electric feel to the moment… a heightened anticipation that often surrounds a big game, elevated by the fact that this was a new experience for all of us, expanded by the astonishment that the Mariners, a joke of a baseball team for many previous seasons, were actually playing for something.  Everyone was tense, all of us were waiting to see what would happen next.

I looked down and saw Griffey trotting out of the dugout across the infield (on his way to center?).  When he reached the pitcher’s mound he stopped.  He turned around and stood there.  He looked toward home (was Dan Wilson there?) and he went through the motions of throwing a pitch!   Here it is minutes before the biggest game in Seattle’s dim baseball history and Griffey (who was fully aware of the tension everyone, most likely himself, felt) breaks the ice by suggesting he’s ready to pitch the game!  He shrugged and gave a hearty body-shaking laugh, as he would, then turned and continued on his way, but in that moment he let everyone know… this is just another game and the kid is here to win it.

And the funny thing?  I am certain that if Griffey had taken the mound, he could have pitched a winning game.

He’ll probably never read this.  But if he does.  I want Junior to know.  He was the greatest baseball player I’ve ever seen and I mourn the end of his playing day

Getting to the Truth of the Matter: Honesty and Lying in Organizations

My brother-in-law, Rich, raised an interesting question the other day (isn’t that what brothers-in-law are for?).  I was explaining to a newly graduated sociology major how I used my academic training in that field to help organizations improve their performance.  Describing the deep interview techniques I employ to get to a version of organizational “reality” Rich asked, “how do you know the people you interview aren’t lying?”

Good question, but there’s an even better one … how do I know when people are telling the truth?

Not that I believe every one lies, at least not intentionally; rather I think most folks tell you what they think is true.  Occasionally I’ll run across someone who concocts a story with the intent of deceiving someone (me, others, themselves) about the truth, but those persons are rare.  And as any good detective knows, liars give themselves and their “tells” are easy to spot.

Remember lying in an organization is not like bluffing in a card game.  The bluff may win the poker pot;  lying to colleagues and friends has messy consequences, the least of which is the loss of trust.

For me the issue is not about catching liars, it’s about getting to the truth of the matter. 

For now, I’ll skip over the complexities of what truth and, ultimately, reality may be.  Epistemological considerations aside, I operate on the assumption that there is some inherent truth to be found in any social situation.  And it is part of my diagnostic process to step in as an outsider and determine what that truth is.

The function of my interviews is to gather up those various personal versions of the truth.  In my collection I usually come across a lie or two, an occasional delusion, lots of guesses, some myth and, every so often, a nugget of data.  From these various “accounts” I construct a landscape and search for themes and clusters to make sense of what’s going on in the organization.

A mosaic emerges and I look for a coherent pattern that explains events.  This is similar to the practice of triangulation in navigation, where the intersection of multiple bearings locates a ship on a chart.  I position each of the accounts in relation to all the others… the intersection or overlap of accounts often highlights what the real issues are, my hypothesis about the truth.

Many times I’ll re-interview some of my informants, but this time I’ll present my analysis to get their reaction.   Sometimes I’m dead wrong and the reasons always point to a new truth.  Sometimes I’m close and an interviewee will use my theory and discover a missing piece that adds to the mosaic.  Oftentimes, I’ll reach what a mentor of mine, Malcolm Parlett, called a “recognizable reality,” where my account of the truth brings words to something the participants have been feeling but could not express.

My approach is hardly original.  It’s an amalgamation of a bunch of things, including a technique I learned from the famed criminologist Don Cressey.  To write a seminal work on embezzlers, Other People’s Money, he devised a nifty way of constructing case studies, called analytic induction. There are some elements here of  Rogerian non-directive therapy, Edgar Schein’s process consultation, techniques borrowed from market research focused group interviewing, belle hooks’ concept of center-boundary analysis and a little bit of common sense borne of  being the adult child of an alcoholic parent (thanks, Dad). 

To answer Rich’s original question, liars are usually exposed through this technique of deep interrogation, because their accounts are so contrary (and obviously self-serving) that they stand out from the rest.  On first hearing I have to treat each of the different accounts as realistic, but as versions accumulate those at variance with the rest fall into one of two categories: distinct analysis from a much different perspective (thus requiring it be fit into the scheme of all the stories) or a misconception.  Some misconceptions are true to the teller, usually the result of a set of presuppositions held by the observer.  Some are lies.

In probing an account it’s always possible to ferret out the motives behind the story and liars give themselves away by always eventually tipping off the resentment or jealousy that fuels the deception.  You have to watch for it, but liars do things that honest people don’t.  Here’s what to watch for:  liars always make themselves look good in the story and they always try to construct an account that is “air-tight;” there are no loose ends that if investigated would unveil the deception.  Liars always try to “sell” their story and the more sincere they become, the less sincere they sound.

I’m reminded of the old joke about the neighbor defending himself after returning a lawn-mower to you broken:  “I didn’t break it, it was never broken, I never borrowed it!”

There’s one more lesson to be drawn from this inquiry.  In my experience most people don’t lie.  I’m not saying they never lie, but when it comes to organizational problems people really try to seek explanations they believe to be true.   Unlike a poker hand, organizational problems are just that: problems.  Whatever has gone wrong, most people are genuinely concerned to get things right.  Their search for answers is genuine and most of the accounts I hear are authentic efforts to get to the truth.

Certainly people try to protect themselves by providing accounts that make them look good.  But accusing others by shifting the blame from yourself or your team to others is a risky venture.  You may deflect responsibility from yourself momentarily (listen to Bill Cosby on spilled milk to see where this tactic goes), but ultimately truth will out and your face is spattered with two eggs:  the original mistake you tried to cover up and the lie you told.

I’ve discovered that most of what people consider lies are really the result of ignorance or insensitivity on the part of the accused deceiver.  People usually say things inspired by the truth as they know it.  The boss who says he’ll get you a promotion is not lying when it fails to come through… at the time he made the promise he thought he could do it;  turns out he didn’t have the right information or enough power to make it happen.  The disconnect between what he promised and what happened looks like a lie; is really an example of over-promising out of ignorance.  The person who tells you that they don’t like your tie is not lying… they are just insensitive, mistaking their personal judgment for a collective fashion truth.

Unfortunately appearing to tell a lie, whether excused by insensitivity or ignorance, has the same impact as intentionally deceiving someone for your benefit.  Any lie, even a well-intentioned one (no, I like your tie) corrodes the elemental fabric of all social life, trust.  In any organization, managers especially, need take care that nothing they say is dishonest (or give the appearance of dishonesty) because such statements chip away at the trust that holds any social group together.

As long as we’re on the topic, I’ve had the unique opportunity to work behind the scenes of many different types of organizations - governmental, business, public sector.  In my experience, it saddens me to report that where I’m most likely to hear a lie is in educational institutions.  College presidents and school district administrators are the worst… to the point I wonder if it’s part of their job-training.

For more on the meaning and consequences of dishonesty, Sissela Bok’s academic treatise, Lying, is highly worthy of inspection. She’ll leave you feeling uneasy about “white-lies” or even deceptions used to protect others.

Beyond the issue of veracity, Rich’s question points to a broader range of issues concerning truth in organizations.  What I’ve discovered in analyzing hundreds of organizational problems is that the reality described to be to me is often flat wrong.  There’s no deception involved, people just misread social situations altogether. 

The error in their accounts is almost always a fallacy, what scientists call reductionism… in this instance, reducing complex social phenomena down to individual personalities.  Fallacy or not, most managers explain and act upon organizational problems as if the cause of the issue is located in individuals (or groups).  They commit the fallacy of reducing the analysis to the personality attributes of one or more parties.

The most common explanations I hear for breakdowns in organizational performance are:

·         A personality conflict.

·         A communications breakdown between individuals.

·         Someone lied.

While there is some truth to each of these explanations (obviously people carry out actions) the truth of the matter is that breakdowns in organizational settings are more likely rooted in the setting itself, not the people.  The two most over-looked explanations of why things go wrong are organizational structure/systems and organizational culture.  

The way in which organizations structure how decisions are made, implemented and communicated and the cultural values that guide how those decisions are made, communicated and interpreted is many times a better explanation of what has gone wrong than the deficiencies of any one person or a group.

Of course, individuals and the personality traits of people surely color the way in which these problems are expressed, but the “spin they put on the ball” should not distract from the fact that the ball was already in flight.  Good analysis looks beyond the individual and seeks the source of the problem deeper in the organization itself.

Here’s an example.  Sally and George are having difficulties over the company’s sick leave policy.  Sally is a division manager; George is a human relations specialist and he routinely holds up and sometimes denies her trequests.  Their public discussions and private communication have become increasingly acrimonious, to the point that George’s supervisor, Shelley, has complained to the COO Jeannette, that something has to get done.

In this example, this is where I get called in.  The COO tells me there is a “personality conflict” between two of her key managers and I’m asked to fix it.  Sure enough, I interview everyone and the accounts are pretty much the same.  Sally lists all of George’s undesirable traits and writes him off as “impossible to work with.”  I hear the same story about Sally from George and he tells me “I can’t work with her anymore.”


There's plenty of data to point to a personality conflict, but the problem is really with the roles.  Put too close friends in the same situation and the organizational structure will bring them into conflict.

Now is the time to look beyond the personal aspects of the conflict.  The personalities are relevant, but not central to the explanation of what’s gone wrong here. I interpret their conflict to be a symptom of something wrong in the organization itself, either a systematic problem or a conflict in cultural values.   

In this example, my inquiries revealed that the real problem with Sally and George had to do with the roles they were assigned.  Sally really objected to having to get her employee sick leave requests and other decisions approved by George who was neither her superior nor in her reporting line.  In carrying out the responsibilities of his  role, George was perceived (correctly) by Sally as a road-block and a time-sink that got in the way of her trying to carry out the responsibilities of her role (which made led George to see Sally [correctly] as pushy, impatient and disrespectful).  And, of course, the more Sally objected to George’s “interference,” the more he felt disrespected by Sally and the more difficult it became for her to get assistance from him.

That’s just an example, but I hear them every day. If it isn’t a dispute about roles and responsibilities it’s a conflict over contrary values bred within the same organization.  I could have taken the same example and shown how it exemplified the values of productivity and efficiency held by the operational manager, Sally, and the values of policy and law held by an HR staffer, George.  I’ll use another blog post at a later date to describe the conflict inherent in any social enterprise as operational, managerial and technical values collide (it ain’t pretty). 

Ok, so what is the truth?  I believe it’s there, but you have to work to figure it out.  Whether you hold to the Rashomon or elephant and blind men metaphors, the conclusion is the same.  Everyone’s position in an organization allows for a unique, but distorted view of the truth.  To solve organizational problems you need to learn how to combine these various accounts and come to a sense of what may be true.  In fact, understanding the source and nature of the distortions may explain much about why people think and act as they do.

The Six Most and Five Least Effective Tactics for the Successful Implementation of a Strategic Plan

Along with unfulfilled New Year's resolutions and empty political campaign promises, there are plenty of unfinished strategic planning goals… many of them never started. My friend and colleague Ralph Spencer posed an interesting question to me the other day: what are the five best practices (and by inference, the five worst) associated with the successful implementation of a plan?

The failures are pretty dramatic, so I'll start with them first:

1. 
   
   Lost in the Clouds: I've already written reams about how to do planning well… the key is to make sure the plan is focused on outcomes and results. Too many plans are all about vision and lofty proclamations. A bold view of the future is a part, but only a part, of a good strategic plan. At some point vision needs to be translated into achievable goals. The more tangible, realistic and clearly stated those goals are, the more likely they'll actually materialize. Saving whales, achieving world peace, curing malaria and removing us from the scourge of junk-e-mail forever are noble thoughts, but plans need to come down to earth and connect to things we can see and feel in our everyday lives.
2. 
   
   Fourth and Long: A corollary to being lost in the clouds is failing to finish the plan by converting visionary goals into action plans. Stating the goal is necessary, but not sufficient… goals need to be clarified with detailed objectives and action plans that spell out just exactly what is to be done, who is to do it, under what timeframe and with what resources. Failure to specify any one of these items, action, accountability, time and resource requirements is a sure way for something not to happen. Unspecified plans are the equivalent of the unfunded mandate in legislatures… all fancy talk and no action because there are no funds to get the job done.
3. 
   
   Never Look Back: Unfulfilled plans are a sign that no one is watching. Plans need to be managed. Even ones with clear actions identified will peter out unless someone is monitoring the plan to assure the actions are being completed and the results are being obtained. Writing the plan and boldly marching of into the future is not enough; the plan needs to be managed, monitored, evaluated and revised.
4. 
   
   Weak Hearts: If plans are any good they challenge an organization… usually all of its parts of it to, as I like to put it, "take one giant step forward." Every so often leadership loses confidence somewhere in the middle of the planning process. It all becomes too much… too much change, too hard, too expensive. Poised to make bold strategic moves, leadership goes through the motions knowing the plan is never going to happen, at least not on their watch. Leadership is about courage and willingness to take on risk. Leaders who like the return but are unwilling to pay the costs are not leaders.
5. 
   
   When the Going gets Tough: A corollary to #4, except this time leadership gets cold feet in the middle of implementing the plan. It seems too hard or too expensive. The rewards seem distant, the cost of change is immediate. A lack of resolve and a failure of patience lead many plans to no end.

The best practices are, as you've probably already figured out, simply corrections of the errors listed above.

1. 
   
   Leadership Buy-In: The leadership of the organization need to understand before the planning process begins what they're getting into. Some organizations and some leadership teams are simply not ready to write a plan, much less implement one. They need to know from the start that planning opens up all of an organization for inspection and questions all the assumptions it is based upon (even those as fundamental as its business model). Leaders need to be prepared for a plan that takes their organization in new, unimaginable directions. If they are not warned about the possibility of watching their organization re-invent, sometime re-birth itself, shock is likely to ensue. Even courageous entrepreneurs can be shaken by a truly bold plan. Organizational leaders need to be informed in advance of the planning process what risks and costs may befall and they need to step forward to support and champion the process as it unfolds and the plan as it is implemented. Most importantly, resource requirements specified in the accumulated action plans must be funded through the budget.
2. 
   
   Stakeholder Buy-In: Someone, usually not leadership, is going to have to implement the plan. Whether it's employees or staff, members or clients, the plan's successful implementation is dependent upon many people, most of whom are not part of the planning process. In that last sentence is the kernel of a best practice critical to getting results out of a plan: involve as many people in the planning process as you can who are going to implement or be affected by the plan. Even in large corporations and communities that's not as hard as it sounds. Planning is a process with many steps, some of which can be completed remotely. There are ways to involve everyone in parts of the process especially at the end when action plans are being set. It is inexcusable to keep people uninformed about the process and its progress. The plan should never be a surprise to those who will have to implement it (or deal with the consequences of its implementation) and where-ever and when-ever possible planning teams should solicit input as to how to make the plan happen.
3. 
   
   Appoint a Czar: Someone must oversee the implementation of the plan and work with leadership, managers, employees and stakeholders to assure the work gets done and the results are achieved.
4. 
   
   Don't Give Up: Goals are hard to achieve. What was easy to conceive on paper as part of the planning process can be extraordinarily hard to do. Three traits are essential for effective planning: persistence, patience and flexibility. Sticking to the plan and trusting the judgment of those who created it (which in some manner should include everyone who has an interest in the organization) takes persistence. Things can take awhile to unfold, patience is required to see things through to the end… everything, like baking bread, needs the right amount of time to come to completion. What planning teams conceive is sometimes in opposition to reality or unaware of unforeseen events encountered in implementing the plan… as the plan encounters these realities, the planning manager needs to have the freedom to modify the plan and it actions.
5. 
   
   Mind the Details: Based on
   what I listed as failures, this could easily be #1 best practice. The plan's goals must be converted into objectives with clear, measurable results backed up by action plans that specific accountability links, time frames for starting and ending and financial and other resource requirements.
6. 
   
   It's Just a Plan for Crying out Loud: Plans are meant to be implemented, but they shouldn't overwhelm good judgment. While I think there is an organizational imperative to implementing plans, I stop short of seeing a moral imperative. There are some who, once the plan is completed, will treat it as a holy document never to be questioned. There's a big difference between raising legitimate questions about how to implement a plan and not implementing it at all. Plans guide human behavior, they don't dictate it. Plans should be honored, consulted and followed, not obeyed. Ultimately the plan itself will need to be changed (certainly updated within a year of its creation) if not abandoned in favor of a new one altogether. Avoid strict constructionist interpretation of the plan. Plans are human creations. Attaching to them divine or supernatural qualities is a mistake.

Tomorrow, Tomorrow,Tomorrow. Planning Can’t Wait, Do it NOW!

Note:  When I was in college postage was cheap, long distance telephone calls were expensive and e-mail hadn't been invented.  I can remember being caught in a conundrum trying to communicate with the folks back home.  Seemed like every time I sat down to write a letter, the time wasn't right.  There was something pending and I wanted to wait until it materializd so I could send on results, not anticipation... be it about a test or the outcome of a game.  I quickly learned a lesson that is the subject of this post:  if you wait for just the right moment to do anything, the opportunity may pass you by altogether.  Here's what I wrote a few years ago in one of my newsletter - with a couple of updated thoughts.

Now’s not the right time, is the most common reason I’m given in delaying the start of planning. Managers find themselves too busy because times are good or times are bad. As reasonable as the argument sounds it is a dangerous fallacy and following it only guarantees you’ll pay the cost of being unprepared for the future when it arrives. Keep in mind, the future is tomorrow.

The fact is, there is never a good moment to do planning, it always takes an inconvenient investment of time and energy. No one wants to stop when every thing is going well; no one will stop when success seems to be slipping away.

In this note I.ll point out some of the ways in which planning can be done more conveniently and provide some counsel as to how to handle the inherent distractions and costs of trying to build a plan while

continuing to deal with day to day issues.

Planning When Times are Good

There’s a strong case that growing organizations need planning most of all, because they are finally generating enough resources to present managers with strategic options. Without some planning profits can be wasted through inattention or, worse, squandered away through unthinking expenditure. A plan assures any extra nickels at the end of the day are invested wisely in enterprises that strengthen the organization’s position.

It’s hard to plan when things are going well because managers and staff are working hard to gather as much as they can while they can. During these growth spurts it makes sense to design a planning effort that places minimal demands on people. It is alright to delegate planning to a single person as long as that person gives everyone a chance to review the plan. Using a consultant may ease the burden, too.

The risk is that organizations without a plan will not get the most out of their profits and end up unprepared for the new challenges when they come.

Start up companies face a particualr challenge in terms of finding time to plan.  In its earliest stages a new organization is often running as fast as it can to deal with everything growth throws at them.  When things start to take off the daily pressure to meet demands that were never there beforre can exhaust start-up managers.   These companies, more than any, need to take a day every now and then and catch breath and update their plan.   The military uses the concept of "stand down" days... all but maintenance activity stops for a day, and everyone else focuses on what's working and what's not.  A moment for refelction is often worth months of future success.

Planning during Hard Times

Action, any action, would seem the best way to keep going when survival is on the line, but it’s not the best strategy. A better approach is to plan an organization out of trouble. Making just the right decisions in the correct order is the only way to stop a downward spiral. Planning allows for the kind of analysis than can separate symptom from illness, temporary fix from long-term cure.

Again this may not be a good time to engage everyone - they have plenty to so during the crisis - but one person, probably with the help of the consultant can put together a plan that gets past survival to recovery and renewed growth. Make sure everyone reviews it and you should be okay.

There are plenty of examples of organizations that used difficult economic times, much like today’s, to refocus and retool so that when the turn-around did come they shot ahead of their competitors who were preoccupied with current conditions.

When is the Best Time to Plan?

Most organizations operate in cyclical environments. Nothing rises forever and few things fall eternally.  Good planning takes the highs and lows of organizational or economic cycles into account.

The best moment to plan is just before a cyclical shift up or down. Boaters will recognize this as a slack tide that precedes the rush of ebbs and flows.

Planning then assures the organization is poised to enter a new phase with a plan ready to deal with the changes the future brings.

Strategically the trick is to extend upward momentum, to get a longer ride on the wave, or to shorten the downturn and reverse or reduce the slide. In either case, the organization is prepared to take advantage of a prosperous future or temper the impact of a tough one. Great success awaits the organization ready to reap the benefits of good times when they return.

Planning takes time, but in the long run it saves time because future decisions are surer, clearer and swifter. There is no getting around the inconvenience of planning; it always comes when you are busy. The effort, however, is rewarded in a somewhat

predictable, more controllable future.