|
When the leader of an executive team is looking to enhance the performance level of the individuals and the team, there are a few different options to pursue. Many turn to team building events that use a metaphor to build an awareness and an appreciation of key leader traits...
Read more
When the leader of an executive team is looking to enhance the performance level of the individuals and the team, there are a few different options to pursue. Many turn to team building events that use a metaphor to build an awareness and an appreciation of key leader traits. Many turn to a facilitator to guide the team through a strategy development exercise, enhancing the team’s collective strategic skills in the process. Increasingly, leaders are turning to team coaching to entrench essential capabilities in the team and its members.
Each of these approaches can be valuable in producing useful outcomes. Each has a different function or role; each has its own timeline; each provides its own distinct set of outcomes. So, how do you know which form of team intervention will provide you with the results your team needs? Because there can be confusion, I have outlined the three services here. At the end of the day, you must decide what service is best for your team based on your goals, your needs, and the composition of your team.
TEAM BUILDING
Team building uses a single intensive experience as a metaphor for working together and improving collaborative behaviour. There is a lot of energy, fun, and learning that takes place around it; regrettably, the awareness and skills that are acquired are most often temporary. While we remember the great experience, the skills are rarely translated into on-the-job activities. There is little, if any, translation from the metaphorical exercises to the real world.
Team building is focused on the interactions of the team; it has little, if anything, to do with moving the business forward. It can make for a fun day, which is not a bad thing, and still it does not advance the business per se. Without on-the-job application and reinforcement of the learnings, the behaviours will most likely be lost. However, it can help a group develop a common language, and help some individuals understand and work better with other individuals, as long as they translate the learnings into on-the-job behaviour. In this environment, the role of the external resource is to instruct the team and guide the team’s reflection on the experience.
TEAM FACILITATION
In my experience, the way people learn to work together best is when they are working on a real business problem or opportunity. There is a difference in results and applicable outcomes when a group is working with a common business purpose as opposed to when they are “practicing solidarity” or learning to negotiate with one another in the abstract. In facilitation, a team is setting strategy for the business and solving problems. The cohesion of the team and its ability to work together is a byproduct.
Team facilitation is usually focused around an event, such as a strategic planning session. The outcome is defined. It may be a strategic vision and plan, strategic roadmap, or project charter that the team develops over the course of days or weeks. Again, the facilitation is focused on this very real business challenge.
In this case, the role of the facilitator is to actively direct the dialogue and guide the team through the process so they collectively make the decisions they need to make to advance the business.
TEAM COACHING
Team coaching focuses on bringing a team together to improve performance (both task delivery and collaborative behaviour) and business outcomes. It is my belief that if we focus on desired outcomes, while being aware of and acknowledging interaction, the team achieves greater awareness of itself. Asking questions like: Is this behaviour helping you produce the outcomes you intend? Is this helping you perform as a team?
Team coaching typically takes place over six to twelve months. The coach sits in on regular team meetings, observes interactions, and works on a permission-based model to bring awareness to the dynamics that may be hindering progress and performance. The outcomes of these meetings with a team coach are the items on the team’s regular management agenda – this model is built on real world business. No hypotheticals!
Intra-team dynamics are important, and they can impact results, but when we shift the focus to results and performance, it reminds teams why they are here, what their strengths are, and what they need to work on. Whether through coaching or facilitation, when teams can work on a real problem and develop solutions that are applicable to their jobs, both the whole team and its individual members thrive.
Bob McCulloch is a recognized authority in providing strategic guidance and executive coaching for tomorrow’s top business leaders. Employing a question-based approach and with over 40 years’ experience, he is able to build strong, trust-based relationships with senior-level executives who are looking to move the needle in their careers from good to great.
|
|
|
|
Where are you in your career? If you are like most executive level managers, you may find yourself in one of the following states: Starting. You’re about to launch a new initiative or you’ve taken on a new or expanded role....
Read more
Where Are You in Your Career?
If you are like most executive level managers, you may find yourself in one of the following states:
- Starting
You’re about to launch a new initiative or you’ve taken on a new or expanded role.
- Stuck
You have implemented an initiative but have not worked out the kinks yet, as it were. Progress is stalled; you debate with yourself how to go forward… modify your course of action?… abandon the project altogether? Or, perhaps you are stuck in terms of progress; things are ok. Just ok.
- Soaring
You are approaching a peak point in your career; you are almost “there.” Now, how do you really take off and stay aloft? How do you keep up? How do you fly even higher?
Where to Next?
These are tough questions, and the good news is you already have the answers. To unlock them:
- Ask questions. The best questions elicit the best answers. Innate creativity and brilliance is within; being able to unlock it is a matter of asking the right questions. Having more questions than answers is fine at this point. In fact, it’s a great start.
- Look in a mirror. Often, the very simple process of explaining your thinking and having it played back can be very revealing. It is a way of clarifying thinking.
- Test. Is that what I want? Does my plan make sense? Does it work for my organization? What do we need to do? Upon answering these questions, you can then select the answers or strategies that will work best.
- Validate. Is this a sound strategy? Does it align with your values and goals and those of your organization?
All of these questions are concerned with validating the strategic thoughts against the backdrop of your values (heart level), instinct (gut level) and the coherence among them (throat level). Does this strategy feel right? Does it align with your values and ideals? Can I express it clearly? This helps to create greater confidence in strategic choices, but it also puts passion and commitment behind the ideas, helping to push them forward into reality.
Bob McCulloch is a recognized authority in providing strategic guidance and executive coaching for tomorrow’s top business leaders. Employing a question-based approach and with over 40 years’ experience, he is able to build strong, trust-based relationships with senior-level executives who are looking to move the needle in their careers from good to great.
|
|
|
|
“A successful company is one that can learn effectively”—Arie de Geus The past is the domain of the learned; the future is the domain of the learner. The way that we view learning can either energize us—or settle us into our own ego. Leveraging triple loop learning can...
Read more
“A successful company is one that can learn effectively”—Arie de Geus
The past is the domain of the learned; the future is the domain of the learner. The way that we view learning can either energize us—or settle us into our own ego. Leveraging triple loop learning can help us become more effective learners, and more effective leaders. What is it, and how can we use it to strengthen our ability to develop as leaders?
An Introduction to Triple Loop Learning
To appreciate triple loop learning, we look first at how we as individuals achieve goals.
Given our explicit or implicit goals and aspirations, and our developed way of coming across to others (our being), we enter the thought process to decide what we’re going to do (thinking), and then take action (doing), in order to produce desired results. Sometimes those results are exactly what we intended, …and sometimes not.
It’s when those results are not what we wanted that we have an opportunity to go through one or more learning loops. These loops are progressive in complexity and require deepening levels of awareness and insight.
In this model (which is based primarily on the work of Chris Argyris and Donald Schön), single loop thinking is concerned with correcting mistakes or undesirable outcomes. We ask ourselves, “What can I do differently to achieve a different result?”
Argyris compares single loop learning to a thermostat “that learns when it is too hot or too cold and then turns the heat on or off.” In other words, it receives information and takes corrective action.
In a leadership context, it could be that a manager notices a direct report who is not doing his job to the expected level. I worked with a client in this situation, and she took corrective action based on her belief that the individual didn’t know how to do the job as well as he thought.
This is single-loop thinking: like the thermostat, the manager wants to bring forth a different result without changing the “rules.”
Double loop learning requires us to go deeper. We ask, “What knowledge or assumptions was I basing my action on? What caused me to act the way I did, or to make the choice I did?”
Imagine now that the thermostat can question whether 21°C is an optimal office temperature. This is double loop thinking because it questions the underlying principles, policies, or procedures. It requires us to make implicit knowledge explicit – and then to inquire whether we need to make a change to the framework or rules.
Let’s go back to the manager and her direct report. Here, using double loop learning, she asked herself, “Why is this person really underperforming? How can I change my thinking so I can achieve a different outcome? What different questions do I need to be asking?” She realized that she needed to confront the norm: she had to alter her questions and approach in dealing with this employee. She did so, and it was better, …and not much better. And she had a breakthrough in her own understanding, leading to her experience of triple loop learning.
Triple loop learning addresses how we show up. Not only did our manager have to alter her questions and her approach, she had to adjust her way of being. In this case, she realized that her employee had difficulty with authority in areas in which he felt under-confident. She realized that while she had changed the questions (double loop learning), she had not changed the way she was presenting those questions, and came across as aggressively challenging the employee. By moving from being the boss to becoming more of a partner or colleague, this helped the direct report feel more comfortable and receptive to her input.
To put it simply, single loop learning asks: am I doing things right? Double loop learning asks: am I doing the right things? And triple loop learning asks: how do I decide what’s right in the particular situation, and then be it?
Bob McCulloch is a recognized authority in providing strategic guidance and executive coaching for tomorrow’s top business leaders. Employing a question-based approach and with over 40 years’ experience, he is able to build strong, trust-based relationships with senior-level executives who are looking to move the needle in their careers from good to great.
|
|
|
|
In today’s world, the concept of “need to know” information is not only obsolete; it is a hindrance to an organization’s ability to compete. Consumers demand transparency, and they are not alone. Increasingly, employees expect that their workplaces will operate with clarity and honesty. An open door policy can usher...
Read more
In today’s world, the concept of “need to know” information is not only obsolete; it is a hindrance to an organization’s ability to compete. Consumers demand transparency, and they are not alone. Increasingly, employees expect that their workplaces will operate with clarity and honesty. An open door policy can usher in the transparency that individuals need, as well as the results organizations want.
How can leaders implement such a policy effectively?
Opportunity Is Knocking
A TINYPulse survey of more than 40,000 employees found that management transparency is the single most important factor in “employee happiness” (a concept closely akin to “employee engagement”). The survey authors noted, “The cost of improving transparency is almost zero, but requires an ongoing dialogue between management and staff.”
One avenue that organizations can explore, of course, is an open door environment. It allows for individuals to be seen, to be heard, and to be understood. While this promotes enhanced engagement and productivity it also gives organizations the opportunity to create cultures of transparency, collaboration, and happiness.
In theory, an open door policy is remarkably simple. When individuals have questions, suggestions, concerns, or objections, they are able express it to someone they either respect or who they feel has the power to act on it.
An open door policy has tremendous potential, and it is often not fully realized. Why do such initiatives frequently fail to achieve their goals?
When Open Door Policies at Work Don’t Work
What happens when an open door policy doesn’t work? When it doesn’t achieve its objective, which is to encourage employees to use their voice, it is not the policy, per se. It is the way that the manager implements the policy.
Say that I have a very direct and authoritative management style. Is it likely that my direct reports will take advantage of my open door? Probably not. They may feel that they will be penalized, or that their careers will be damaged, if they dare to speak up.
As a manager, I have not only undermined the policy, I have created a situation where there is much less trust. In this case, a closed door policy that is supported by consistent behaviour would be more inviting than a false open door.
A Truly Open Door
Behaviours need to reinforce open door policies, as Ed Catmull, president of Pixar, discovered. He led his company through the making of the first computer-animated film, Toy Story. It was a tremendous success, and then he approached his team of producers about their next project.
Catmull was astonished when they told him they hated working at Pixar and wanted to quit. They felt like second-class citizens within the organization. He had an open door policy; why hadn’t they come to him with their concerns? The problem was that people didn’t feel they could walk through it. It was, essentially, a false open door.
Consistency: The Key to Successful Open Doors
Managers can easily say they have an open door policy; they must also substantiate that with their behaviour. Often, much of the problem in implementing a successful policy comes down to training. Leaders require training that will build self-awareness, that will foster reflection, that will promote insight, and that will lead to action.
For instance, if I’m that authoritative manager we mentioned above, targeted training and coaching can help me become more aware of how I come across to others, how my people perceive me. Often, people lack this level of awareness, and simply bringing it to their attention can facilitate the necessary change.
It is often said that good managers keep the door open and don’t need a policy. There is a great deal of truth to that. Their people know that they can speak up. Appropriate development and coaching allows managers to learn the consistent behaviours they need to exhibit to get people to walk into the door—and to feel confident walking out themselves and starting the dialogue. Whether you have a formal policy is immaterial. You have an open door in practice.
Open doors, by their nature, encourage transparency and engagement. When managers implement them, they must take care that their words and behaviours align. When they do, they can see significant improvements in their results and their overall workplace culture.
Bob McCulloch is a recognized authority in providing strategic guidance and executive coaching for tomorrow’s top business leaders. Employing a question-based approach and with over 40 years’ experience, he is able to build strong, trust-based relationships with senior-level executives who are looking to move the needle in their careers from good to great.
|
|
|
|
Conflict is inevitable. And yet, while we’re virtually surrounded by it, we still have difficulty coping with conflict. We can’t change the reality that we will encounter low-level and perhaps high-level conflict throughout; we can, however, control how we react to it. We can, as coach and author Dana Caspersen...
Read more
Conflict is inevitable. And yet, while we’re virtually surrounded by it, we still have difficulty coping with conflict. We can’t change the reality that we will encounter low-level and perhaps high-level conflict throughout; we can, however, control how we react to it. We can, as coach and author Dana Caspersen suggests, “change our conversations.” How?
Changing the Conversation
Caspersen, a conflict specialist, wrote Changing the Conversation: The 17 Principles of Conflict Resolution as a practical guide, hoping to empower people to “transform conflict from the inside.” We can, she says, change the conversation by changing our own actions and approach.
Fortunately, we have plenty of opportunities to practise! We can integrate certain actions and behaviours that will help change the direction of these fraught—and frequent—conversations. As leaders, it is incumbent on us to do so in order to connect with individuals, build respect, and, in doing so, minimize destructive or distracting conflict in our teams.
Is It This…or That?
One of the keys to changing the conversation is to learn to distinguish between various aspects of our interactions. For example, is it better to make assumptions or to clarify assumptions? In this case, it is better to clarify because it creates mutual understanding. It facilitates connection.
Remember, every one of us wants, at a fundamental level, to be seen, to be heard, and to be understood. Acknowledging the needs, values and opinions of others is a fundamental step in building respect.
How can we use our conversations to achieve this aim?
Distinguish Between:
- What’s being said (the words the other party uses) and what’s behind those words (is the other person experiencing frustration, anger, passion?)
- Having emotion (feeling anger, frustration, anger, displeasure, excitement) and expressing that emotion (displaying your anger, frustration, etc. through words or actions).
- Posing challenging questions (such as “Why did you do that?”) and posing curiosity questions without judgment (such as “I’m curious. What led you to choosing that action?”)
- Making assumptions (making implicit judgments in the conversation) and clarifying assumptions (making them explicit so there is shared understanding about what underlies the conversation)
- Acknowledgement or acceptance (acknowledging/accepting the other party’s assertions/positon) and agreement—or disagreement (judging whether the other person is right or wrong)
- Listening for opportunities (to advise, or declare, or sound smart) and listening for understanding (to ascertain accurately what the other party is saying, or not saying).
- Observations (what you notice) and evaluations or judgments (what you feel and perhaps assert).
- What’s happening (what is going on) and who’s at fault here (assigning blame).
- Solutions (what you think they should do) and options (various suggestions based on their position, interests, and needs).
When we make an effort to become aware of these distinctions, we can hold conversations that build respect and reduce conflict in individual and group settings. As Caspersen writes, “It seems really tricky to do this at first. But the more we practise, the better we can be.”
Her very easy to use book offers a number of other suggestions that can help leaders build workplaces marked by respect and mutual regard.
Bob McCulloch is a recognized authority in providing strategic guidance and executive coaching for tomorrow’s top business leaders. Employing a question-based approach and with over 40 years’ experience, he is able to build strong, trust-based relationships with senior-level executives who are looking to move the needle in their careers from good to great.
|
|
|
|
“What’s your cause? What’s your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning, and why should anyone care?” —Simon Sinek, Start with Why Why do we exist? Humans have been asking this essential question from time immemorial, and it...
Read more
“What’s your cause? What’s your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning, and why should anyone care?” —Simon Sinek, Start with Why
Why do we exist?
Humans have been asking this essential question from time immemorial, and it is an equally important query from an organizational standpoint. At inception, not-for-profits, public agencies, and private sector organizations have a mandate, a raison d’etre, tasked to them by leaders, ministers, legislation, or stakeholders. Over time, the manner in which they operate may deviate from that original intent. How do they course correct—or plot an entirely new route altogether?
Changing Needs
A number of years ago, I facilitated sessions with a provincial workers compensation board, which included the directors, the chair of the board, and senior management. I posed the question: “What is our mandate?” In other words, why do we exist?
The chair replied, “Well, just go to the legislation. You’ll see that the reason that we exist is to protect the employer from being sued by injured employees.”
While that may have indeed been the original purpose, another member of the board said, “No, it’s about the protection of the employees. If they are injured, we need to ensure that they receive appropriate treatment and compensation.”
Someone else offered this: “The way we’re approaching our work now, the real objective is to get the injured worker back into the workforce as fast as possible.”
Three different mandates—with three very different implications for how the workers compensation board would organize, which functions it would put in place, and which strategy it would pursue.
One can envision how easy it would be for this board to devolve into chaos and factions with three different—and competing—objectives. Or it could be an ideal opportunity to ask, “In today’s and tomorrow’s world, why do we exist? Who do we serve, and how are they better off because we are here?”
The next step is to build a strategy around that response. The answer to “why” they exist becomes the key to “how” they operate.
Evolving Mandates
How are people better off? It is a simple question, and the answer can lead to changes in mandate or vision and mission statement. Elections Ontario, for instance, had been a compliance-focused organization for years. The emphasis was ensuring that everyone associated with provincial elections was following the letter of the law in terms of allowable expenses, screening potential voters, making sure they had the proper documentation, and so on.
Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa sought to turn that mindset around and focus on ensuring that every voter who has the right to vote can vote. For instance, if a constituent has a disability, what will Elections Ontario to do provide him or her with the opportunity to vote?
Essentially, they asked the question: “Who do we serve, and how are they better off because we exist?” Their answer prompted the inclusion of assistive technology, for the first time, in the 2011 election. The tools included Braille key pads, foot pedals, and “sip-and-puff” straws for those who cannot use their hands. This enabled more people to participate, secretly and independently, without relying on others to cast their votes for them.
While not a perfect system yet, the answer to why Elections Ontario exists is guiding meaningful change on a strategic level as well as changing the operating culture dramatically. Other organizations can do well to ensure their mandates also guide action.
It is informative for organizations to check periodically with their mandate for alignment and ask, “How are people better off because we exist?” They are certainly well served by taking the next step as well: determining the strategic initiatives that should be put into place to ensure that folks are, in fact, better off—and will continue to be so in today’s and tomorrow’s world.
Bob McCulloch is a recognized authority in providing strategic guidance and executive coaching for tomorrow’s top business leaders. Employing a question-based approach and with over 40 years’ experience, he is able to build strong, trust-based relationships with senior-level executives who are looking to move the needle in their careers from good to great.
|
|
|
|
“The king is dead. Long live the king. Strategic planning is dead. The new king is execution and flexibility.” —Bill Conerly, Forbes This statement begs the question, “execution and flexibility” of what, if not a plan? In The Future Executive, Harlan Cleveland writes that strategy is “improvisation on...
Read more
“The king is dead. Long live the king. Strategic planning is dead. The new king is execution and flexibility.” —Bill Conerly, Forbes
This statement begs the question, “execution and flexibility” of what, if not a plan? In The Future Executive, Harlan Cleveland writes that strategy is “improvisation on a general sense of direction.” If an organization is going to improvise, to flex, it needs a base against which to improvise. Strategy is not a rigid—or dead—monarch; it’s a direction, a waypoint that serves both to keep an organization on track, and allows it to detour. Revisiting strategy is a way of re-establishing and resetting this waypoint.
Opportunities to Revisit Strategy
A number of years ago, a chemical company found itself dealing with a major—fortuitous—change. It was heavily involved in resins. The price of resins increased by a factor of 10 within about 18 months, and the $35 million organization became a $250 million organization virtually overnight.
Suddenly “burdened” with an enormous amount of cash, this would have been an opportune time to sit down and ask: “What are we going to do with these riches? Invest, save, buy new equipment, hire great minds?”
Interestingly, and unfortunately, the company didn’t alter its corporate strategy in a way that moved the organization forward. Such a stance can leave a company cash rich and strategy poor, which ultimately puts it in an untenable situation.
In what other situations is a re-examination of strategy a sound idea?
- Massive discontinuity in the business environment. For example, when oil doubled in price, it sent a number of people back to the drawing boards because they were so dependent on oil.
- Major changes in funding policies.
- Disruptive technology introduced to the marketplace.
- The original mandate is outdated and irrelevant.
- A new leader or member of senior management is appointed.
These events could trigger a major revisit of corporate strategy. What then? After a new or revised strategy is in place, it is beneficial to hold quarterly learning updates and a more extensive annual review.
Planning for—Not Predicting—the Future
Let’s back up a minute. People often invoke the strategy-is-dead mantra, saying it is impossible to plan five, three or even one year ahead, because no one can know—or even reasonably predict—the future in this tumultuous climate. Who, they say, can foretell the introduction of a disruptive, game-changing technology or a major global event?
Is that really the case?
Consider this: a number of years ago, I consulted with a Canadian company that was affiliated with an American company. The U.S. company was thinking of purchasing the Canadian company and making it a wholly owned subsidiary.
Management went catatonic, paralyzed by an unknown future. I asked a few questions, and it turned out that, regardless of whether the American company bought them, a good two-thirds of the business would not change.
Why not set the third of the business that may change into a risk area and continue to go ahead and make strategic changes to the two-thirds that was going to be stable? This way, there would be a plan against which to improvise.
‘Strategy is good only until first contact with the enemy’
Yes, it is true that we can’t know the future. It doesn’t necessarily follow that we can’t plan for it or for a number of likely scenarios. Another definition of strategy comes from Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz: “Strategy is good only until first contact with the enemy.”
In other words, things are going to change. Any choice we make now is directional at best. The alternative is remaining directionless, aimless, paralyzed by the future.
Because we can’t “know” and can only plan for different scenarios, a formal review cycle is imperative. The senior management team can gather quarterly for a half a day and say, ‘OK, what did we learn over the last 90 days about this strategy?’
It’s essential that it doesn’t come off like a standard management or sales meeting. It isn’t about hitting or missing targets; it’s about valuing people as contributors and growing in a positive direction. What did we learn? What will we, as an organization, do differently over the next period? What are the next steps? A more extensive annual review process can solidify learning and guide planning for the next year.
A strategic plan should not negate the possibility for alternative approaches or flexibility; in fact, a good plan makes it possible to deviate, to detour, without losing sight of the mission or mandate. Ultimately, revisiting corporate strategy is much more than a learning exercise; it is the key to surviving and thriving as an organization.
Bob McCulloch is a recognized authority in providing strategic guidance and executive coaching for tomorrow’s top business leaders. Employing a question-based approach and with over 40 years’ experience, he is able to build strong, trust-based relationships with senior-level executives who are looking to move the needle in their careers from good to great.
|
|
|
|
Media magnate Rupert Murdoch once said, “The world is changing very fast. Big will not beat small anymore. It will be the fast beating the slow.” Email hacking scandals aside, this is an accurate glimpse into the 21st century business landscape. The new giants will not necessarily be the biggest;...
Read more
Media magnate Rupert Murdoch once said, “The world is changing very fast. Big will not beat small anymore. It will be the fast beating the slow.” Email hacking scandals aside, this is an accurate glimpse into the 21st century business landscape. The new giants will not necessarily be the biggest; rather they will be the fastest. Those that can respond and adapt to shifts and trends will have a significant advantage over those that cannot or will not.
Continual Change
Seismic shifts, both within and outside of organizations, highlight how people want to be employed and how they expect to receive services. My daughter, who is now 17, for instance, has very different expectations with regards to supplier interactions than my wife or I do.
While perhaps a bit of a broad generalization, this demographic expects individualized, customized attention. They want instant communication, answers, and feedback. James Marshall Reilly, founder and CEO of talent management firm The Guild Agency, also notes:
Millennials are very, very conscious of brand image—we want the brands we buy to reflect who we are as people. That makes our purchases very much an extension of our self-image and personal identity.
A brand-centric strategy is no longer tenable, not with these changing expectations and needs.
Embracing Shifting Attitudes
Acknowledging and embracing these changing attitudes, habits, and trends is key to longevity and success as an organization. This will become even more critical as this generation enters the workforce in greater numbers. They hold different views on how work should be completed, and there is a much more prominent social and environmental focus.
Just as younger generations want products they buy to reflect who they are, they want the organizations in which they work to share their values and ideals; to become an extension of their own identities, so they can contribute to work that holds meaning for them.
Jamie Gutfreund of the Intelligence Group says, “Generation Y was raised with a different perspective. Their Boomer parents taught them that their opinions are important. So they have an expectation to have a stake in outcomes.” They are “focused on making meaning, not just making money.”
While this does disrupt the traditional landscape of work, it is also an essential attitude that organizations can leverage. Consumers, as mentioned, want to make purchases that coincide with their beliefs and social mores, and they feel as though they have a “stake in outcomes.” Driven by this awareness, as well as the changing needs of their employees, organizations can more readily adapt.
Water to Wine
This dynamic is playing out in Prince Edward County. Just a few years ago, there were a handful of wineries. Today, there are nearly 40, as well as craft breweries and cider houses. This is a boon to the local economy and to the area’s reputation as an exciting wine-producing region, but consider this: it takes about 29 gallons of water to produce a glass of cabernet sauvignon, according to the Water Footprint Network. This is not at all palatable to many of today’s consumers—especially those who live in or around the area and who must share this valuable resource—or to employees.
So wineries must ask: what is our strategic positioning with respect to handling water? How do we want to come across to our internal and external customers? As profit-hungry, environmental marauders, or responsible stewards of the land? Do we want to be not only good businesspeople—but good neighbours?
If customers care and employees care, then the organization has to catch up and start to maintain their social license to operate.
(And so they have: the Wine Council’s sustainability committee has spearheaded several initiatives designed to minimize water consumption, enhance wastewater disposal, address water-supply issues, and establish best practices for Ontario’s wine industry. )
It is futile to ignore changes in attitude and demographics, or attempt to stop them. To do so is to risk, and accept, obsolescence. The key to surviving and thriving is to make an effort to be aware of shifts, analyze how they will impact your corporate strategy, and move to meet the challenges with flexibility and adaptability.
Bob McCulloch is a recognized authority in providing strategic guidance and executive coaching for tomorrow’s top business leaders. Employing a question-based approach and with over 40 years’ experience, he is able to build strong, trust-based relationships with senior-level executives who are looking to move the needle in their careers from good to great.
|
|
|
|
With 1 billion emerging consumers; an emphasis on corporate social responsibility and citizenship, and continual innovation from all corners of the world, globalization is transforming the business environment—and how organizations operate within it. How will these changes affect your strategy? And who is watching the horizon for you? “Too Busy”...
Read more
With 1 billion emerging consumers; an emphasis on corporate social responsibility and citizenship, and continual innovation from all corners of the world, globalization is transforming the business environment—and how organizations operate within it. How will these changes affect your strategy? And who is watching the horizon for you?
“Too Busy”
One of the challenges with trend spotting and research is that many people say, ‘I’m not interested;’ ‘I don’t have time for that;’ or, ‘I’m too busy.’ My response to that is, “That’s OK.” Really. We are all good at what we’re good at, and the reality is that some of us don’t care about research or find that it lies within our skill sets.
This doesn’t mean that keeping an eye on the business landscape is not a critical function. In many cases, organizations have a department or a dedicated position to do scanning. If not, the senior team should identify one of its own number who is personally interested in the activity and can assume accountability for it. This person will stay abreast of trends and keep others informed of the changing technological and business landscapes.
It may be that an organization has to go deeper into the organization to engage the talent. There may be someone two or three levels down, for instance, who is interested in monitoring and assessing these types of trends. If all else fails, an external resource can be entrusted with the task.
Watching – Then What?
The real importance then is taking the next step: assessing how trends might impact the business strategy.
I have a beautiful old dry sink with storage space underneath – space that is chockfull of VHS tapes! When am I ever going to watch these things? And if I am interested in watching, why wouldn’t I simply stream them online? Why have these old dinosaurs take up space?
Several years ago, the situation may not have been quite so obvious, at least not to Blockbuster. It clung to its retail strategy while consumers overwhelmingly demonstrated their desire for on-demand products (and no late fees). By the time Blockbuster broadened into DVD, mail services and kiosks, Netflix and RedBox had solidified their hold on those markets. It was too late for Blockbuster.
Every organization has its own army of packrats, who not only hang on to physical objects, but to old ideas. What held Blockbuster back? What in its mindset kept it from understanding that there was an end to what they were offering? Why did no one stop to ask, “How are our customers better off because we exist?”
What if it had? One possibility is that it could have set up a system to compete or displace Netflix. Another might have been taking Netflix’s CEO Reed Hastings up on his numerous partnership and acquisition proposals. Instead, Blockbuster did little, and customers did find themselves better off—with Netflix.
Business history is littered with organizations that didn’t watch emerging trends, didn’t give them the credence they deserved, or failed to anticipate their impact. Blockbuster, Kodak, RIM, the list goes on and on.
On Top of Trends
At the same time, it’s informative to look at organizations that were—and are—able to watch trends and identify the impact on their strategy. Amazon, for example, noted consumers’ increased demand for next-day delivery. The key to meeting this demand: Kiva robots.
In Amazon warehouses (the size of 59 football fields), employees used to walk through the aisles to find the right product. Now, Kiva brings it to them, picking up entire shelves and moving them to the fulfillment platform.
When truckloads come in, employees simply find room for the freight on shelves and send it to one of the four floors of storage space. It doesn’t matter if video games are stored next to beauty products, or paper towels are side by side with soup. The robots are programmed with the location, and they retrieve the proper items as needed.
The benefit? Amazon can hold up to 50% more inventory in the same space, and they have improved efficiency by 20%. Instead of taking 90 minutes to fill some orders, workers can do it in 15—and make sure the products on their way out for fast delivery.
Amazon spotted a trend and revisited its strategy. It wasn’t Kiva that propelled Amazon to even greater success; it was adaptability and the willingness to change “business as usual.”
Regardless of who is watching the horizon, spotting trends and scanning social media and news sites is a critical function. Equally important is ensuring senior management and leaders take the next step: determining the impact that these changes might have on their organization and revisiting strategy. This enables them to seize opportunities, instead of being left behind.
Bob McCulloch is a recognized authority in providing strategic guidance and executive coaching for tomorrow’s top business leaders. Employing a question-based approach and with over 40 years’ experience, he is able to build strong, trust-based relationships with senior-level executives who are looking to move the needle in their careers from good to great.
|
|
|
|
As the business landscape shifts, one of the questions that organizations can benefit from asking themselves is: “Should our leadership and management make an effort to be highly visible, or take a more behind-the-scenes position?” Certainly, the answer seems to be more rather than less visibility—with the caveat that to...
Read more
As the business landscape shifts, one of the questions that organizations can benefit from asking themselves is: “Should our leadership and management make an effort to be highly visible, or take a more behind-the-scenes position?” Certainly, the answer seems to be more rather than less visibility—with the caveat that to do so they must possess the interpersonal skills that this role requires.
In the Public Eye
A recent survey of 1,700 senior executives uncovered the need for chief executives to become more visible, both inside organizational walls and to the public at large. Eighty-one percent of respondents said that “CEO visibility” was critical to reputation.
But what if the leader is a bully? It might be wise to confine her or his “visibility” to direct reports!
That being said, when leaders have appropriate interpersonal skills, it is useful for them to be widely accessible, especially to communicate the strategic direction of the organization. Ultimately, it comes down to the personality of the leader and what the organization needs from him or her in terms of its corporate culture.
If the organization needs a visible leader (and likely, it does), it is up to that person to acquire the requisite skills—or step aside. In my experience at IBM, there were some senior leaders who came across as bullies and tyrants. One of these individuals demonstrated remarkable ability in his work; he was even very personally likeable if not charming, and at the same time, this person had an awesome temper!
At one point, he agreed to take on an assignment in New York and in the process received coaching and worked on essential interpersonal skills. Upon his return, and with modified self-control, he went on to become a well-regarded and respected president of IBM Canada. It was a positive move for him—and for the organization.
Developing Interpersonal Skill Sets
Daniel Goleman, a pioneer in the field of emotional intelligence, writes in Harvard Business Review:
Technical skills and self-mastery alone allow you to be an outstanding individual contributor. But to lead, you need an additional interpersonal skill set: you’ve got to listen, communicate, persuade, collaborate.
After all, leaders can hire those with technical skills, and then they need to inspire and guide them. That duty cannot be abdicated, and often it needs to be visibly completed. People need to see their leaders leading.
The question is ultimately one of culture and personality. Does the organizational culture require a visible leader, and does the leader have the interpersonal skills to deliver on that mandate? If the answer to the latter is, ‘No,’ then it becomes a question of whether he or she is willing to learn them in order to propel the organization forward.
Bob McCulloch is a recognized authority in providing strategic guidance and executive coaching for tomorrow’s top business leaders. Employing a question-based approach and with over 40 years’ experience, he is able to build strong, trust-based relationships with senior-level executives who are looking to move the needle in their careers from good to great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
