Participative and Reflective Openness

Previously I have written about the importance of leaders listening to organizational members, to be open to them, as a way to build an excellent organization. Today I would like to discuss this issue of openness.

In many ways, a synonym for excellent organization is learning organization. This term was made famous by Peter Senge. In his book, The Fifth Discipline, Senge states there are two types of organizational openness: participative and reflective. Participative openness exists when organizational members have the freedom to express themselves. Reflective openness occurs when organizational members allow themselves to hear and understand what others are saying. Participatory openness is necessary but insufficient in the creation of excellent organizations. Both types of openness are required for organizational excellence.

Too often, organizations espouse openness and pride themselves on having everyone speak their mind. “Enlightened” managers have learned that encouraging participation increases commitment, creativity, and hard work. So, given that, they ensure that everyone has the opportunity to speak in meetings before decisions are made. They may even pride themselves on drawing out those who are reticent to participate in group settings. The real question is, is anyone listening?

I know a manager that depicts this perfectly. Mary (not the real name) prides herself on being a participative manager. She would never make a decision without including her management team in a discussion. The problem, however, is she enters those discussions with her desired outcome firmly in mind and doesn’t allow anything to deflect her from that goal. If you were to observe her and her team in action, you might be impressed by the energy; you might notice that everyone speaks, or if they don’t that Mary asks his or her thoughts; and you might be impressed with the quality of the debate. Debate is the right word; Mary takes great pride in being able to convince people of the correctness of her ideas; she (and her reports for that matter) listens for openings where they can make their points and weaknesses in the statements of others that they can jump on. Clearly there is participative openness but there is no reflective openness; no one learning anything -- except how to argue.

So how might the scene be different if Mary’s organization had both participative and reflective openness? Mary might present the topic in the same way. After that, the dynamic would be dramatically different. Rather than engaging each other in a confrontational way, each team member would be listening to understand the spoken and unspoken assumptions held by the others. Further, everyone, including and perhaps especially Mary, would be willing to suspend their own assumptions. This does not mean they would deny, suppress, or ignore their own assumptions or experiences. On the contrary, they would willingly share their assumptions and invite others to ask questions that they might fully understand one another.

As each person listened to the opinions of the others, understanding their assumptions and experiences that led to those assumptions, and as they clearly presented their own point of view and the reasons for it, very possibly a synthesis of their ideas would occur and perhaps a course of action different from that anyone might have developed on his or her own would be adopted. It is also possible the team will end up with the outcome Mary favored from the beginning. However, if that did happen, there would be greater commitment to its accomplishment; organizational energy is more likely to fully focused on the jointly defined goal.

To a great extent, the difference between the two scenes is the difference between discussion and dialogue. Discussion came into English from Latin and had an original meaning of dash or shake apart. This original meaning carries forward to the implication in the current usage of using argument or debate to elicit the truth or to establish a point. It is related to words such as percussion and concussion. The image of discussion is two people firing verbal canon back and forth until one’s opponent is beat into submission.

On the other hand, dialogue, entering English from the Greek dialogous, or “meaning passing or moving through”; now denotes conversation between two or more people. The mental image is of two people reaching an understanding through the flow of ideas. The purpose of dialogue is not to “win” but for expand knowledge and understanding of truth for all involved.

While discussion satisfies our competitive nature, dialogue is more likely to lead to the development of new understanding and better decisions. I think it is clear which method will most likely help organizations achieve excellence. Therefore the skills of both participatory and reflective openness need to be developed. Are you open to that possibility?

Compensation and Organizational Excellence

Compensation does not affect all organizations, and therefore does not impact the efforts of all organizations trying to become high performing. Today I will address a key issue for those organizations that do pay their organizational members and issues associated therewith.

Given the importance of culture on organizations, it is not surprising that one’s native culture impacts how individuals, and thus the organizations made of those individuals, view an issue as fundamental as compensation. Do you believe that all employees should share equally in organizational success? Do you believe that compensation should be based on longevity with the organization or at least with one’s profession? Do you believe that individual contribution should be rewarded through pay for performance systems such as commission based pay or at least variable pay based on attainment of key performance indicators? Your belief in what type of compensation program is most likely to support the development of a high performing organization. Despite cultural preferences, objective evidence can point to aspects of compensation systems that promote or detract from organizational excellence.

There is a variety of compensation systems which are implemented, singularly or in some combination, in organizations. Typical systems include pay for performance (some degree of pay is tied to specific predetermined outcomes), promotion based systems (high performers are selectively promoted to higher paying positions), tenure systems (after multiple years of at risk employment, high performers are promoted to positions with essentially perpetual job security), up or out promotion systems (employees either continued to be promoted or they are discharged from the organization), and profit sharing program (through bonus or stock purchase/grant/stock option plans). Constraints of this blog preclude me from addressing all of these systems; I will focus on pay for performance and profit sharing programs.

Let’s start with pay for performance systems (PPS). My problem with PPS is not that they don’t work but that they work too well. Based on both my experience and research I believe that significant financial incentives can affect behavior, but the effects may not be in the best interest of organizational excellence. The problems are several fold.

First, since PPS do tend to work, those behaviors for which incentives are in place tend to receive focused attention to the detriment of behaviors that are also important for organizational success but are not covered by the PPS. Second, the incentives established for one part of the organization often conflict with incentives for another part. This typically creates a situation in which suboptimal decisions and actions are taken. Third, subjective measurement systems are rarely effective because of lack of trust that fair decisions will be made. Objective measurement systems are better but identifying measurable outcomes that move the organization towards its goals are often difficult to identify. Fourth, even for roles for which objective performance measures can be identified (typically sales roles for example) the accomplishment of those outcomes are rarely solely due to the efforts of those who receive compensation based on those outcomes.

The results of these limitations are resentment among those who do not benefit from the PPS, manipulation of performance (or reporting) to maximize reward rather than what is best for the organization, and suboptimal decisions and performance. None of these conditions are representative of high performance organizations. They may generate short term performance but they do not lead to long term, sustainable, organizational excellence.

Profit sharing programs (PSP), whether they are bonus or stock purchase/grant/option based, have the ability to align people around the overall performance of the organization. Bonus programs tend to focus attention on shorter term performance and stock based programs tend to build longer term organizational loyalty.

Assuming that base compensation is appropriate, providing variable compensation based on organizational performance, particularly if that variable compensation is tied to factors that lead to excellence can have a powerful impact on aligning incentives and performance. The percentage of any given person’s compensation that is variable, or the total dollar value of that variable compensation, is important but less critical that all receive greater or less benefit in synch with one another.

As I have said in previous blogs, one of the key characteristics of an excellent organization is a high degree of commitment throughout the organization to common goals. Given the power that compensation can have, why do we insist on implementing incentives that create conflict, confusion, lack of clarity, and focus on individual rather than overall organizational accomplishment?

Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing: A Better Model

In this post, I would like to expand on the topic of how excellent teams develop.

The most well known model for group or team development is probably the four stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing developed by Tuckman. Tuckman, in a later collaboration with Jensen expanded the four stage model into five stages with the addition of adjourning. Tuckman himself stated that the popularity of his model was probably based to a great degree on the rhyming terms he coined for the stages of development. As noted, while Tuckman’s model may be the most popular, it is definitely not the only one. A 1973 article by Hill and Gruner, relays an anecdotal account of someone who had collected over 100 distinct models or theories of group development. If there were over 100 in 1973, how many more must there be now!

One of the hundreds of available models that I believe adds a depth missing from Tuckman’s model is the TEAM model was developed by Morgan, Salas, and Glickman. In this model nine stages are identified (performing, forming, storming, norming, performing, reforming, performing II, conforming, and deforming). Several of these stages are the same as Tuckman’s but you may first notice the initial step is performing. This is an acknowledgement that for most teams, members have been performing prior to the formation of the new team. They may have associated with others in this new team; team members may be new to each other. In either case, team members come to the new team with life experiences that influence how they perceive teams, teamwork, and the role they anticipate playing in the new team.

The pre-existing assumptions about how a team is going to function can be a major hurdle in the effort to become high performing. Once I became the leader of a team whose other members had been together for some time. They were well entrenched in playing roles within the team that were not always emotionally healthy nor were they always productive. Further, team members had very strong feelings about the previous team leader and for the first few weeks of our working together, projected their beliefs about the motivations for his actions onto what I said and did. Finally, during one particularly dysfunctional meeting I said, “Stop. I am not Guy (not his real name). Stop projecting what you thought about him onto me.” Ultimately we were able to break through those preexisting expectations and become an excellent team. We began to look back at our early days together and laughingly referred to it as the former spouse syndrome – as the new team “spouse” I was getting blamed for everything the previous spouse had done and his motives were imputed to be mine.

A second feature assumed in the TEAM model is that a group could start at and proceed through any of the stages; revert back and revisit previous stages; basically break from the linear progression implied in Tuckman’s model. This non linear, often cyclical flow of performance depends on the previous experience of the group members with the task and with each other, on changes that arise within the group, and on environmental factors.

I have seen and worked with teams that moved quickly to the performing stage and stayed there, functioning at an acceptable to high level. I have also seen teams that seem to always be in a state of flux: team members are changing; expectations for output or team purpose are changing; relationships among team members are changing. In fact for some teams, flux may be a generous assessment and chaos may be closer to the truth. What causes this pattern to be broken and for the team to become at least better functioning if not high performing? Sometimes that change never happens and team members either give up and move on to other things, or the sponsoring organization shuts the team down. When a positive change does occur, the change can be prompted by a change in group membership (and thus dynamics), an external threat that causes the team to jell to meet that threat, or a clear unifying goal that becomes essentially a new team charter around which everyone can rally.

Another aspect to the TEAM model is the recognition there are two separate paths for team development. The first is the one in which the group learns what it must accomplish and what it needs to meet that outcome. The second path is concerned with the interpersonal and communication skills of the group. Ideally, both paths proceed in sync with each other leading to the highest level of performance and group satisfaction. As I have described in previous blogs, my research and experience clearly shows that high performing teams excel at both producing the expected outcomes of the group and in building supportive, helpful, caring relationships among team members. Excellence does not occur without both aspects.

Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing is a nice simple model that roles easily off the tongue. However, I believe the TEAM model is a better reflection of how teams actually develop and perform.

A Thousand Hacking At Branches for One Striking At Roots

One of my favorite sayings is by Henry David Thoreau: “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of [a problem] to one that is striking at its roots.”*

What does this have to do with organizational excellence? Quite a lot, I think. Far too often companies launch into campaigns that are aimed at the symptoms (lower accounts receivable; improve employee morale; reduce calls to the help line) rather than identifying the root causes for those problematic symptoms and correcting them. So, what is the result of these efforts? There may be a short term improvement as attention is paid, but soon organizational will and attention wane and the problem returns. When it gets bad enough, another campaign will be launched. Often these campaigns take the form of trying to implement the management fad of the moment.

Taiichi Ohno, considered to be the father of the Toyota Production System, which became Lean Manufacturing, famously taught that organizations ask “The Five Whys” to identify the root problem(s) [there are usually more than one], before taking action. Simplistically, Five Whys is a methodology in which one keeps asking why until a fundamental, actionable cause is identified. Once that cause is identified and solved, the symptom will disappear. While this methodology implies by its name that root causes can be identified by five whys, it may take fewer or greater to accurately discover the root cause.

An Ishikawa or Fishbone Diagram is a tool often used to trace problems back to their root causes. At the top of the page is an example of such a diagram. The headings of equipment, process, people, materials, environment, and management are typical but can be adjusted to fit any particular organization. On the other hand, these categories are also broad enough that they would, in fact, be applicable to one degree and in one form or another for most organizations.

At the head is the problem. The headings are the major areas for investigation. The larger “fishbones” represent the major groupings of problems. The smaller groupings are subsets or more detailed items under the larger categories. It is not my purpose here to provide exhaustive instruction about how Ishikawa diagrams are used; it is sufficient to reiterate that the tool is used to trace problems back to their root causes, often using the Five Why methodology.

Once the root causes are identified (again, there are usually more than one) they can be listed and examined for relative importance (how much impact they have on the undesired outcome); ease of mitigation (how hard it would be to solve this root cause); and cost of mitigation (actual and psychic/emotional/cultural costs). From this a priority list can be established and an action plan created.

Ohno is quoted as saying, "The root cause of any problem is the key to a lasting solution.” As leaders of organizations take time to identify the true root causes and solve them, they will become one of the one in a thousand striking at the root rather than hacking at the branches. They will make lasting changes and help move their organizations towards excellence

*In the original quote, Thoreau wrote “evil” instead of my replacement of “a problem”. Although I believe both statements are true, my replacement moves it from the specific to the general.

Employee Engagement

As I visit with leaders, senior managers, and executives of organizations of all sizes, a common complaint I hear is about employee engagement. Examples include: “I don’t know where to find good employees anymore. People just don’t seem to care.”; “Young employees don’t care about work anymore. All they want to do is go have fun.”; and, “Employees seem to think they are entitled to a job. They do the bare minimum to keep from getting fired but very few care enough about the company to really work for its success.” You get the idea. Very few of these organizational executives look at these concerns as symptoms of their own lack of leadership.

Today, I would like to address this topic head on by discussing employee engagement and how to increase it in your organization.

Peter Block in his book Flawless Consulting, describes engagement as the art of brining people together. I like to expand this thought to include bringing people and their talents, passions, experience, and skills together to work towards a common goal. Block states that in the end engagement is more powerful than articulating a clear vision, establishing performance standards, developing a rewards system, increasing training, or instituting formal measurement processes. It is not that those are not important features of excellent organizations, they are, but he believes we have over emphasized them at the cost of underemphasizing the power of engagement through dialog.

Traditionally, the steps of organizational change include: establishing a vision, setting standards for what is expected, building a reward system to reinforce the behavior, provide training if new skills are required, and then measuring the change. The problem with these necessary but insufficient steps is they assume the people in our organizations are placid objects that we can manage and manipulate. Do you resent feeling like you are being manipulated into doing something you don’t want to do? I certainly do. Even if it is something I want to do, if I believe my behavior is being manipulated, rather than asking me to give it freely, I have feelings of resentment and a desire to resist.

Like Block, I believe this also manifests itself in our organizations. We need to create opportunities for dialog with organizational members. These are not just forums for management to expound on their vision of strategic plans but a true dialog where organizational member of all stripes can explain why the organization is important to them, where they think the organization should go and what it should be doing, and how their personal values tie to the services and products the organization creates.

Establishing an opportunity for all organizational employees to dialog about the organization, its values, goals, outputs, and how that relates to the individuals values, and interests may seem like too great an investment, perhaps even a waste of time. There is thought among some in management that all that needs to be done is set a clear enough goal and people will work for it; and if they don’t they should be shed from the organization as quickly as possible.

However, I believe this approach neglects the energy, enthusiasm, and performance that can be realized from fully engaged people. Each of us is more than a “pair of hands” or a limited set of skills to be applied as management sees fit to solve a problem. When we care about the reason the organization exists; when the overlap between our values and the organization’s are clear; when our goals and objectives align with and support those of the organization, engagement occurs and we will do all we can to help the organization, and thus ourselves, succeed.

For a short time we can force engagement through fear, intimidation, or manipulation. In the long run it will only persist if freely given. I believe it will only be freely given if mutual understanding is developed. This does not have to be terribly time consuming but it does take effort. Even very large organizations have made an excellent beginning in a matter of a couple of days through whole system change activities and then ongoing dialogs that continue to invite organizational members to contribute and which actively listen to and respond to what is said. I personally have led organizations of several hundred members through such a process and have witnessed success in lower turnover, greater stated satisfaction in employee surveys, and high performance in terms of output and profitability.

If our organization members are not as committed as we would like; if they don’t work as hard as we want; if they don’t seem to really have the best interests of the organization at heart, whose fault is it? If as organizational leaders we hold even some of the blame, should we not quit making self justifying excuses and condemnations and take action? Employee engagement is possible. All we have to do is open ourselves and our organizations to the possibility.

Deliberate Organizational Culture

Today I would like to write a little more about culture, which I have written about in a previous blog (May 29th). As I noted in that blog, culture might most simply be defined as “the way we do things around here” and that it is typically built organically over time as the cumulative result of decisions and actions taken to solve issues as they arise.

What I would like to explore today is the idea that an organization (business, non-profit, school, church, family) might be able to “jump start” the development of culture through conscious, deliberate thought and action.

Suppose that the members of an organization took the time to carefully and deeply discuss their most closely held individual values, the values that if lived would most likely cause the organization to succeed in its goals, and where there might be differences between any individual values and the organizational ideal. Suppose further that this group was able to reach an agreement not only on the organizational ideal value set but for each value how those values would be expressed in behavior.

Let’s say the ideal value was “Act with integrity.” The group would explore and eventually agree about how they would act with each other, with clients or customers, with vendors and suppliers, and with the general public. They would not, most likely, be able to define every type of interaction that could occur within themselves of between their group and others. They probably could, however, identify and define key interactions that could serve as a benchmark for other undefined behaviors.

Once agreement had been reached by the group on ideal values and the behavioral expression thereof, let’s further suppose that in a caring, supportive environment, organizational members worked with each other to identify when behaviors that reinforced the ideal values were observed and times where a behavior breached those values. In the first case, those behaviors were lauded; in the second case, lapses were identified and more appropriate ways of behaving or dealing with those issues were discussed and agreed upon.

If such a scenario were played out in the real world, what would happen? I believe what you would see is the development of an identifiable culture built on the values and behaviors the organizational members had determined were most important. Further, if they were correct in identifying those values and behaviors, not only would an identifiable organizational culture be established but it would be making progress towards the objectives the organization held most dear.

Okay, assuming that my thought experiment is true, what are the implications? For one thing, an organization that wants to become excellent would now have a path to follow to achieve that goal. Another example where this could be very applicable is in an organization that operates multinationally or whose membership is multi-cultural and where there is a desire to have one unified organizational culture that transcends national or regional culture.
Not that such a process would be easy; just getting agreement on the most important values and associated behaviors would be a tremendous undertaking. There would no doubt be those who would resist this effort or see it as “soft” or a waste of time. There would be those, particularly in the example of the multinational organization that would chauvinistically cling to the attributes of their native culture as the ideal, rather than being open to other behaviors that might actually be more likely to achieve the organizational goals. There would surely be those who would say that overtly creating a culture is not possible, that people are who they are and they are not going to change.

In reality, people make conscious changes all the time. Such change is dependent on three things. First there needs to be a clear purpose or outcome in mind, which is considered to have great enough value to be desired more than the status quo and to overcome the fear of change. Second, the process to achieve the change is understood. Finally, there must be a fundamental belief that change can occur (that they are not predetermined to a certain life by fate, God, or the universe). If these three conditions are met, change, even profound change, can occur and occur quite quickly.

The question is, do those variables required for change exist? I would guess that in most organizations excellence and why it is worth pursuing is neither known nor discussed. Perhaps that is the place to start. For your organization, what does excellence look like and why is it important? In the words of Mike Myer’s character, Linda Richman in the Coffee Talk sketch from Saturday Night Live, “Talk amongst yourselves.”

What is you hedgehog?

I’ve mentioned Good to Great by Jim Collins in previous blog posts. I think it is one of the best books I have found for members of organizations that are interested in becoming excellent. Today, drawing on that book, I would like to write about the three questions that excellent organizations have to answer and the organizational strategy that should be derived by the answer to those questions.

The three questions are:
1) What are we passionate about?
2) What are/can we be the best at?
3) What drives our economic engine

What are we passionate about? This question points to the foundational motivation for outstanding or excellent organizations – they are passionate about what they do or they are passionate about what the organization accomplishes. We don’t often talk about passion, at least in for profit business settings. Collins notes, “…throughout the good-to-great companies, passion became a key [condition]. You can’t manufacture passion or “motivate” people to feel passionate. You can only discover what ignites your passion and the passion of those around you.”

What are/can we be the best at? Collins makes the point this may be different from an organization’s core competencies. He states that for an organization to truly be excellent they need to identify the thing(s) they can do that are the best in the world. Expanding on this point, Collins writes, “The good-to-great companies understood that doing what you are good at will only make you good; focusing on what you can potentially do better than any other organization is the only path to greatness.”

What drives our economic engine? To answer this question fully is to know more than “how do we make money?” Developing an understanding of the driver of an economic engine is to discover the key financial ratio that determines financial success and profitability; this is usually expressed as some form of money/variable. Collins provides a guide to help us determine our most meaningful economic ratio: “If you could pick one and only one ratio – profit per x (or in the social sector cash flow per x) – to systematically increase over time, what x would have the greatest and most sustainable impact on your economic engine?” He further states, “That denominator can be quite subtle, sometimes even unobvious. The key is to use the question of the denominator to gain understanding into your economic model.” Typically, this might be expressed in such things as profit per customer, revenue per hour, or profit per unit sold. The key is to spend the time to figure out what is the most important ratio for your organization.

These three questions are envisioned as intersecting circles. The area of overlap (where what we are or can be best in the world at, our economic driver, and our passion intersect) is where we should focus our strategic energy. I won’t go into why this term is used (I guess you’ll just have to read the book :-)), but Collins calls this intersection the “Hedgehog Concept”, which he defines as “a simple, crystalline concept that flows from deep understanding about he intersection of the…three circles.” A clear understanding of, and focusing efforts on, their “hedgehog” was the fundamental differentiator between good and great companies; one could say of excellent organizations.

While this may sound simple, Collins makes the point that actually determining an organization’s hedgehog is an iterative process that times; on average, the companies in his research took four years to identify and focus their efforts and resources on these key drivers of success. However, if it can move an organization to greatness, it is worth the effort.

One of the things I like about this concept is that it is applicable to us as individuals as well as to organizations. Imagine the joy that would accompany spending your life on doing something that you were passionate about, something at which you were or could become the best in the world, and something that brought you ample economic rewards. How many of us can truly say we have all three of these variables fully met in our current work? How would life be different if we spent our time in the intersection of these three circles?

In a conversation recently, a friend of mine made the point that when an organization’s hedgehog and the hedgehogs of the organization’s members are the same, tremendous power, energy, creativity and ultimately success is unleashed. This statement points to the need for leaders to guide their organizations through the process of identifying the organizational hedgehog, and at the same time uncovering their own, and helping organizational members discover their hedgehogs. Ideally, those hedgehogs will be the same, or very similar. If there is not close alignment, particularly for key organizational members, one has to wonder whether that organization will ever truly be able to be excellent and whether its members will ever be happy and fulfilled working there.

How’s your organization’s hedgehog? Have you identified it? Do you know your passions, what you are the best in the world at, your economic drivers? Is your organization acting accordingly? How’s your personal hedgehog? Thinking deeply about these questions and taking action as appropriate can lead to organizational excellence and personal satisfaction.

Leadership in Excellent Organizations

Excellent organizations don’t just happen. A key aspect to their development is leadership, which is the topic for today’s blog.

Who is the best leader you have personally seen? I want you to get a mental picture of her or him. Think about how she or he acted, talked, thought. Do you have that picture in your mind? Okay; what are the characteristics that made him or her a great leader to you?

A recent article in HR World by John Hakala (http://www.hrworld.com/features/top-10-leadership-qualities-031908/) listed the top ten leadership qualities: vision, integrity, dedication, magnanimity, humility, openness, creativity, fairness, assertiveness, and a sense of humor. How does this list compare with the characteristics you identified for your ideal leader?

Someone once said that the best example of leadership is leadership by example. This brings an important aspect of leadership to mind: a great leader lives the espoused values of the organization he or she is trying to lead. Given that, the definition of a great leader is at least partially dependent on the organization being led. Exaggerating to make a point, the behaviors of an ideal gang leader is no doubt different than those of an ideal leader of a religious order. What both would have, I believe, is the embodiment and personification of the organization’s values and culture. They would lead by example because their most closely held and lived values and culture were perfectly aligned with the aspirations of the members of the organization they lead, or very nearly so.

Edgar Schein, one of the premier thought leaders about culture, made the point in his book Organizational Culture and Leadership that while leaders represent their organization’s culture, they also pay a major role in establishing the culture through their actions and how they interpret events. It is also their responsibility to redirect the organization if it drifts from the ideal:

But if cultures become dysfunctional, it is the unique function of leadership to perceive the functional and dysfunctional elements of the existing culture and to manage cultural evolution and change in such a way that the group can survive in a changing environment.

In fact Schein stated that one of the key differentiators between a manager and a leader is the issue of culture. Leaders help mold culture while managers or administrators operate within it.

Peter Vaill, in an article in Organizational Dynamics, cites three characteristics that all leaders of excellent organizations posses: they put in an extraordinary amount of time; they have very strong feelings about the organization’s purposes; and they focus on key issues and variables. It seems to me that these three variables transcend culture. I can’t imaging a great leader that didn’t spend an extraordinary amount of time thinking about and acting in behalf of the organization; that wasn’t passionate about why the organization exists and what it was trying to accomplish; finally, focusing on key issues and variables, rather than getting bogged down in the mundane or distracted by the extraneous. I agree with Vaill that these characteristics seem to be essential for an effective leader. They probably also transcend culture, although how the characteristics are actually manifest in behavior would undoubtedly differ.

One final thought on leadership. Leadership does not come only from the titular head of an organization. John Quincy Adams is quoted as having said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” You will notice this statement makes no reference to organizational status. My guess is as you think about the traits that make a great leader, you will find they are also (at least in large part) the same traits that make a great organizational member. All of us have the opportunity, and responsibility, to develop and use leadership characteristics in making our organizations excellent, no matter our title or formal role.

Fifteen Key Behaviors of Excellent Organizations

Today I would like to discuss the findings of research on high performing teams that I conducted with outstanding teams in India, France, and the United States. The purpose of my research was to distill the essence of high performing teams, irrespective of culture, and to see if there were characteristics or manifestations of that essence that were different in teams from the three countries. To hold as many variables the same as possible, I used three customer support teams from Mentor Graphics, each identified by executive management, their directors, and human resources as being excellent. I used open ended interviews with team members to collect the data and phenomenology as my method of analysis. In this blog entry, I will not discuss cultural differences, only the essence of high performing teams that my research uncovered.

Based on my research, I believe the essence of high performing teams can be described as: a passionate, deep abiding, interest in and concern for teammates, customers or end users of the team’s output, key constituencies external to the team, and the work or output of the team.

So what does this really mean? I believe that high performing teams – and by extension excellent organizations – focus on four things: the quality and quantity of their work/output – why they exist organizationally; the success and professional development of organization members; the needs and expectations of their customers; and key constituencies and variables in the environment, external to the team itself. Each focus represents a value that outstanding organizations and teams hold most dear.

It is hard to see a value. One’s values can be inferred by the behaviors that are displayed as well as by what is said. Accordingly, the four areas of focus were actually inferred by behaviors that were evident in each of the teams. As noted below, for each focus, there were consistent, identifiable behaviors displayed by the team. These fifteen behaviors are what organizational leaders should both be looking for and trying to foster. It is through discussing the importance of the four foci and implementing and reinforcing these key behaviors that an organization builds and reinforces a culture of high performance.

Use these fifteen behaviors to measure how your organization is doing. Does your organization display these key behaviors associated with excellence? Are there areas missing? If all the elements are present, is there room for improvement? I believe an audit based on these fifteen behaviors will help establish the degree of excellence an organization has attained and where there is room for growth.

Fundamental Foci and Associated Behaviors
Found in High Performing Teams

Focus: Concern for Teammates

Associated Behaviors:
~ Using recruiting and hiring techniques to maintain values and culture
~ Using techniques to resolve conflicts that preserve the sense of team and personal integrity
~ Saying and doing things that show concern for fellow team members while building and supporting them
~ Having formal and informal team building activities

Focus: Concern for Customers

Associated Behaviors:
~ Actively seeking to identify customer needs
~ Concern for how customers respond to service/product
~ Ongoing processes to establish two way communication with customers

Focus: Awareness of External Constituencies

Associated Behaviors:
~ Scanning the environment for threats and opportunities
~ Seeking expert assistance to resolve problems when the skills of the team were insufficient
~ Using techniques to maintain the boundary between the team and the external environment
~ Developing synergistic relationships with other internal teams to increase value to the company and to customers

Focus: Concern for the Output of the Team

Associated Behaviors:
~ Focusing on and concern for the productivity of the team and the quality of its work
~ Engaging in ongoing development and learning (individual and team) so both depth and breadth of skills are enhanced
~ Displaying flexibility and adaptability in meeting challenges that face the team
~ Management that establishes clear roles and goals, supports the team in achieving its goals, and focuses on building the team and its members

Process Control and Improvement

Last week I wrote about sustainability from the perspective of organizational members and leadership. In response to my blog, a friend and former manager, Tom Floodeen, wrote, “Another aspect that needs to be considered is the stability of the processes the organization follows. If the processes are correct, stable and sustainable, the people can change but the end result stays the same. It also allows new people that join the organization and come up to speed faster, if the processes are well defined and documented. I agree you have to groom your replacement, but if your replacement changes everything, or if my success was solely based on my abilities, sustainability is at risk.”

This is a great point and a good lead into the topic I want to write about today: process and systems theory. I’ll actually approach them in reverse order.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy and others developed systems theory from the study of living organisms. Systems theory has not been applied to a wide range of topics, including organizational theory. This theory includes the idea that there were two kinds of systems, open and closed. An open system interacts with its environment, is affected by it, and also affects it. Closed systems exist with no external feedback loop. There are few if any completely closed systems; even systems typically given as examples of closed systems (a watch for example) require some external input to sustain them. I won’t discuss the concept here more fully.

I, and most systems thinkers, envision organizations as open systems. As such, they have the characteristics of an open system: 1) elements of the system interact with each other in such a way they can only be fully understood within the context of that interaction; 2) understanding the parts in isolation is not sufficient to understanding the whole; 3) parts of the system are more than a fraction of the overall system – they have an existence on their own; 4) to fully understand the system it has to be examined from an external or meta perspective; 5) it must change input resources into output products or services; and, it posses structure and processes.

My experience with and research about high performing organizations indicate a couple of characteristics apropos this discussion. First, high performing organizations have, as one of their primary foci, an emphasis on productivity. Concern and effort is shown to ensure that the organization operates effectively. As Tom implies in his comment, that includes a focus on processes to ensure they are “correct, stable, and sustainable.” I would modify Tom’s list to note that processes need to produce results that meet or exceed customer/client requirements. I believe Tom would include that in “correct”, but it is an important enough point that I wanted to highlight it.

Today, in order to ensure their processes meet the customers or end users needs, and they are stable and sustainable, many companies are implementing some form of process control. Six-sigma, lean manufacturing or production, TQM [total quality management], SPC [statistical process control] and Kaizen all have at their heart an effort to create and maintain processes that meet the criteria that Tom identified. These process control methods are all valuable because they help organizations systematically examine their processes and identify where there are opportunities for improving, quality, speed, or cost savings. I believe these process control activities can be effective, particularly in manufacturing settings. Their use can become more problematic in services based organizations but here too, if care is taken, I have seen successful application of principles of process control.

There is another characteristic of high performing teams that seems, at least on the surface, to be in conflict with the goal of creating of stable processes. My research shows that high performing organizations have an outstanding awareness of both external conditions and constituencies, and internal capabilities. To maintain that awareness, they continually scan the environment for threats and opportunities, and scan internally for strengths and weaknesses. Based on those scans, excellent organizations make changes, including changes to processes. Some managers believe that once best practices are determined and processes implemented they should not be changed. However, I believe that in excellent organizations processes are subject to continual change and improvement.

Earlier I mentioned Kaizen, which is a Japanese word applied to a method of process control and improvement. However, the word itself has a broader meaning, continuous improvement with the implication that the direction of improvement is towards perfection (See Kaizen: The Key to Japan's Competitive Success, by Masaaki Imai). Although, as applied in the workplace, it uses many of the typical tools of process control such as statistical analysis and the scientific method, its foundational meaning offers a broader meaning of striving for perfection in all aspects of life. I believe that Kaizen offers the opportunity to engage people in a more thoughtful, organic, and holistic manner. This characteristic makes Kaizen an appropriate approach for a broader range of organizational types, including human services, and for all levels of the organization.

Sustainable Excellence

There is a lot of discussion these days about sustainability. Usually when sustainability is invoked, the subject is environmental sustainability. Not without cause, there is a great deal of discussion about and effort expended towards trying to make organizations and our society environmentally sustainable.

Not too many years ago, environmental sustainability was not an issue on most people’s minds. Then, if someone spoke of organizational sustainability, they were more likely thinking in terms of the financial audit assumption of "going concern": an organization’s ability to survive as an ongoing entity; that it will be able to enjoy its assets and meets its obligations. This view is also too narrow, although it begins to get at the issue, at least as expressed in the organizations financial statements.

Without diminishing the importance of either of those meanings, today I would like to focus on a different aspect of sustainability, that of the organization itself.

What I am thinking about is an organization’s ability to sustain itself through its people. Jim Collins spoke to this point in his book Good to Great. He noted that a characteristic of great organizations is the ability to sustain themselves, and outstanding levels of performance, beyond the tenure of a given leader or even leadership team. I am concerned that too few organizations pursue this aspect of sustainability thoughtfully and purposefully.

Again drawing on Collins’ metaphor in Good to Great, if an organization has achieved excellence, it is safe to assume they have the right people in the right seats, at least for the most part. That is a great and notable accomplishment but insufficient. That coveted state can be changed in an instant through illness, accident, retirement, or a key person leaving to join another organization. In order to sustain greatness I believe two things have to happen. First, the culture of excellence has to be so ingrained, so fully and organically absorbed that it is not dependent on the efforts of any one person or few people to sustain it. Excellence has to have become embedded in the organizational DNA. Second, there needs to be a well thought out plan of succession and building of redundant skills, knowledge, and aptitude. I believe focusing on the second characteristic can help an organization develop the first.

The first step in this process is to identify potential successors for key organizational members. I have charged organizational leaders with identifying two or three possible successors to their role. This can be threatening, if sufficient trust has not been established. Some people may feel that asking them to identify possible successors is akin to asking a condemned man to dig his own grave. On the contrary, I believe it is an important aspect to leadership. Leaders train and nourish future leaders. How can you do that effectively if you have not identified who those future leaders are? One caveat: although I think it is important to identify possible successors, I would not tell a person he or she was next in line for a given position unless such a change was imminent. There are too many possible ways that knowledge could lead to problems.

Once the possible successors are identified for each key position, it is important that a well thought out development plan be implemented. Although, as stated above, I would not tell any of the individuals that they have been identified as the successor for a given person, I would tell them that they are viewed as particularly important current and future leaders for the organization. As such, the organization is going to specifically invest in their development.

Now comes the fun part: creating and implementing development programs for those identified. This is more art than science but the range of possible actions could include things as: formal training and/or education, special assignments, participation in select committees or task forces, mentoring, coaching, even lateral assignments to build professional breadth. The best action or set of actions will be different in each case. The goal of the plan will be to develop/ensure the values, skills, knowledge, traits the individual will need to successfully assume the target position.

It is possible that certain individuals will be identified as successors for more than one position. In that situation, careful discussions can ensure that there are not too many development resources applied to any one person or that gaps in experience are left because both parties thought the other was covering that area. Likewise in a large enough organization, cohorts of people who all need exposure to the same concepts or training in the same area could be formed to undergo the experience together. This has the added benefit of building vertical relationship networks that can pay untold and unexpected dividends to the organization over time.

In contrast to what I am proposing, spending time and money on developing people for a future eventuality that may never arise may seem foolish to some. There are those who have adopted a similar just-in-time attitude towards the people in the organization that they have for spare parts: don’t pay to keep them on hand, we’ll buy it when we need it. In this model, it is believed that little time or effort should be spent on developing people. Individuals should be brought in to do a specific job. If they do that well, fine - they should stay in that role until the organization either doesn’t need them anymore or until they are needed more in another role. In either case, promotion or discharge should be based on inherent goodness of fit with the job. Organizational resources should not be spent on development. If a person’s skills become outdated or no longer fit the needs of the organization, they should be discharged and a new person with the right set of skills should be brought in.

This type of transactional relationship between an organization and its members is the antithesis of organizational excellence. There may be short term gains, even flashes of brilliance that brings temporary success but sustaining excellence on the long term is not possible through that approach.

When we think of sustainability, let’s think of our organization, its culture and people, as well as the environment and profitability.

The Power of Trust

Today I want to write about a social lubricant that makes all aspects of creating a high performing organization easier – trust.

It seems as if we live at a time or at least in a society in which trust has broken down to a great degree. In what or in whom do you place your trust? Opinion polls indicate that we have little trust in government; nor do we place much trust in traditional pillars of our society such as doctors, bankers, attorneys, business leaders, or even in the clergy. With half of all marriages ending in divorce, can we even say that as a society we have trust in our personal relationships?

What is the cost of this lack of trust? Stephen M.R. Covey in his book The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything, wrote about the importance of trust and the cost when it is lacking. He makes the point that trust is more than a “nice to have social virtue, a so-called hygiene factor.” He presents a formula for trust: as trust increases, speed of transactions also increase and costs go down; likewise, as trust decreases, the speed of transactions decrease and costs go up. He says the lack of trust creates an unseen tax on organizations; it increases an organizations cost without any increase in productivity.

This is a good metaphor for the unseen cost of a lack of trust. I also like to use the example of an engine; this is an idea most of us can easily visualize. The engine in our car runs smoothly and efficiently, in no small part due to the oil that circulates through the engine lubricating key parts, reducing friction and thus reducing heat. If we don’t care for the oil properly: we let it run low or we fail to change it as directed, the effectiveness of the oil begins to diminish. As that happens, the benefits provided by the oil are also diminished. Friction increases, the engine begins to run inefficiently, wear and tear on parts increase, and ultimately, if the situation is not corrected, the engine will stop altogether.

Ideally in an organization, things would begin with trust levels high and clean. Honest, open discussion and actions would maintain the state and the engine of the organization would run smoothly and efficiently. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world and there are no ideal organizations. People may come into an organization with mistrust towards others or those who have, or are perceived to have, authority. The trust level of the organization may already be compromised from the beginning. On the other hand, the trust level may have started out high or at least adequate but over time, actions and decisions taken by members of the organization have tainted or reduced the level of trust. The organizational engine begins to run a little rough. Perhaps it keeps running but not efficiently. Perhaps it gets rougher and rougher, begins to knock, and finally seizes up and stops.

What can be done to either clean and restore the level of trust or increase it, if it was not sufficient to begin with? Are we doomed to suffer from a lack of trust on an individual or an organizational basis?

It is possible that the lack of trust is so severe that major personnel changes are required. These are situations in which the level of trust is so low that a transfusion of trust is needed through changing organizational members. This is a relatively quick fix and it may solve the problem. However, unless underlying issues that caused the loss of trust are corrected, it is more likely that the organization will continue to, at a minimum pay, the “low trust tax”.

Often an effective “filter” can restore and maintain at least an operational level of trust. Carrying forward the engine metaphor, as the oil pumps through the engine, in addition to reducing friction and heat, it also carries away bits of debris, dirt, and contaminants. These get cleaned from the oil as it rushes through the filter. Likewise in organizations, bits of doubt, misunderstanding, anger and frustration are bound to arise. If a sufficient level of trust exists, these concerns are usually easily dealt with. However, even in excellent organizations, these bits of interactional debris can build up. The filter that can remove these potential toxins is open honest communication, which has the same effect in relationships and organizations (which can be seen as an extended matrix of relationships) as an oil filter has in an engine.

Honest, open communication through and between all levels of the organization will keep the oil of trust clear and running freely throughout the organization. As the oil filter restores the oil’s capacity to do its job, effective communication can restore trust and enable the organization to run more effectively.

As I said in a previous post, organizational culture develops naturally, even organically, from the actions and decisions of organizational members, especially those perceived as leaders. Trust is an important element of organizational culture and it develops in just the same way. If organizational leaders and members act with integrity, honesty, and openness with each other, with customers and vendors, and with the general public, trust will be high. People in and outside the organization can have confidence in the intent as well as actions of organizational members. However, especially given the low level of trust that exists in our society today, it is easy for an organization to lose the culture of trust. Once lost, repairing the loss will be harder than maintaining it in the first place.

What is the state of trust in your organization? Are you paying a low trust tax? If so, how much is the lack of trust costing in terms of extra staff, cumbersome procedures, missed work, lost opportunities, poor morale, and lack of motivation?

Creating A Culture of Excellence

Developing an excellent organization is essentially a task of growing an excellent culture.

Much has been written about culture within organizations, with some theorists doubting that such a thing even exists. Most people who have worked for more than one organization agree that something exists about an organization that is more than the sum of its assets or even its people.

Barnouw (1963) stated that culture is the way of life of a group of people; others have said that culture is just “how we do things around here.” I believe an organization’s culture covers a wide range of things that you see (what are buildings and furnishings like? How often do people meet? Are dress and/or language formal or informal? Are there separate executive facilities such as parking or dining or are such things more egalitarian?); as well as things you don’t see (values, attitudes, norms of behavior, and adopted roles). In fact I believe it is true that the most powerful aspects of culture are those underlying mental models and values, which are not seen but which shape what people think, say, and do.

Another important aspect of culture is it is something that older members (in terms of seniority and power) try to instill in new members. This self perpetuation is great if a healthy, even excellent culture has already been developed. On the other hand, if a toxic, non-productive or even destructive culture has developed, changing that will be made more difficult because of the inertia created by the existing, dominant culture.

Understanding how cultures develop helps us know what steps need to be taken early in an organization’s existence to ensure a culture of excellence. Likewise, that same understanding gives us clues about how to change a culture that is less than desired. Schein (1992) states that culture arises over time out of common experiences and shared meaning that is extracted from those experiences. As those shared experiences occur, the meaning of those experiences will emerge within the group and some form of organizational culture will develop. Additional experiences over a longer time will strengthen assumptions and reinforce values so that the organizational culture will become both more defined and differentiated from the larger cultural milieu and also more deeply embedded.

There are three important components an organization can use to develop a culture of excellence: recruiting, socialization, and developing congruency with and commitment to the organization on the part of the employees. In Jim Collins’ outstanding book, Good to Great, he makes the point that getting “the right people on the bus” is the first step towards excellence.

I believe that starts with organizational leadership. To create an excellent organization, the leaders must be excellent themselves: They must not only believe in but manifest in their actions a passion for the organization’s mission and its vision and values (see previous post on these topics). Assuming a deep commitment to the organization’s mission and alignment with the desired values exists in leadership, the next step is to hire and promote, in large part, based on those same characteristics. Sure function, technical, and professional skills are important, but excellence depends on deep alignment around the intangibles. Who is brought into an organization, over time, determines to a great extent what the organization will become

The next important component for developing a culture of excellence is socialization. Socialization occurs in families as children are born and raised; and it occurs in organizations as new members are inducted, mentored, fostered, oriented, and in all other ways formal and informal made part of the “team”. This is a very important step and more effort needs to be taken than having everyone go through a half-day orientation. If a culture of excellence is going to be developed, it is important to have someone who reflects the desired values mentor and guide the new member until he or she can function in the organization in a way that is culturally appropriate.

This brings us to the third component for developing a culture of excellence: developing congruency with and commitment to the organization on the part of the employees. For people already in the organization, open and honest discussions about organizational direction, and the values and assumptions being fostered, are very important. Such discussions will allow people to reflect on how those values, assumptions, and the behaviors that flow there from, fit with what they think, believe, and hold most dear. These types of discussions routinely occur during planning sessions, team meetings, and in individual formal and informal discussions. They also occur as organizational leaders explain events, or frame them, in such a way as to help create a common understanding and response. This creation of a common organizational understanding is a key aspect of leadership because it helps foster a shared meaning that organizational members will have to key events – building the common culture.

Ideally, these discussions will reveal there is a great deal of consistency between the values of the individual and the organization. Failing that, the individual, upon reflecting on the culture that is being developed in the organization, will see the advantages to it and strive to align with the culture. Other times, for a culture of excellence to develop, the person and the organization will have to part ways. Interestingly, how this is decided and done can be, and often is, an important, perhaps defining, “common experience” that will help create the organization’s culture.

Foundational Pillar for Organizational Excellence

One of the major reasons that organizations fail to achieve excellence, I believe is a lack of clarity about why they exist, what they are trying to do, and what they need to do to be successful.

Among the first things founders of an organization should do is clarify the mission, vision, and values for the organization. This is equally true for existing organizations when there is a change of leadership or a change in direction or focus. Too often, in a rush to get to the work of the organization, or to respond to the demands of business in the case of existing organizations, these critical, foundational elements are skipped or glossed over. I believe that clear mission, vision, and value statements should serve as the pillars upon which future planning, budgeting, and operations rest.

W. Clement Stone is quoted as saying, “When you discover your mission, you will feel its demand. It will fill you with enthusiasm and a burning desire to get to work on it.” Thus it is for organizations as well. A clear, compelling mission has the effect of generating enthusiasm and releasing the energy of organizational members. Whether it is a new or an existing organization, ensuring that the mission is clear, and that people understand it and support it, is critical. Having discussions about the mission with organization members will reveal if the mission is clear and if there is general agreement and support. If either is missing, these same discussions can help resolve the situation. Through active listening, underlying, and perhaps unspoken, concerns can be addressed and resolved. I have found that discussions about organizational mission can regenerate enthusiasm among its members about why the work of the organization is important and why they became part of the organization originally. The process of clarifying the mission allows people a chance to reconnect to the organization based on their own values and interests.

The next foundational piece that is required for excellent organizations is a common vision of what the organization is trying to become. Proverbs 29:18 states, “Where there is no vision, the people parish.” This may be an overstatement for organizations but vision statements are an important communication tool to ensure there is clarity and unity within an organization. This vision statement is typically broader than a mission statement; also it is meant only for those inside the organization as opposed to the mission statement which may be more generally distributed. A vision statement expresses in vivid language and detail, painting a word picture, what the organization is striving to become five, ten or even more years in the future. This word picture should describe what you are trying to build and can serve as inspiration for action. It also serves as a measure against which an organization can measure its performance.

Ideally, a vision statement will have a powerful, attention capturing first sentence that will reinforce the mission and can serve as a powerful motivating slogan. Microsoft’s, "A personal computer in every home running Microsoft software" is a good example of such a slogan. Such a statement, if done right, can serve as a mini-vision statement: one that can be memorized, remembered, and thus more easily impact organizational behavior.

The third pillar upon which organizational unity rests is the values statement. A values statement cites the values the organization holds most dear and reflects how the organization expects its members to treat each other, customers, suppliers, and often the greater society and environment. Developing a values statement is a critically important process. Perhaps even more than the mission or vision statement, the values statement will be the measure against which behavior will be measured. Care should be taken to ensure that values incorporated in the values statement are those most deeply held and that will drive organizational action. Adopting a values statement that sounds good but does not reflect reality can be dispiriting and cause more harm than good. However, well crafted, and truly believed values statements provide solid guidance about how decisions should be made and what actions taken.

Together mission, vision, and values statements can help an organization achieve unity of purpose, clarity of vision, and a clear basis for action. They are, I believe, foundational elements needed to create an excellent organization.

Motivated to succeed?

An essential element to achieving organizational excellence is the motivation of its members. Too often when we talk of motivation we speak about it as if it is something done to someone: “He isn’t performing up to expectations, I have to motivate him to try harder” or “She is a great leader. She can really motivate her employees.” Ultimately, a key step in achieving organizational excellence is when all, or at least a critical number, of its members are motivated to strive for common goals. How is that commonality of focus achieved?

Some try to achieve that aligned state by threats or fear. Some try pep talks and activities designed to drum up enthusiasm. Some try external rewards and incentives. There may be appropriate times to use each of these measures. Each may work for a period of time but none have a lasting effect. When the fear is removed, the pep talk forgotten, or the need that drives behavior towards earning the external reward is fulfilled or another bigger reward is offered for different behavior, the external motivation ceases to have power.

Long lasting motivation is internal and it is aligned with the values the individual holds most dear.

Perhaps the best known theory about motivation is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, a model of human motivation wherein people’s actions are believed to be prompted by progressive stages of needs. The base level of need is “physiological”: food, water, oxygen; those minimal things that are necessary to sustain life. The next higher order of needs under Maslow’s model is “safety”. In this level of need Maslow placed such things as physical and psychological security, safety, protection, and freedom from fear or anxiety. The third order of need is “love”. In this level of needs are the drives for acceptance, affiliation, love, and belonging. “Esteem” is the next higher order of need in Maslow’s model. The need for esteem includes recognition of intelligence, strength, or other prowess, prestige and status. The highest of Maslow’s levels of need is “self actualization”. In this level, a person is concerned about personal growth and fulfillment, peak performance, or reaching their highest personal potential. Maslow stated that until a lower level need is substantially met, an individual could not move on to fulfillment of a higher level need, but once, and as long as, those lower level needs were met sufficiently, they ceased to provide a motivating force for that individual.

Expectancy theory of motivation holds that individuals are motivated to attempt any given action based on their belief that they can successfully accomplish the action and that successful completion of the action will bring the results they desire. Of course this presupposes that the foreseen outcome of the action is something they support or wish to happen. If the anticipated outcome is contrary to their most closely held beliefs or values, they will resist accomplishing that goal, irrespective of reward. In general, a formula for expectancy theory would be: Motivation = Expectancy of outcome x attractiveness of outcome. Motivation to act, then, depends on people believing they have sufficient control to positively impact outcomes and that the anticipated rewards are worth the effort.

In this last sentence is the key for leaders and managers of organizations that are trying to create an environment where members are motivated towards a common goal. First, organizational and individual goals need to be expressed and understood in a way that resonates with the values of the individuals involved. Organizational members need to understand how the overall organizational goals align with and support their individual values and goals. Second, leadership needs to ensure that goals are perceived to be obtainable, even if not easily achieved. Goals that require extraordinary effort are fine, if they are perceived as possible. However, if the goals are seen as being impossible, even with maximum effort, lack of motivation at best and de-motivation at worst are probable. Even if the goal is viewed as desirable, and the promised rewards exciting, if there is no belief that the goals are obtainable, there will be little intrinsic motivation to act. Finally, rewards must be tied to goal achievement, aligned with the individuals’ values, and perceived as being worth the effort required. It is important to note these rewards need not be monetary. They include the psychic rewards of community, membership, involvement, intellectual stimulation, feelings of accomplishment, and recognition, among other things.

Test expectancy theory against your own experience. I believe it will explain why you, and others in the organizations of which you are a part, sometimes are motivated and sometimes are not motivated to act. Does the goal align with our values and beliefs? Do we think the goal is achievable? Finally is the reward greater than the perceived cost of the effort? If the answer to all three is yes, internal motivation should be released. If the answer to any of the questions is no, that is where management attention is most urgently needed.

What is organizational excellence?

I suppose one of the foundational elements I need to establish for this blog is what I mean by organizational excellence. Often in our society organizational excellence is measured primarily, if not solely, by the bottom line. Quite often, at least for publicly traded companies, this myopic definition is shorted in time to a quarter’s performance at worst or a fiscal year at best.

There is no doubt, at least for organizations that are businesses, that profitability is one key measure of excellence. In my mind, however focusing only on that is insufficient. Is profitability being gained today at the expense of future performance? Is profitability gained through unethical treatment of employees, the greater community, the environment? The interaction of an organization with all of its stakeholders, not just shareholders, certainly needs to be considered in defining organizational excellence. Further, for many organizations, profit is not an objective, so using that as a measure of excellence is failed from the beginning. A broader meaning for the term is required.

One of my favorite theorists on the topic of organizational excellence and leadership is P.B. Vaill. If you are not familiar with his work, I would strongly recommend sampling some of his writing. In a journal article written on the broader topic of high performing systems (excellent organizations fitting in as a subset of that broader group), Vaill stated that a high performance system must meet one or more of the following criteria:
· They are performing excellently against a known external standard;
· They are performing excellently against what is assumed to be their potential level of performance;
· They are performing excellently in relationship to where they were at some earlier point in time;
· They are judged by informed observers to be doing substantially better qualitatively than other comparable systems;
· They are doing whatever they do with significantly less resources than is assumed are needed to do what they do;
· They are perceived as exemplars of the way to do whatever they do, and thus they become a source of ideals for the culture within which they exist; or
· They are the only organizations that have been able to do what they do at all.

(Vaill, P. B. (1982). The purposing of high performance systems. Organizational Dynamics. Autumn, 23 – 39.)

Two more of my favorite authors on this topic are J.R. Katzenbach and D. K. Smith. In their seminal work on high performing teams in excellent organizations (The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization), they identified six characteristics of excellent organizations:
· They have balanced performance results that benefit all of the primary constituencies of the team: customers, employees, and shareholders/owners;
· They maintain clear, challenging aspirations;
· They enjoy committed and focused leadership;
· They have a dedicated work force dedicated to productivity and learning;
· Skill-based performance is a source of competitive advantage; and
· Within the organization, open communication and knowledge management exist.

(Katzenbach, J.R., Smith, D.K. (1994). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. New York: HarperCollins.)

While it is possible to debate the definition of excellent organization and cite various authors to support different perspectives, in this blog when I use this term or refer to organizational excellence, the characteristics espoused by Vaill and Katzenbach and Smith are the foundation upon which I will be building.

What do you think? What makes an organization excellent in your opinion?

This is the first post of my new blog, Organizational Excellence.

I have enjoyed a varied and interesting professional career. I have been part of some excellent teams and organizations and some that may have had some limitations. I have been fortunate enough to receive a good education in management, organizational development, and organizational systems. All of these experiences have left me with some closely held opinions about what constitutes an excellent organization and what it takes to develop one.

I get a lot of joy from discussing the art of leadership and management and enjoy hearing the opinions and experiences of others. My hope is this blog can be a vessel for both. I will certainly express my thoughts and opinions. Ideally I will hear from others as well and we can engage in a dialog that improves all who participate and the organizations in which we work.

A few words about me. I see myself as an innovative, results oriented leader/manager with expertise in organization and business development. I started my career in health care (managing hospitals), and have moved on to learning, training, and development. I have successfully grown businesses internationally and in the United States, in such diverse industries as high tech, education, and health care. I have lived in the United States and Japan but have travelled and worked much more broadly: Mexico, Costa Rica, Canada, Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Germany, France, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Issues of culture, motivation, and leadership interest me. I am particularly fascinated by the challenges of trying to create high performing teams and organizations across multiple cultures.