Novus Leadership Institute

Helping you succeed despite relentless change

Uncategorized

The false dichotomy between “fail fast” and “failure is not an option”

by Leave a Comment

Accountability for failure is a key leadership hallmark … and sadly missing all too often. Greg Larkin noted some recent gaps in a LinkedIn post about how “failing fast” created … failure (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-screwed-up-its-my-fault-greg-larkin/). We have also seen many examples of “celebrity” executives that preside over the sinking of the company ship then go right to another key role.

The danger is usually in the extremes … “fail fast” including failing in the mission/ultimate goal, and “failure is not an option” including any “failure” along the way (e.g., https://mwa.oau.temporary.site/website_04d3f8be/2017/06/10/failure-not-option-produces-failure/).

Thinking those are the two options creates a false dichotomy.

“Fail fast” can work and be valuable when it’s learning for course correction along the way to the end goal, or to decide that the end goal is unrealistic and take another path. It won’t work amid either a risk averse culture or a mindset of infallibility and irresponsibility in final outcomes.

Creating an understanding of what “fail fast” should look like and balancing accountability with different levels/types of “failure” is hard leadership work. And it is continuing work, not just a “one speech and done.”

  • It starts with defining “failure” … what does it really mean in your business?
  • What are the implications of “failure”?
  • Have you unintentionally created a culture of either failure without accountability OR where no failure is tolerated?

What people do you need to scale?

by Leave a Comment

If you are trying to scale a business, especially a startup or small business, what type of person do you need?

Some general observations from seeing scaling struggles:

How about entrepreneurs?

That might seem the most obvious target. Easier for founders to hire since hiring people like the founders. And it is a startup or growing small business, right? The right environment for more entrepreneurs?

Actually no. True entrepreneurs ultimately want to run their own business. Will constantly think about and promote ideas for new business lines (or even businesses) before main business gets solid. May not stay in lane enough to get progress. Can dilute focus of other team members. Not usually natural collaborators. Attracted to risk.

How about employees?

Aren’t we hiring more “employees”? Yes and no. Yes from a classification perspective and lots available. No from a mentality perspective. Ultimately want to mind their own business. Be told what to do and when … stay in their lanes. Think about life other than the business. Interested in stability and low/no risk environment.

Those may be a bit stark and there are exceptions, but hiring has to deal with reality.

The alternative?

What you often need are intrapreneurs. Natural collaborators. Proactive change agents, especially in improving their own work. Interesting in seeing the business succeed as a win-win. Know lanes but willing to get out to help when/where needed.

Most people are not intrapreneurs. It’s not really taught in schools or degree programs. People who have “corporate” experience usually have the employee mindset.

What to do –

You can grow your own intrapreneurs … it takes some initial investment but there will be real ROI that can pay for that investment and then some (I can show you how).

In the meantime:

  • Look at your hiring ads and job descriptions. Do they attract entrepreneurs? Employees? Intrapreneurs?
  • Look at your existing team. Do they have the mindset you need to scale?
  • Look at your vision for scaling. What do you really need people to do to make the business succeed and scale?
  • Look at your culture. What is it telling people in the business about how to think and behave?
  • Look at your leadership. What mindset are you encouraging?

Training as a revenue item

by Leave a Comment

Do you think of training as expense or revenue?

What would it be like if the CFO asked if more training could be done if funds were provided … rather than constantly challenging if training is “necessary”?

How would that feel?

Training as a revenue item is radical and quite unusual …

In most organizations, training is treated as an expense. And a low-priority one at that, often first to be cut from budgets.

A key reason is that there are no real measures of training impact … no way to make good business decisions based on ROI since there is no apparent ROI, or at least that can be measured.

There is a better way! Training can be structured to focus on both sustainable change and ROI. Some of the benefits:

  • Training can pay for itself via ROI.
  • Training can pay continuing dividends after the training, compounding ROI.
  • Hollow (and disregarded) phrases like “we invest in our people” or “people are our primary assets” become real. Investing in people via training can actually be treated as an investment.
  • Training participants are more motivated to learn as they can clearly see how their learning connects to improved performance and ROI.
  • Development plans become meaningful and implemented like any other plans.

If you’ve done this – great!

If you want to find out how to transform your training into a revenue item and engine of change, contact me …

Training – a “trust me” card

by Leave a Comment

Why is typical class-type training a “trust me” card?

Because you do the training and then trust change on the job – behavior and results of the trainee – will happen afterward.

Organizations don’t provide training just to have training. Training is really a desire for something different to happen after the training. Some type of change. Training is just a mechanism to help achieve the change.

However, just being in the class doesn’t make change happen. Behavior, especially, takes time to change into competent habit. Even the best constructed training doesn’t result in lasting change.

“But we’ve always done it this way … we wouldn’t be doing it if it didn’t work.”

Actually, no and no.

We haven’t always done it this way.

“Training” over the centuries used to be mostly learning on the job, doing the job. Apprentices. Or working in the family business. Even universities largely started as discussion and research, not lectures and packaged “broadcasts.” Training Within Industry famously solved a labor shortage in the U.S. during WWII with training on the job.

Directionally, education changed – mostly in the 20th century in the U.S. – to deliver in a classroom setting more like an assembly line, with exercises done in class or as “homework” disconnected from real application. Organizational training followed the same path, especially in the latter part of the 20th century through today, as the training and development industry boomed to over $80 billion a year in the U.S. alone.

Typical training also doesn’t work … but no one can tell outside intuition. Training is usually evaluated with vanity metrics … how many people attended, “smile sheets” passed around at the end, etc. There is very little evaluation of what change, if any, happened in the workplace outside the training.

Training appears to be cheaper and faster done the typical way, but that’s a false economy if no real or lasting change occurs.

A better way is to combine “just enough” information with application in the workplace. Even better is to do parallel projects that achieve ROI … and more than pay for the training.

This also works especially well for leadership development.

Done well, people become natural change agents and collaborators for continuing change past the training. This compounds the ROI … and why it’s the Compounded Performance Projects Method.

?  Want real change that leads to better performance and real ROI? Contact us to discuss how the Method can work in your organization.

Mission, values, and vision vs. employee engagement

by Leave a Comment

Does your company’s mission, values, and vision contribute to or solve the “Great Resignation,” “Quiet Quitting,” and the like?

Some questions for you to start checking:

❓ Can your employees link company mission and values to their work lives in practical ways and daily?

❓Are company mission and values evident in decision-making, communications, allocating resources and initiatives, and solving task and people problems?

❓At all levels?

❓Can your employees see that working toward company goals is in their best interest?

❓Can people find success and satisfaction in their work?

❓Does the company make that easy or hard?

How did you do with the questions?

If employees can’t find some fulfillment in the work alone, they’ll look for it elsewhere either through disengagement or outright quitting.

If they can find fulfillment in the work alone, but aren’t aligned with the mission, values, and vision, they won’t help achieving or have some ownership in company goals … and may even detract from goals.

One is an issue for the employee.

Both are issues for the company.

The solution starts with:

  • Organizationally: clear mission, values, and vision that addresses all key C.E.O.S. stakeholders – Customers, Employees, Owners/shareholders, and Significant other stakeholders … and that all can readily align with.
  • Individually: how well the employee fits the role/work direction and how that relates to their quality of life, and both in line with the organizational mission, values, and vision.

There may be more that needs to be done, but those are the foundations.

Company “engagement” surveys can also help with answers and can get information people may not be comfortable sharing with you.

Better yet are assessments that cover engagement *and* mission, values, vision, and policies/processes effectiveness.

?  Interested in seeing what a more complete assessment looks like? Contact us to discuss how to get more complete information for your organization.