Insights

If you own or run a business and want it to get bigger, you might think a lot about money coming in and money going out. But there’s this big word, “organizational development,” that might sound like it’s only for MBAs, not for your business plans.

Imagine how a snake grows: when it gets too big for its skin, it sheds it all at once and gets a new one. People grow differently; our skin stretches and changes slowly over time.

Your business might be more like the snake right now. You’re busy selling things and making them, and you might not think about teaching your team or making new rules until “later.”

But what if you suddenly hit a wall? You can’t grow your business anymore because of internal problems like:

❌ The people who help run your business can’t handle more work

❌ There’s no one ready to take over if leaders leave

❌ Your business set-up can’t handle more work or is making things harder

❌ The policies you had when your business was small might cause problems now that you have more people and more “business”

When you hit these problems, it’s like you’re the snake that needs new skin. You’ll have to work a huge amount on your business, like building your team and making new ways of working, so you get past the roadblock.

Fixing these things usually takes much longer than you’d like … especially training new leaders or finding people from outside to help.

Also, trying to correct everything fast and at once usually breaks even more things. Do it the easier way, along the way.

Therefore, if your business is growing fast or you want it to grow fast, you should start thinking about these things NOW. You want your business to grow easily, without big crises.

Make plans to help your team get better and for operations changes that promote growth. If you think your leaders might struggle, help them get ready and think about who could take over in the future as people move up … even for your role.

You might need to ask for outside help to figure out what your business needs and how to make it better … or even for perspective.

Remember, working on these things will take time from you and others in your business. Make sure you plan for that when you’re making growth plans.

Revisiting the “seven social sins”:

❌ Wealth without work.
❌ Pleasure without conscience.
❌ Knowledge without character.
❌ Commerce without morality.
❌ Science without humanity.
❌ Religion without sacrifice.
❌ Politics without principle.

If we change “religion” to “values,” then this could also be a “seven organizational sins” list.

What do you think?

Are organizations sufficiently “social” that these apply?

What changes, if any, would you make to fit today’s organizations?

 

Origin: the list became widely known after being published by Gandhi in his newspaper in October 1925. The list had been sent to him (with “worship” instead of “religion”) after a sermon by Frederick Lewis Donaldson at Westminster Abbey in London earlier that year.

? Break the Planning Mediocrity Cycle

Ever feel like you are underachieving even with all your planning?

We often fall into the trap of underestimating, especially in the professional world.

A popular concept suggests we tend to:
↗ Overestimate what we can achieve in a year.
↘ Underestimate what we can do – our potential – in 5 years.

While this might be true for solo ventures, it becomes a challenge in larger organizations.

Think about how you plan for the year, set budgets, or handle performance evaluations. These questions are often lurking:

❓ How open should I be about my (or our) goals?

❓ Should I/we play it safe?

❓ What if things change and I/we can’t hit our targets?

These questions usually make us play it too safe. “Stretch goals” even end up too low. We end up doing less than we could.

The ripple effect? Over years, this means we achieve far less than we could.

Instead of planning for excellence, we’re inadvertently paving the path for mediocrity. It’s a vicious cycle, and the only way out is to rethink our planning, processes, and company culture.

Let’s elevate your game. Contact us to book a complimentary, confidential session and rise above the mediocrity mindset.

LinkedIn just laid off employees for the second time this year (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/16/microsoft-owned-linkedin-lays-off-nearly-700-read-the-memo-here.html)

When I see news like this, here are some questions that come to mind when not explained:

❓ If roles are no longer needed, were the people in those roles first offered options of working in other units? Or retraining for other work that is needed?

❓ If the people being laid off were judged lower or poor performers, why wasn’t that addressed by the performance management system instead of by a layoff?

❓ Why is adapting organizational structures often associated with layoffs rather than done as an ongoing process and viewed as a core organizational capability?

❓ This layoff includes a number of managers. Part of the memo cites “driving improved efficiency & transparency through reduced layering”. Did the managers know that they weren’t sufficiently transparent or their areas insufficiently efficient (cost or otherwise)? Were they given an opportunity to make improvements or suggestions (i.e., back to the performance management system question)? Options to do something else?

❓ Were roles incorrectly established or the wrong people hired … i.e., are there other causes for this situation outside the control of the people being laid off? Who was responsible for what was outside the control of the people being laid off? For instance, who set up the layering in the first place that led to a need for reduced layers? Are they included in the layoff?

❓ If indeed “every affected individual has played a valuable role in the growth and success of Linkedin”, then did that value suddenly stop? Did value erode over time but was not addressed? Or was it a leadership issue outside the people affected that caused the value reduction?

❓ Will senior leaders be rewarded in some way for the layoffs? Are any senior leaders included in the layoff, if the situation was at least in part caused by them? The article states LinkedIn has seen “year-over-year revenue growth slow for eight consecutive quarters” … this wasn’t an overnight issue.

❓ Why are some jobs being shifted to another country, presumably for “cost savings,” especially if valuable experience will be lost in the transition and causing at least short-term inefficiencies … the opposite of “efficiencies” sought via this action?

❓ One of the goals is to “improve agility.” What is meant by that? If there is a mostly top-down decision approach for “agility” in response to market changes and organizational needs, then agility will be significantly limited.

❓ Fundamentally, are people being treated with respect or as widgets?

How does your company deal with needed changes?

In occasional spasms, often including layoffs? Or something that is continually addressed?

Are employees involved in helping make needed changes happen … change is done “with them”? Or is change done “to them”?

Leaders: how can you improve your change leadership? Increase organizational change capability?

Here’s a great – and free – learning method for anyone wanting to become a leader or to improve their leadership:

?? Watch leaders during crises.

• What they say, how they behave.
• The effects on their teams, organizations, stakeholders, constituencies.
• Government leaders, business leaders … any kind of leader and at all levels.

Anytime you see, read, or hear something that strikes you as either effective or not effective leadership, make a quick note. If on a computer or device, save the item and annotate it as needed.

Periodically review your notes and pick one (or a very few) top things to work on. Observe how you do and adjust as needed.

Your observations will also help you identify your perspectives on leadership. In time, the accumulated notes and annotations will build your own leadership book of how you think leadership should work (and not work!).

The act of formalizing observations by making notes will also make you a better observer, which in turn is an important aspect of leadership as well.

Crises present usually present more obvious learning examples … however, this approach can work anytime 🙂

 

P.S. Not convinced? Even children have used a process like this 🙂
The Blue’s Clues children’s TV show had a recurring theme, at least in early episodes, of Notice-Note-Noodle … children were encouraged to follow the host along in noticing clues, making notes about them, and then thinking (there was even a thinking chair in the show!) to figure out the clues.

Another international crisis … another opportunity for leaders to make a positive impact for their companies – part 2

In the last post, we discussed how leaders behave and communicate in a crisis will affect:

1. Current productivity/results
2. Future productivity/results via who “comes and goes”

People will make judgments about the company based on how leaders lead during the crisis. Part of that is attractiveness of the company as an employer:

• Current employees – should I stay?
• Prospective employees – should I join the company if there’s an opportunity?

A key issue is whether leaders trust employees to make decisions for themselves about well-being and employment. Withholding information creates a culture where the company effectively makes those decisions for employees.

Let’s dig a bit deeper into some general types of employee mindsets and how they might be affected by withholding information.

• “Employees”
• Intrapreneurs
• Entrepreneurs

??  Why did I put “employees” in quotes? Isn’t every “employee” an … well … employee? Yes, from a legal classification perspective. No, from a mentality perspective.

“Employees” ultimately want to

• mind their own business
• know or be told what to do and when
• stay in their assigned “lanes”
• have stability and a low/no risk environment, not growth and uncertainty that comes with it
• think about life outside the business.

?? Intrapreneurs are generally:

• proactive change agents with an inward focus (“intra”)
• want to improve their own work
• want to help the business succeed as a win-win
• know their roles but are willing to get out to help when/where needed
• a great source of growth insights
• neither repelled by risk nor seek company-wrecking risk.

?? Entrepreneurs ultimately want to:

• run their own business
• constantly think about and promote ideas for new business lines (or even businesses)
• discuss new ideas/ventures with other team members, diverting focus and productivity
• go their own way rather than collaborating
• go for bigger risks

The effects of withholding information will vary across the three groups.

Employees might be O.K. with knowing less as that can provide a façade or mirage of stability … more of the “head in the sand” approach.

Intrapreneurs likely won’t be O.K. and will be at risk of “quiet quitting” or outright quitting. Startups and any company looking to grow or innovate desperately need some intrapreneurs. Unfortunately, they will be the ones who will be turned off the most by poor communication.

Entrepreneurs are already “gone” mentally and will likely be gone physically. Sooner in the face of poor communication than otherwise. This isn’t as big an issue as with intrapreneurs, since entrepreneurs never were totally “with” the company anyway.

Future hiring will also be affected, making it harder to attract talented intrapreneurs.

How are you doing?