Performance Transformations

Wishing won't make it happen

wishing-well.jpg

Getting things done in organizations can be difficult. There seem to be a million reasons why people don't deliver. Among our favourites are the promises made during or after meetings like, "I'll get that done prior to our next meeting" or, "I'll get to that this week." And then the vow is quickly forgotten and not delivered. Sometimes the same vow is made over and over and continues to go unfulfilled!

Research lead by Peter Gollwitzer shows that vowing to do something is often useless. What works is making concrete and vivid plans that include answers to the following: "What is the problem you have to confront?" "When will you follow through on your plan?" "Where will you do it?" and "How will you do it?"

Further research conducted by Dr. Gail Matthews provides empirical evidence that writing goals down, making concrete action plans, and sharing them with others generates the highest levels of accomplishment.

Based on our own research, we would go even further to suggest that adding an specific, externally verifiable metric which accurately gauges success (or lack thereof) will also deliver higher levels of accomplishment, or at the very least drives learning.

Otherwise, you're more likely to fall into the human tendency to rationalize any outcome as more or less what you expected.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Roger that: Roger Martin on Management Systems

I'm looking forward to getting my hands on Roger Martin and A.G. Lafley's upcoming book Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works, which is due out later this month. But in the meantime I've been reading a couple of their teaser articles in HBR and Rotman Magazines. This passage caught my attention:

The last of the five essential questions is about management systems – the systems that build, support and measure a strategy. This last question is typically the most neglected, but is no less crucial to effective strategy than the others. Even if the other four questions are well answered, a strategy will fail if management systems that support the choices and capabilities are not established as well. Without supporting structures, systems, and measures, the strategy will simply be a "wish list" – a set of goals that may or may not ever amount to anything. To truly win, an organization needs systems in place to support and measure the strategy. It needs robust process for creating, reviewing, and communicating about strategy; it needs structures to support the core capabilities; and it needs specific measures to determine whether the strategy is working (or not).

The article this was excerpted from is called A Playbook for Strategy: The Five Essential Questions at the Heart of Any Winning Strategy, and was published in the Rotman Magazine Winter 2013. As always, Roger has produced some well considered and thought provoking work. You should give this article a read for a quick preview of the book's content.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

No Ambiguity with Ambiguity

We're big fans of Dan and Chip Heath's work. You'll see it referenced in our materials frequently as they undertake very solid research and present their findings in readable and interesting ways.

We were especially pleased when they highlighted one of the behaviours we have identified as organizational Noise which waste people's time, resources and potential:

Good leaders excel at converting something ambiguous into something behavioral. Take Terry Leahy, one of the leaders responsible for reversing the fortunes of Tesco, now the U.K.'s No. 1 grocer. One of Tesco's ambiguous goals was to do a better job "listening to customers." Leahy broke down that goal into a set of specific actions. For instance, cashiers were trained to call for help anytime more than one person was waiting in the checkout line. In addition, Tesco received 100,000 queries per week from customers. Leahy's team made sure that all Tesco managers had access to customer concerns. (If you want to listen to customers, you had better make sure your managers can hear what they're saying.) As a result, they learned counterintuitive lessons, such as that customers dislike stainless-steel refrigerators, which remind people of a hospital -- not an ideal association for a grocer.

Ambiguity simply isn't good for individuals, teams or entire enterprises. Read the full article at Fast Company here:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1676957/dan-and-chip-heath-say-nix-ambiguity-and-focus-lasting-change

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

"Killzone" Economics. Why You Should Care.

Decreasing interaction costs and sublinear enterprise productivity could create market volatility that can be your friend, or your enemy, when building and managing your enterprise. Are they your friends?

Let’s start with some definitions.

Killzone is a military term, or at the very least a gamer term (from Urban Dictionary):


“A military term describing an area of ground that is well defended, possibly including pre-sighted machine guns, mortars, artillery, as well as a variety of obstacles such as razor wire and tripflares. (Weapons will be pre-sighted to these obstacles, as approaching troops will get caught in them, making them ideal targets.) This creates a literal "killing zone," hence the name.”


Clearly from that definition, this is not somewhere you want to end up as a company. Your odds of surviving a trip to the Killzone are low.

To understand interaction costs, you need first to understand transaction costs. Transaction costs, which were the focus of Ronald Coase’s Nobel Prize winning work in the 1930’s, include the costs related to the formal exchange of goods and services between companies, or between companies and customers (ie. How much does it cost me as a company to sell you, the customer, my goods or services?).

These costs play a critical role in determining how large your firm can grow. Coase’s work included a linkage between transaction costs and the size of a firm. Simply put, Coase’s Nature of the Firm suggested that a firm will continue to grow to the point where an internal transaction can be outsourced more cheaply than if executed within a company. When a transaction can be accomplished more cheaply outside of the firm, there is no incentive to continue growing.

Interaction costs are now more widely used than transaction costs as they include transaction costs, but also add the costs of exchanging ideas and information. Thus they cover a more full picture of economic interactions between companies and their customers. Interaction costs are comprised of search, information, bargaining, decision, policing and enforcement costs. As more and more work is information related in our economy, interaction costs can be incredibly important to watch and manage.

Most importantly perhaps, interaction costs are exactly the kinds of costs that are rapidly decreasing due to the ubiquity of connected devices and the growing power of functionality facilitated by this connectivity.

Now for sublinear enterprise productivity. Wha? Yes, sublinear enterprise productivity. In short, this refers to some interesting work done by Geoffrey West and his collaborator Luis Bettencourt recently where they discovered when studying 23,000 publicly traded companies, that as the number of employees grows, the amount of profit per employee shrinks. Corporate productivity then, was shown to be entirely sublinear. This should not be taken as the last word on the topic, but they are interesting results. In particular their assertion that, “the bleak reality of corporate growth, in which efficiencies of scale are almost always outweighed by the burdens of bureaucracy.” Furthermore, they go on to state that, “the inevitable decline in profit per employee makes large companies increasingly vulnerable to market volatility.”

So what if your firm is experiencing both decreasing profit per employee from the growth dynamic described by West and Bettencourt, and is also seeing interaction costs drop as value chain activities migrate more to information-driven interactions so as to be more exposed to interaction cost decreases? Wouldn’t that lead to even more volatility? Wouldn’t that that promote unequal rates of change inside and outside of companies?

It’s a hypothesis at this point. And it’s probably not original. I’m inclined to invoke Bob Sutton’s law in this regard, “If you think you have a new idea, you are wrong. Somebody else probably already had it. This idea isn't original either; I stole it from someone else."



 

If there is any validity to the hypothesis, it might suggest there is a systemic way to identify which markets and companies are ripe for disruption. If interaction costs are dropping around you in your market, and your profit per employee is declining, perhaps it’s time to think about disrupting yourself before someone else does? At the very least, you’d better get a grip on your interaction costs so they are in line with the market.

If you’re an insurgent, this seems to be a particularly good time. Dropping external interaction costs and decreasing profit per employee might suggest a market which is stumbling into your Killzone.

 

[Author’s note: I am not an economist. The post above is based on a hypothesis only. The underlying science surrounding transaction and interaction costs and sublinear enterprise productivity are well-known and evidence-based to the best of my knowledge. However, my leap to a meaningful connection between the two is only hypothetical at this time. Contributions and refutations are welcomed. My goal is to explore some of the possible underlying reasons (outside of the current political and monetary policy upheaval, of course) for what I perceive to be the current economic conditions for enterprises: characterized by hypercompetitiveness and increasingly volatile markets.]

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Collaboration? Why?

It seems most technology intended for the enterprise is either being tagged with "social" or "collaboration" monikers these days. We understand the need to put new labels on things to grab attention, but both of these are being vastly overused and in many cases, misused.

Why does it matter? Because customers don't need to be confused by undifferentiated products. They've got enough on their plates. If the enterprise market is a $500B opportunity, then there is plenty to go around. The customer should be able to easily figure out how your product intends to create value for them, rather than being lumped into the highly undifferentiated "collaboration" market.

We're not keen on social, because organizations have always been "social" enterprises. People working together to accomplish something not possible as individuals, is the whole point behind creating an organization (you can get a richer description of our position here). This doesn't even account for the confusion caused by the adoption of "social" by enterprises that aim to provide a double, or triple, bottom-line.

And for collaboration? Why could we possibly have a problem with including collaboration in the description of a technology solution? For starters, collaboration in and of itself isn't the outcome people are looking for. Working together is a noble idea. But to make sense, collaboration must generate results. That is the outcome we're looking for.

(figure from IBM Global CEO Survey, 2012)

Dismantling silos and bringing people together are both great. And maybe that's all these "collaboration" systems do, so they may be aptly named. Let's put the focus on what we're going to deliver, rather than focus on how we're going to deliver it.

Secondly, collaboration isn't the best way to generate some results. There is good collaboration, and bad collaboration. If you want to read an excellent book on Collaboration, Morten Hansen has written the definitive book in our view.

"What is the difference between good and bad collaboration? The answer I provide is a set of principles I refer to as disciplined collaboration. It is an answer to a simple question that confronts us all, whether we are business executives, nonprofit leaders, government officials, politicians, mayors, doctors, lawyers, or church leaders: how do we cultivate collaboration in the right way so that we achieve the great things that are not possible when we are divided?"

Collaboration can be thrilling and powerful when it is disciplined and focused on creating the right results. Otherwise, collaboration might just be a path to increased cost and frustration.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner