Staying on Top of the Business

In past publications I have written about the differences between leadership and management. Leadership's focus is organizational change, and management is the underpinning on which leadership stands. Management is dedicated to establishing the effectiveness and efficiencies of the business. It is very difficult, and some would say impossible, to drive organizational change without a proper management infrastructure to prevent the natural messiness and confusion that results from human beings working together toward common goals. For example, employee development would be chaotic without an effective performance appraisal system. The development of strategy would be senseless if there was no process in place to capture and analyze the internal strengths and weaknesses of the business and assimilate those with the external threats and opportunities; bringing all to a single place permits the formulation of the problems to be resolved and development of viable strategic options. Processes like this are very complex, and management technologies are required to gather data to prevent "gut feel" strategies.

I have consulted with many businesses since leaving corporate in 2001. What amazes me is how good organizations eventually slip back toward mediocrity from what appears to be a solid, well-managed position. Consultants are sometimes brought in to "rebuild a broken foundation." And they seem to be fixing things that could or should have been fixed long before or should have never been allowed to happen in the first place. When I dig deeper and learn more about the history of the organization, a common cycle mirrors the weather's four seasons.

That is, the consultant might enter the process in the winter when things are dark and gloomy. He or she looks for ways to improve and builds a "deck" outlining a strategy or action plan for fixing the problems. As the project transitions to the spring, the implementation of those recommendations takes hold and in the summer the benefits are realized. Somehow, however, decline begins anew and the organization once again enters the fall season, which brings slippage. Winter arrives and the cycle restarts.

In a sense, this is the cycle of life; we all see this depicted in movies and religious commentary (for I was blind and now I can see). However, businesses are not living beings and the cycle need not be accepted; the people who manage businesses can stop the cycle in its tracks. Perhaps this is a bit optimistic and idealistic but a strongly held belief on my part.

Generally, every one of the organizations I have worked and consulted for have members who are good and they care about their organizations; in addition, the intellectual firepower exists to do the right thing and to avert this ongoing pattern. Thus, the relevant question is: How can organizations prevent the cascading slide toward another winter season? What actions can help the organization stay in the spring and summer and prevent the decline?

I propose the answer lies with the formulation of the problem, and I look toward the reasons why the cycle continues unbroken.

First, I believe organizations have come to accept the pattern and few have questioned why it is has continued; maybe this is laziness or a belief that the decline is inevitable. It can be likened to continued acceptance of bad service at stores or restaurants – "it is just the way it has to be." However, some have determined this is a falsehood and prepared their organizations for constant and ongoing renewal, encapsulating the need to continuously revisit and update all management processes (even the minor ones). This organization would feel out of place when things are not changing as opposed to the reverse.

Second, organizations have placed leadership ahead of management. While it is true that leaders drive the business forward, the problem becomes worse when changes need to take place without the management infrastructure in place. In addition, the building of the management foundation is always a work in progress and should never be considered complete. It is up to the managers – and perhaps their leaders who want to make change that impacts the top and bottom line--e.g. new products – to monitor the outcomes of the business processes to watch for signs of degradation. The manager needs to keep renewing the foundation so that the leaders are standing on "solid ground." This should be a deliberate process as opposed to leaving it to chance. For example, HR processes may be established, but as laws change and known best practices are revised, the HR management processes need to adjust. In other words, permanent mechanisms must exist to revisit and then revise the management platform because without it, the process becomes dated and naturally atrophies. Further, managers must be alert to processes that were never properly installed in the first place. Of course, over-managing can squelch creativity and innovation, so a certain level of chaos is healthy and must be left.

Third, organizations have become lazy. While everyone recognizes the patterns –building, stabilization and decay – some are unwilling to put out the energy to constantly work on these processes. Instead, when decay has taken its tolls then consultants (or a new leader/manager) are charged with making recommendations to fix the situation; unfortunately, the implementation of the suggestions are treated as a conclusion rather than a beginning. In fact, all such implementations should be viewed as a piece of a puzzle where the picture is never quite fully formed; add a piece now and continue to look for a better piece to fit later. This is hard work and stressful but necessary. This is rarely followed because it is easier (or so it seems) to finalize something and pay attention to other items. However, there is a price to be paid in that delay exacerbates the problems and will have to be dealt with later. Further, if a solid base is never there, it distracts and restrains the organization from optimizing its movement forward.

Finally, this is not a senior management issue alone. All hands need to be a part of building effective and efficient processes. It is up to the leaders to invigorate the culture with the belief that renewal is necessary for survival and empower its members to make it happen. The old organizational behavior axiom is in play: "People tend to support that which they help create."

Some might ask why this is necessary if the natural forces of "seasonal changes" are not within any organization’s control. Actually the alternative is true because businesses can do better. If an organization can put just the right amount of process and procedures in place and continually revisit the viability and seek ongoing improvements, it will eventually be stronger and more prepared for the future. The alternative is to let outside forces control destiny and be put in the position of a harder climb back to viability later (pay some now or pay much more later). Not reacting is expensive and unnecessary.

There are organizations that repeatedly stay on top. My guess is they have installed the discipline and culture of constant renewal; they tinker and continue to be better on even the most minute issues. When the foundation remains solid and continues to be improved, the leader then has the flexibility to simultaneously drive the business and work on the real purpose for the business' existence – fulfillment of its mission. 

Please feel free to make comments.