Organisational Alignment – the universal foundation of enterprise success

November 5, 2015

GeeseIf I offered you one free ticket to a presentation given by an acknowledged world authority on each of the following topics, which presentation would you opt to attend? Remember, you can only go to one of them. The choices are:

I think it’s a fair bet that you didn’t choose Organisational Alignment – not really sexy, is it? No doubt you’ve said to yourself at some stage or other – “I wish my employees were more engaged” or “we need to manage change much better than we do” or “our teams program seems to be running out of steam” but I doubt if you have ever said – “We need much greater organisational alignment”

Yet without organisational alignment every other success factor suffers and the organisation’s ability to bring the enterprise strategy to fruition will fail.

Most observers regard Organisational Alignment as something that relates only to the employees of an organisation. They use a three part definition as follows.

■          Everyone understands where the organisation is now (current reality)

■          Everyone understands the destination (goal) and the journey (strategies to get there)

■          Everyone understands their role in getting there

Enterprise Alignment precedes Organisational Alignment

However before the staff of an organisation can be aligned, the organisation itself needs to be aligned as well. Management has to determine the current reality; management has to agree an overall goal; management has to develop the strategies to achieve it and, lastly management must allocate responsibilities to everyone in the organisation so each may play their role in its implementation. And at the core of this whole exercise is a matching process – let’s call it Enterprise Alignment. It’s the matching of the current and future trends and characteristics of the organisation’s external environment in which it operates with its current and future resources and expertise.

In short Enterprise Alignment is a prerequisite to Organisational Alignment.

Let me illustrate this with two examples. The first involves skeins of migrating geese so beloved by management consultants as exemplars of teamwork. It’s a powerful, emotive analogy but the basis of their performance and subsequent teamwork is Organisational Alignment. The geese can only demonstrate the essence of teamwork because the members of the skein agree where they are now, share a common objective, know the direction in which they need to fly and understand the roles each need to play when the skein is in flight. Even more fundamentally, the need to migrate from A to B at particular times of the year is hard wired into geese. Yet such is their sensitivity to short term climatic change, they will alter both the timing of their migrations and their route according to climatic conditions. This is their version of Enterprise Alignment.

The second example also concerns flight – namely the Boeing 787-9’s recently ordered by Qantas as a key strategy in the rejuvenation of their International division. Qantas CEO Alan Joyce set three criteria as prerequisites for ordering Boeing’s Dreamliner – Qantas International had to be returned to a position of sustainable profitability; the Company had to be capable of paying down its $1 billion of debt and the Qantas long-haul pilots union had to accept changes to the terms and conditions of their employment. The reason for the selection of the -9 variant of the B787 is simple. Its long range – Qantas are investigating non-stop flights from Australia to London – provides Qantas with a resource that matches the trends in international air travel.

Now the fact that Qantas made a Profit Before Tax of $975 million in the 2014/15 Financial Year is clear evidence that Joyce has achieved Enterprise Alignment. The task that has already successfully begun is to develop greater Organisational Alignment to provide the internal environment in which change can be achieved without the sort of industrial conflict that led to the grounding of Qantas in October 2011.

An agreement between Qantas and the long-haul pilots union has now been struck which is a perfect illustration of Organisational Alignment at its most productive.

Everyone understands where the organisation is now

This is what Qantas pilot and president of the Australian International Pilots Association (AIPA) – Nathan Safe had to say about the negotiations over the new agreement. “These changes (to the then current agreement) have been based around building a viable business case for the type of ultra long-range flying capable of being performed by the 787. We have been pleased with the quality and tone of the negotiations …….. and we note the unprecedented level of transparency and sharing of commercially relevant information”. Note the word “unprecedented”. Sharing commercially relevant information was not a hallmark of the previous CEO, Geoff Dixon.

Everyone understands the destination and the journey

Much of the agreement between Qantas and the AIPA remains under wraps because to make it public would have given too much away to Qantas’ competitors. However, with Alan Joyce’s background in scheduling and network planning, one can rest assured that the destination and the journey have been clearly defined and shared with the pilots.

Everyone understands their role in getting there

Building the commercial case for buying and operating the B787 was not solely dependent on securing the cooperation and support of AIPA members. Everyone from baggage handlers and cabin crew to aircraft maintenance engineers have bought into the plan by signing new agreements on the terms and conditions of their employment. Having suffered all the pain of recent years, everyone in Qantas International understands the significance of the B787-9 purchase in placing Qantas on the offensive once again and no one wants to jeopardise its success and the beneficial impact that that would have on job security and career opportunities.

In my book “Execution to Die For – the Manager’s Guide to Making It Happen” I refrained from claiming that any aspect of implementation was ‘the most critical’.

I’ve changed my mind.

Without alignment of the enterprise with its external environment and of the employees within the enterprise, no organisation of any shape, size or form can fulfil its potential. So before you rush off to sign up to some program on employee engagement, effective communication, change management or leadership, you need to ask yourself a simple question. Is our organisation aligned? And if it ain’t, no amount of training in the aforementioned skills will make an iota of difference. It’s doomed to failure.

 

Graham Haines is the principal of Plans to Reality, a consultancy that specialises in the issues of implementation. His most recent book – “Achieving Execution to Die For – a Simple Guide to Making It Happen” – condenses the complete operational cycle from planning and execution to monitoring, measuring and modifying into a mere 18,500 words, taking an hour to read. It also identifies 36 barriers to great execution and how to overcome them. The book is available in hard and soft copy from his web site – http://www.planstoreality.com.au – and you can download the first section of the book – “The Purpose of this Guide and how to use it” for free.      

Advertisements

Implementation – what universities don’t teach – and won’t? – and can’t? – and should!

November 5, 2015

untitledI’m a bit of a bower bird when it comes to quotations and one that I have always treasured is by 19th Century reformer, essayist, critic, artist – John Ruskin. “What we think, or what we know, or what we believe, is, in the end of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do”.

The ability to get things done – to make it happen – is the quality that most distinguishes great managers from those that merely bear the title as descriptive of the role they are charged to perform. Great managers are rare – so rare in fact that the best of them end up being feted by their peers, honoured by their governments and writing their memoirs.

Given that the ability to execute is the ultimate worth of a manager, one would think that execution would find a place in any university degree program, particularly those programs that have an emphasis on management or HR. Instead what we find is a modular program structure where each topic or subject is a self-contained unit. This modularity facilitates program reviews as units that are thought to have passed their use-by dates can be unplugged and new units inserted. The great majority of these units relate to the technicalities of the subject studied. I have no problem with this. After all, if I employ an IT specialist or a chemist or if I use the services of an Occupational Therapist, then my first requirement is that those people have a technical grasp of the discipline that they have chosen to study.

BUT … if our salesman or brand manager or accountant is any good at his or her job, inevitably they will either be promoted or, if promotion is denied them, seek employment with another employer to further their career. Quite suddenly, the emphasis of their job and the skill set they need to perform it, changes. The hard technical skills become less important than the soft people skills. The key to their success in managerial positions lies in their ability – to quote Dwight Eisenhower – “to get someone else to do what you want because he wants to do it”. It’s still necessary to do the right thing – but hopefully the technical skills will take care of that – the challenge is to do it right – and make it happen.

Conventional wisdom has it that such managerial and leadership skills are learned on the job from your supervisor or manager. I would argue that the current work environment is not conducive to this happening. My anecdotal experience is that the standards of people management are in decline. So shouldn’t it be taught at university? By “it” I don’t mean a unit on teamwork or one on leadership or another on change management – I mean a unit on execution from whoa to go that incorporates all aspects of making it happen. Yet there seems great reluctance on the part of academics to even consider such a unit.

A couple of years ago, I gave a 20 minute presentation on this subject to the members of a Commerce Advisory Board at the University’s Faculty of Business and Law. At its end, despite the fact that no one argued against my hypothesis or questioned any aspect of the hand-outs that were given, there was not even a reference to my presentation in the subsequent minutes of the meeting! Was this an oversight or was it a deliberate attempt to bury the topic?

I suspect it was the latter because I subsequently wrote an article entitled “The Human Side of Planning” in which I claimed that the seeds of success or failure to implement were sown the moment the planners sat down to plan. The article was submitted to the Editor – himself an academic – of an international journal on management. I quote from the email of rejection.

It’s very interesting, but not suitable for an academic journal. Academic journal papers are based on a different approach and have a different objective. Academic papers focus on making small and highly focused extensions to existing knowledge on one very clearly defined issue – either through testing or proposing relationships which are generated from multidimensional perspectives. Academic papers move along fairly linear lines to develop theory in incremental stages and are very clinical.”

The reviewer went on to say that Your article, however, is more holistic and extensive and is more appropriate for a practitioner audience (who would be interested in this type of perspective)”. When I asked another academic whether he would consider using my book “Execution to Die For – the Manager’s Guide to Making It Happen” as a reference for his students, his response was that he couldn’t do this because of the lack of references to other publications. In reality the book has over 50 references but the majority are to people who have been there and done that – or haven’t done that – not to academic research programs. I can only conclude that academics won’t contemplate the inclusion of a unit on execution.

But even if they did, I have doubts as to their ability to develop such a unit. As the reviewer of my article said, the subject matter “is more holistic and extensive” and thus by inference would not be of interest to academics. And I only wrote about a small part of the overall topic! Nevertheless, if the subject matter is not of academic interest, it seems a fair conclusion to make that academics would have great difficulty in developing a unit on this topic. I’m not suggesting that no academics have the ability to appreciate the inter-connectivity of our existence or the ability to weave topics and issues into a cohesive tapestry but the trouble is, they’re all on television making documentary series!

I appreciate that some universities now promote “personal edge” and “capstone” courses but again I would argue that these are still stand alone and rely on the student’s own capacity to see any connections between them. Great execution is a process and, like any process, a) the steps to it are in a specific sequence and b) they can be learned. Still, one might hope that units on team dynamics, interpersonal skills and the adoption of a global mindset might enhance a graduate’s ability at execution. This is not the case. There are too many factors in the current organisational environment that militate against great execution. Change is too frequent; competition between employees is intense; job security is a thing of the past; tenure in the one position has become shorter and shorter – and all these factors develop a “me” rather than “we” mentality. And yet the great achievers, when asked about the reasons for their ability to make things happen, all give credit to the employees they manage. “It was a team effort” is the almost inevitable comment.

It seems to me to be a sad state of affairs that an understanding of what’s involved in developing plans and bringing them successfully to fruition through others is not part of the academic curricula. The reality is that as the work environment becomes ever more hostile to great execution, the need for managers who understand how to make it happen becomes ever more pressing.

Graham Haines is the principal of Plans to Reality, a consultancy that specialises in the issues of implementation. His most recent book – “Achieving Execution to Die For – a Simple Guide to Making It Happen” – condenses the complete operational cycle from planning and execution to monitoring, measuring and modifying into a mere 18,500 words, taking an hour to read. It also identifies 36 barriers to great execution and how to overcome them. The book is available in hard and soft copy from his web site – http://www.planstoreality.com.au – and you can download the first section of the book – “The Purpose of this Guide and how to use it” for free.                       


Employee engagement is a by-product of organisational performance – not the other way round

July 30, 2014

Do you remember that McGraw-Hill ad with the scowling, bald-headed man with the bow tie staring at you from his executive chair saying?:

  • “I don’t know who you are.”
  • “I don’t know your company”
  • “I don’t know your company’s products”
  • “I don’t know what your company stands for”
  • “I don’t know your company’s customers”
  • “I don’t know your company’s record”
  • “I don’t know your company’s reputation”
  • “Now what was it you wanted to sell me”

I get a little exasperated sometimes when I read yet another article on how to motivate your employees because my experience is that employee engagement is the ultimate dependent variable. So to illustrate this, I’ve rewritten the McGraw ad.

“I don’t know what our company stands for”

“I don’t know our company’s goal”

“I don’t know why no one asks me for my opinion”

“I don’t know how my job contributes to customer satisfaction”

“I don’t know how the company is travelling”

“I don’t know whether my performance is up to expectations”

“I don’t see much evidence of teamwork despite the talk”

“Now what was it about employee engagement you wanted to ask me?”


Do you have a corporate goal?

July 18, 2014

leading people I’m not talking about some corporate vision; in the first instance, I’m talking about a SMART goal, one that is Specific, Measurable, Achievable, a Result and Time-related. But a corporate goal should be much more than that.

I recall a Director of a company that I worked for telling the assembled members of a regional office that the company’s goal was to make an overall 10% return on assets employed within three years. Were the staff energised by this revelation? Did they even comprehend what the Director was on about? And if, by some minor miracle, the answer to both these questions was “yes”, would they have understood their role in the goal’s achievement?

To be effective – and far more effective than the vast majority of corporate visions – the corporate goal, in addition to being SMART, needs to display the following characteristics.

a)         It should be understandable to everyone with the minimum of explanation

b)         Everyone should have a role to play in its achievement

c)         It should act as the wellspring of all subsidiary objectives and strategies

d)         It should align the whole organisation behind its achievement

e)         It should promote teamwork and employee empowerment

f)          It should be at the top of the hierarchy of dependency

As Rob Fyfe, ex CEO of Air New Zealand put it – ” A highly motivated community of people working cohesively towards a common goal with a shared sense of purpose …. will almost always outperform an opposition focused primarily on the bottom line, on financial ratios and technical superiority”.

Does the above statement by Rob Fyfe mean that Air New Zealand doesn’t focus on profitability and other financial ratios? Of course not! But it’s not its primary focus and management believes that if Air New Zealand becomes the airline of choice on the routes that it flies, it will lead to higher load factors, less discounting, lower variable costs and ultimately higher profits.

It’s not easy to identify a corporate goal that is both SMART and meets those six additional criteria. But my Customer Feedback Surveys can provide one. These surveys not only provide an overall customer satisfaction index, they also provide that data by individual client and in comparison with my client’s direct competitors. What’s more, they measure the performance of every function within my client’s organisation. High satisfaction levels are not the responsibility of the few, they should involve every employee in your organisation up to and including the CEO. If you do not have a direct or indirect role to play in customer satisfaction, you have to ask yourself what you are doing there. Moreover, high satisfaction levels can only be achieved by “a highly motivated community of people working cohesively towards a common goal with a shared sense of purpose.”

My conclusion is that if you look after your customers, the profit will look after itself.


What leaders do (and non-leaders don’t)

May 1, 2014

In 1984, the late Robert Townsend, CEO of Avis published his second book “Further up the organisation”. The sub-title read – “how groups of people working together for a common purpose ought to conduct themselves for fun and profit”. Among the many words of wisdom – and common sense – was a table in which he contrasted leaders and non-leaders on 50 separate points of behaviour. He ended his list by adding that the reader “now knows more about leaders and leadership than all the combined graduate business schools in America.”

I agree with him.

There is no room here to reproduce the complete list but I’ve selected just 10 which can be practiced by anyone who manages others at whatever level in whatever organisation.

tableI’m going to pick just one from above – “does dog-work when necessary”.dog_working

Heard about a NUM (Nursing Unit Manager) recently. She’s old school – she refers to her nurses as “my girls” and helps out with the bed making if they are short staffed.

Then there’s Ray Creen, head of the NSW Ambulance Service. A paramedic himself, he still rosters himself on one shift a month. “Creen is well aware his staff respect him. He knows exactly what he’s doing when he puts on their uniform and goes out on their jobs. He’s not only practising the profession he loves, he’s nurturing the roots of his authority” wrote journalist Mark Dapin. The NSW ambos are so impressed they have built a Facebook page around him – Ray Creen – Ambo Legend. Morale in the service has risen to unheard of heights since he took the reins in March of last year.

I’ll finish with Rob Fyfe, legendary CEO of Air New Zealand from 2005 to 2012. Fyfe’s unshakable belief was that people were more important than planes. “By understanding our customers better, …. we could win by attracting more customers to fly (Air New Zealand) and ensure we had fuller aircraft rather than trying to win through having a lower cost base, or some other miraculous way (of increasing) our revenue”. A highly motivated community of people working cohesively towards a common goal with a shared sense of purpose …. will almost always outperform an opposition focused primarily on the bottom line, on financial ratios and technical superiority”. During Fyfe’s tenure, he practiced as a flight attendant and as a baggage handler. As a graduate engineer, he was not averse to doing a night shift at the airline’s maintenance hanger at Nelson, nor did he shirk responsibility for answering personally any complaint emailed directly to him.

Has his style of leadership worked? You betcha – Air Transport World voted Air New Zealand “Airline of the Year” in 2012; its profit last year was $182 million and climbing; 56,000 people applied for jobs last year at what is New Zealand’s most admired company.

What’s the real lesson from these examples? It’s that when you behave towards your staff as you would like your staff to behave towards you and you set the example by MBWA and a willingness to do “dog work”, you will tap into the constants of human nature that cut across gender, cultural, religious and ethnic boundaries and job roles and status. As Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson would say – how hard can it be ….?


Do you have an operating platform?

November 19, 2013

I’m told that the number of apps for SMART phones now exceeds a million; quite a contrast between that statistic and the handful of platforms and operating systems required to support them.Connecting The Plan With The Current Reality

Whilst not showing quite the virility of the mobile apps family, the market for training courses and consulting programs continues to escalate to the extent that no matter what your need, there is a product tailor-made to “fix” the problem.  The trouble is that without an operating platform on which to run this type of applications software, there is a tendency towards treating the symptoms rather than the causes.  Take, for example, a program on teams and teamwork.  It’s a fair bet that the program will encompass team members’ roles, dealing with conflict, active listening, emotional intelligence, communication, team leadership and many other facets of what we instinctively recognise as team attributes.  Games to foster and illustrate teamwork are played and sporting exemplars are tabled.  The program might culminate in an address given by a well-known personality who headed a celebrated team.

Fired with enthusiasm and keen to practice what they have been taught, the attendees return to their everyday work environment.  After a few short weeks, the course is but a pleasant memory and the reality sets in.  The work environment is simply not conducive to the practice of teamwork.

Why is this scenario played out so often?

The short answer is that teams and teamwork, or leadership, or employee engagement or customer service are all dependent variables.  And if you trace their dependency back to their origins, they all end up at Planning.  If you want to get maximum value out of your training budget; indeed, if you want your organisation to be successful – however that is measured – it’s essential that you have an operating platform that sets out the hierarchy of dependency.  That way you know what parameters have to be satisfied in order to extract the maximum value from any “applications software” program and for your organisation to achieve success.

The operating platform is made up of four components, the first of which is independent but with the second dependent on the first and the third dependent on the first and second and the fourth dependent on the three that come before.  The platform has to be constructed in a specific sequence – you can’t build Component 2 until Component 1 is complete.

The four components are as follows:

■          Planning

■          Implementing

■          Monitoring, Measuring, Adapting

■          Revising

They represent an operational cycle – when “revising” is necessary, it’s back to “planning” again.

Within each Component, there is also a hierarchy of dependency at work.  Take “implementing” as an example.  The sequence is thus:

■          Implementing

●          Organisational Alignment

●          Management of Change

●          Leadership

●          Teams and Teamwork

●          Employee Engagement

This component of the operating platform works like this.  Organisational Alignment  – everyone understands where the organisation is now – everyone understands the destination and the journey and everyone understands their role in getting there – is dependent on Planning.  These three criteria should have been addressed at the planning stage.

Next is Management of Change.  Until the organisation is aligned, the changes required to achieve the organisation’s goals will not be known and hence cannot be managed.

Leadership – at all levels – cannot be practiced unless the organisation is aligned and consensus on the required changes has been reached.  If this is not the case, leadership will resemble

“The grand old Duke of York, he had ten thousand men

He marched them up to the top of the hill, and he marched them down again

And when they were up, they were up; and when they were down, they were down

And when they were only half way up, they were neither up nor down”

Now we come to Teams and Teamwork.  There are two prerequisites for effective teams and teamwork.  The first is that the team in question should have a clearly identified purpose and goal, both of which are subsets of the purpose and goals of the organisation as a whole.  Secondly, the catalyst to team development is a “significant performance challenge”.  Teams are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.  Whether these two team criteria are met will depend on Organisational Alignment, Management of Change and Leadership.  And only when they are in place will the applications software on effective teamwork have a platform that is conducive to its long term development.

The last factor is Employee Engagement.  Its position indicates that it is the most dependent of the five variables that together form the implementation component of the organisational operating platform.  If the three criteria for Organisational Alignment are met; if the rationale for Change is understood; if Leadership is such as to accomplish the change required with the minimum of resistance and resentment; if the basics for effective Teams and Teamwork are in place; if team purpose and goals are embraced by team members  – then surely the groundwork for engaged employees has been laid?

Just as there is a hierarchy of dependency for implementation, a similar hierarchy exists for Planning.  Most of the strategic planning that I see places too much emphasis on “this is what we want to do” with too little thought given to “this is how we are going to do it”.  As a consequence, the resultant action program is based on the former rather than the latter.  Executive management fail to appreciate that whilst strategic planning may be determined from above, it is actioned from below.  The vital link between Planning and Implementing is Organisational Alignment.  At the planning stage, OA is about aligning the organisation to its external environment and its internal resources.  At the implementing stage, OA is primarily about the alignment of staff to the outcomes from the planning stage.  At the Monitoring, Measuring and Adapting stage, It’s about both.

Understanding the interdependence of every facet of the operational cycle is no mean task.  Realising that there is a hierarchy of dependency and knowing what order that hierarchy is in adds a further degree of complexity.  That’s why enterprise operating platforms are few and far between but applications software continues to proliferate.

Graham Haines is principal consultant of Plans To Reality that specialises in strategic planning and execution. He is the developer of the unique Wagon Wheel WayEnterprise Operating Platform. Graham has a joint honours degree from Durham University and a Graduate Diploma of Education from Melbourne University. He is both a Certified Management Consultant and a Certified Practicing Marketer. His new book, “Execution to Die For – The Manager’s Guide To Making It Happen” draws on over 40 years’ of practical experience in understanding the interrelationship between all the factors that result in great execution.   His web site www.planstoreality.com.au contains upwards of sixty articles upon which “Execution to Die For” is based.


Searching for the Magic Bullet

July 8, 2013

In 1995, Eileen Shapiro published her book – “Fad Surfing in the Boardroom”.  The sub-title was “Reclaiming the Courage to Manage in the Age of Instant Answers”.  She defines “fad surfing” as “the practice of ridingConnecting The Plan With The Current Reality the crest of the latest management panacea and then paddling out again just in time to ride the next one; always absorbing for managers and lucrative for consultants; frequently disastrous for organisations.”

This observation by Eileen Shapiro reminded me of a comment by the GM of a $billion division of a major public company.  “We have invested close to $250,000 in an in-house leadership program and I’m not sure that I’m getting my money’s worth”.  Actually, I’m pretty sure he wasn’t.

I receive a fairly constant stream of fliers promoting all manner of training courses and programs on a variety of topics, each proclaiming to be the one to take your organisation to new heights of performance.  Many of them relate to aspects of execution – communication skills, teamwork, change management and of course, seven ways to engage your employees and encourage them to greater discretionary effort.

Such programs are not without merit but they ignore two very significant factors.  The first is that no program by itself can raise organisational performance.  Second, great execution is a process – while some steps in the process can be tackled concurrently, others must be tackled sequentially.  So in order to optimise the benefits of the next program you are tempted to sign up to, it pays to understand the process of execution.

The Execution Process

There are six requirements for great execution, five of which address specific topics with the sixth being Communication, the catalyst for making everything happen.  The first five are as follows:

■          Organisational Alignment

■          Management of Change

■          Leadership – at all levels

■          Teams & Teamwork

■          Employee Engagement

Each of these requirements is dependent on the ones that precede it.  Thus Employee Engagement is the most dependent – which begs the question – what’s Organisational Alignment dependent on?

Organisational Alignment

Organisational Alignment is dependent on the quality of the plan – and the quality of the planning process.  The quality of the plan relates to its “technical” merits.  Does it align the current and future capabilities and resources of the organisation to the environment in which it operates now and in the future?  But, just as important, does the process used to develop the plan involve all those who will be charged with overseeing its implementation.  By the time the plan is ready for execution and the initial Action Plan has been agreed, a) everyone in the organisation should understand where the organisation is now, b) everyone should understand the overall goal and the broad strategies to achieve it, and c) everyone should understand their role and its relationship to the achievement of the goal.  That’s Organisational Alignment and that’s why it’s the fundamental requirement for great execution.

Management of Change

How can you manage change if you don’t know what changes are required?  These changes should have been outlined in the plan, together with the rationale behind them.  I’m not suggesting for one moment that managing change isn’t hard but it’s a damn sight harder if those on the receiving end do not appreciate the reasons for it.  As Rosabeth Moss Kanter wrote in her book – “The Change Masters” – “change is disturbing when done to us, exhilarating when done by us”.

Leadership at all levels

The position of Leadership in the number three spot always provokes the most debate.  Many argue that it should come before Organisational Alignment.  But I’m not referring to Leadership at the very top of the organisation, I’m focusing on those senior, middle and lower order staff who have a direct, operational role to play in the plan’s execution.  The basic requirement for leadership is a goal.  Leadership and goals have a symbiotic relationship – one cannot exist without the other.  If clear goals do not exist, Leadership will mirror –

The Grand Old Duke of York, he had ten thousand men

He marched them up to the top of the hill, and he marched them down again

And when they were up, they were up; and when they were down, they were down

And when they were only half way up, they were neither up nor down.

 This was the problem facing the GM referred to at the start of this blog.

Teams & Teamwork

When Teams & Teamwork is the subject of a stand alone training program, my observation is that the focus tends to be on interpersonal relationships, building team culture etc.  Teams and Teamwork are regarded as ends in themselves.  Whereas they should be regarded as a means to an end so the starting point for team development is a purpose that is aligned to the purpose of the organisation and a goal that is similarly aligned.  As Katzenback & Smith wrote in “The Wisdom of Teams” the catalyst for their formation should be a “significant performance challenge”.  Organisational Alignment, Management of Change and Leadership are all prerequisites for truly effective Teams and Teamwork.

Employee Engagement

I spent four years of my working life as a member of a high performing team.  They were easily the most satisfying years of my career prior to establishing my own consulting practice.  If one accepts the definition of employee engagement as “the employee’s emotional connection to an organisation that inspires greater discretionary effort”, then our team had discretionary effort in spades.  We were engaged in the execution of one of the company’s key growth strategies; we determined the direction of the changes required and implemented them; leadership was shared by the team members and teamwork was essential as we each contributed specialist knowledge – and deadlines were tight.  We grew to respect and trust each other but it wasn’t all hard yakka.  There was plenty of laughter as well.  We had no formal training in teamwork and the phrase “employee engagement” had yet to be invented.  But were we engaged?  You bet we were!

The point is this.

Employee engagement is the most dependent of the five requirements for great execution.  So there is no point in undertaking an engagement program unless the prerequisites for engagement are in place and these go right back to the planning process itself.  And if they are, you might find that a stand alone engagement program is no longer necessary.  Similarly, unless the organisation is aligned, programs on managing change, leadership, etc will not yield the hoped for benefits.

Communication

Communication is not referred to as “the good oil” for nothing.  It is the essential lubricant for keeping the wheels of execution rolling with the minimum of resistance.  I was careful to write “rolling” not “spinning”.  There are many who think that the Holy Grail is a harmonious organisation that tolerates everyone’s point of view and which abhors conflict.  Trouble is, that kind of organisation – if one ever existed  – doesn’t actually go anywhere.  It just spins its wheels.  Friction is needed for forward progress, and in an organisation that means keeping everyone informed, promoting, not stifling debate and listening to the staff at the customer interface of your operation.  Good communication results in a contest of ideas; poor communication in a contest of personalities.  And always remember that the most powerful form of communication – for good or evil – is not what you write, nor what you say but what you do.

Graham Haines is the principal of Plans to Reality, a consultancy that specialises in the effective execution of business and strategic plans.  Identifying and linking every stage in the execution process has led to the development of The Wagon Wheel Way Enterprise Operating System, the world’s first management framework that covers the complete operational cycle. He explores the whole issue of execution in his book – “Execution to Die For – the Manager’s Guide to Making It Happen”.  See http://www.executiontodiefor.com  He can be contacted via his web site ghaines@planstoreality.com.au   

 


%d bloggers like this: