Change Management – I’m Tired of Culture

Say What????

What is culture?  I read a lot about it these days, particularly as a barrier to implementing change.  Culture has become a curmudgeon.  A general consensus has developed that solving “the way we do things around here” will bring implementation bliss to change management.

My only problem is that the more I read about culture the less I know what to do about it.  It seems that we’re happy defining the problem without giving the specifics of a solution.  Why wake a sleeping dog?

Come on – we’ve got to do better than that.  It’s time that we parsed culture into its essential elements and then offered up ways to change it?  We all know the elements – they’re common to any change readiness assessment. 

Management factors, such as:

• Organization design – with roles & responsibilities
• Planning processes – from strategic through business plans to projects
• Reporting & Measurement systems – for operations & programs
• Reward schemes – for compensation & recognition
• Procedures, processes, & controls

Leadership factors, such as: 

• Setting a vision
• Inspiring the passion in all employees
• Communicating authentically & transparently

You can make up your own list but at the end of the day isn’t that the definition of “culture.”  Doesn’t that describe, “how we do things around here?”  Aren’t these the things we’re trying to change so that an organization can alter or accelerate the path that it’s on?

Here’s an example.  Several years ago I was working at Whirlpool, a great company with many great brands; however, at the time resource power & control rested in the vertical operations – those who designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold the durable appliances.  Brand managers worked horizontally to influence changes across these verticals.

For many months my team worked with the Kitchen-Aid brand to develop ideas for product innovations and enhanced customer experiences.  We were neck deep in great ideas & little results.  Efforts at implementation veered off course and generally withered.  At the heart of the problem was Whirlpool’s refined and efficient planning process.  There was a drumbeat that was known and obeyed by all.  Culture was eating change.

Once we figured out that planning was a barrier to innovation the executive team agreed that we could work with the finance & planning people to redesign the planning system.  It took close to a year and involved things such as:

• New mandates for planning sub-teams to make them more diverse & distribute decision make power
• Criteria to get change initiatives out of the regular flow of decision making and monitoring
• Detailed revision of forms that drove the process

In essence we needed to change the rules of the game if we were going to change resource allocation decision.  Culture wasn’t the problem, the disciplined legacy planning process was.

I believe it’s time to expunge the “culture” word for change management.  If change isn’t happening we need to disaggregate “how things are done,” roll-up our sleeves and change the rules of the game.

Football & Soccer: Who’s Managing? Who’s Leading?

Is Business a Sport?

Well it’s football time here in the US and baseball is heading into the World Series.  Soccer (European football) is in start-up and hockey is locked-out.  I often wonder what or obsession with sports tells us about how we run our businesses.  Are sports and business connected?

Think of an American football game.  Everything is measured right down to quarterback ratings that cannot even be explained.  The team concept is that everyone has a clearly specified job and that the team succeeds when everyone does their prescribed task.  Wise coaches on the sidelines provide the thought capital to conjure up the next play; only when a play breaks down are players allowed to be creative – and even creativity is within tight boundaries.  At the end of the day, win or lose, every play is broken into its multiple components and analyzed to polish positives and eradicate negatives.

Baseball takes individual statistics to the extreme and precision of play to the ultimate.  In baseball every rotation of the ball is measured and when the ball is actually put into play every player knows the detailed response they must execute.  If your not aware of stats or tactics there isn’t much to do at a ball game.  And I love baseball’s honesty – it doesn’t even pretend that teams are headed by coaches; the main man is known as “the manager.”

Other sports like soccer and hockey have a different nature.  Sure they count goals and know who scored them; they know how long someone is on the playing surface; but coaches don’t control the game, the players do.

During a game of soccer or hockey the coaches do little more than make sure they have the right people in the game.  For the coaches all of the work is done before the game.  Like their counter parts in football and baseball, they get players to buy into a system and each other; they develop skills; and they teach plays.  But here is where the comparison ends.  The coaches can’t control the strategy or tactics of play.  They can explain that players should exploit a particularly vulnerable “defensive midfielder” or shoot high to the goalies weak glove side – but they can’t control the players tightly enough to make these things happen.

Americans often say that soccer is boring or they can’t follow the puck in hockey.  Maybe another reason is that the dynamic flow of these games is counter to the mechanical static nature of football and baseball – the games they have played and love.  In football and baseball there is plenty of time to socialize, analyze, and eat; in soccer and hockey there’s no time to understand what just happened or forecast what’s about to happen.

So, do values and principles embedded in these sports carry over into business?  I think they must.  An executive's understanding of coaches, players, and teams must influence how they run a business. 

I believe that if you have been groomed on games like football and baseball then you will tend toward certain characteristics like a fixation on numbers – starting with profits and all of its derivatives.  Stemming from profits runs an OCD about metrics, rewards and holding people accountable.  This style produces results but the style is more the management mechanics of command and control than the leadership dynamics of flexibility and empowerment. 

Conversely, if you're into games like soccer and hockey (or basketball that was invented by a Canadian trying to bring hockey into the gym) then I think your business models are built from different influences.  For example, you probably see inter-changeability of roles and fluidity of leadership.  You’re also more likely to encourage horizontal achievements and group rewards because you see individuals as collective contributors more than individual heroes. 

Although this sports hypothesis is general I find that it has some application at a national level.  I’m a Canadian and a naturalized US citizen.  This sports insight was valuable in my transition to consulting in the US.  During my transition I found that I was often in a mind warp with my clients.  My hockey mind was competing with the football/baseball models held by many of my clients.  To be effective I had to change my starting perspective by understanding their preferred sport.  In my executive interviews I began probing on sports (yes, with women executives, too).  These interviews grounded me in where to begin, but not where to end. 

Conversely, my initial cultural alignment is better in Europe and many parts of South America where soccer aligns with my hockey background.  The same cannot be said for my experiences in Asia where my hypothesis just doesn’t hold up.

For me Asia is a duality.  Usually there is a strong hierarchical managerial type of authority that can even be manifested in deference from subordinates.  Yet there is also a strong collectivism in organizations – people can discuss issues forever, trying to come to a consensus decision where everyone is recognized and no one loses face.  It’s almost like management from above and leadership from below.

So, what’s the lesson here?  Well first of all I believe that many executives come to the business world holding sports orthodoxies that they transfer into their organizations.  And second, like most sports analogies this one has its limits – it can be helpful in many situations and misleading in just as many.

That’s just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

Leadership Betrayal: When Leaders Don't Deliver

Leadership Betrayal

When Leaders Promise, But Don’t Deliver

Situation

Most business people aspire to be leaders. We know this is the pinnacle of our profession.

o Most of us start out as “individual contributors” where we get results though our skill, raw talent, or determined force of will. But individuals don’t move mountains

o Next we learn the mechanics of managing people – planning and controlling. Our ability to get results augments exponentially; but there is a limit. We can only get results through people we can “touch” – resources we actually control

o Finally we come to understand that transformations, the big bangs, come through leadership – that mystical ability to inspire and excite others to do extraordinary things. “I have a dream…”; “ask not…”; “yes we can…”

Why do we follow these people? We’re told that it’s because they can communicate. They reach our souls. That may be true in some cases, but Bill Gates never inspires me, but his friend, Warren Buffet, does. No, there’s something more going on than inspirational communication.

I think that leaders reach some deep level of trust with us. We believe in their words and how those words make us believe in ourselves. In many parts of life this is a complete formula: motivational speaking and evangelical eulogizing come to mind.

Words = inspiration, = self-confidence, = pursuit of aspirational goals.

But leadership in business is more than talking and sermonizing. It’s more than infusing people with hope and sending them on their way. Inspiring people with the excitement and vision of flight is figuratively uplifting until they step off the edge of a cliff. At this point they learn the hard reality of Leadership Betrayal.

Complication

Why do we trust people when they are painting us the “…too good to be true” picture? How have they convinced us that we can do something that hasn’t even been in our dream space?

Well, we believe because we not only believe in their words, but we believe in them. We implicitly believe that their inspiration comes with their support. The Grande Armee believed in Napoleon because he was the first to charge into adversity. He painted the inspirational vision and then made the decisions to bring it into a focused picture.

When our leaders speak, we interpret this to mean that their ideas will be backed up with the management discipline and resources needed to implement the grand new idea. Management mechanics will support leadership dynamics. There will be resources, supply chains, systems and controls, legal agreements and what ever else is necessary to turn the ordinary into the extraordinary. And more than anything we expect to bask in the radiance of the leader as we work to change the world.

But what happens when vision isn’t being achieved, resources run out, and the leader is out chasing a new shinny thing? Leadership Betrayal, that’s what. All of a sudden the vision is exposed as unattainable in the absence of the elite talents of the leader.

However, the leader sees it differently. They see that the subordinate has been empowered to make things happen – “…just like I would.” They lose faith in the subordinate. They start to see the subordinate as a mere mortal – “…just another mechanic who can’t turn my ideas into reality.

The leader withdraws resources and their attention. Leadership Betrayal goes into ever decreasing concentric circles until intense acrimony destroys both parties.

Does it have to end this way?

Resolution

If you answer “yes” to these questions, your organization may suffer from “leadership betrayal”

1. Do you have a leader? Someone with big ideas, resources, and the ability to inspire others?

2. Is there a pattern of betrayal? Are there several incidences where big ideas have failed and people feel they were abandoned

How do you reverse this trend? Training is often not the answer. Leaders are more born than made; they just haven’t developed the management discipline to support their leadership. However, management training for natural leaders is usually tedious and repugnant to them.

You might be able to find a trusted lieutenant – Eisenhower had Bradley and Gates had Balmer; but the operative word is “trusted.” Who can you trust when the issue is potential betrayal? When will internal politics overcome the good intentions of the lieutenant? The role of 2iC (second in command) is difficult to sustain.

The best way to guard against Leadership Betrayal is to support with leader with management systems that can be sustained. Here’s an approach:

o Review the documents on past failures and interview the central figures to understand whether mechanics supported the leaders dream

1. Vision. By definition it can’t be precise. But it should derive from some fundamental principles or values. Are these clear?

2. Migration Path. The vision gets clarified as you pass through stages and gates. Are the milestones clear and realistic?

3. Resources. Are there resources to meet each milestone?

4. Competence. Do subordinates have the competence to drive toward the dream? Are you asking a technician to be Steve Jobs?

5. Reward. Not every idea will result in short term, independent wealth. Is the reward overstated?

6. Attention. Did the leader abdicate? Did they set a dream in motion and then lose interest

Leadership is a rare quality. It should never result in betrayal.