What is the difference between real values and pretty words? Applicability. The difference becomes clear when there is a problem to be addressed.

Clients occasionally come to me with concerns about specific colleagues who report to them. I ask them to list their organization’s values and rate the colleague from 1 (terrible) to 5 (extraordinary) on their values. (Most of my clients have values that align with integrity, respect and teamwork.) In all cases, they are able to rate the actions of the person whose work is concerning. When they rate someone lower than a 3, we talk about specific examples. It can’t be “just a feeling”: when you have a gut reaction, there are specific instances that demonstrate how this person doesn’t align with what is expected.

The only deal-breaker is the rating on integrity (or trust): If the rating is below a 3 and the manager shares specific, clear examples that illustrate how the individual didn’t act with integrity or why they aren’t trusted, the conversation changes. Without trust, without integrity, how can this person stay in the organization? You can’t coach integrity.

When integrity (or its complement) is 3 or higher, the conversation around the examples with the other values of less than 3 ratings is focused on next steps. In these instances, a manager can use the specific examples and the values to coach, redirect or adjust approaches to help their direct report be more effective in their work.

You can see how it works for yourself. Your organization’s values don’t have to be identical to these three. My clients’ values vary (wisdom, trust, relationships, acceptance, compassion, accountability, responsibility, kindness – are among ones from my clients) but they all work. Values are the foundation of a healthy culture and, as such, can be used to provide helpful feedback, positive and constructive.

On the other hand, how would you do an assessment using the following values (found online from random companies): “entrepreneurial drive”? “act with boldness”? “Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit?” They all have a nice ring to them but fall apart in practical application when there is a problem to solve.

A word of caution: Destructive, toxic managers can use values as weapons and gaslighting tools. It is easy to spot the bad apples because no one speaks up when they are around. To find out if the manager is the problem, flip the approach: Have people rate the supervisor or manager on the organization’s values anonymously to determine whether trust is low. If the ratings are solid – at least a 3 or higher, the manager can solicit feedback from their team. If the ratings are poor, you have your work cut out for you – and you better act fast.

The post True values or pretty words? appeared first on Great Outcomes Consulting.

About five months ago, I met with Josh Hutchins, owner and manager of Two Men and a Truck in Fargo, ND. The industry has narrow profit-margins, which heightens the need – and the tension – to focus on key metrics. We had a great conversation over the course of two hours, during which I recommended The Great Game of Business to him. We connected again three months later when Josh wanted my help finalizing the 2025 bonus plan for his company.

Josh had read Jack Stack’s book three times in those three months. With the help of the book and his own business acumen, he had developed a good bonus plan that would pay his team quarterly based on their success. I helped tweak a few things: using the same three metrics across the teams and payout planning (less in the first two quarters, more in the third and the balance in the fourth quarter).

We also talked about the importance of the weekly huddles. The one week look back of what happened and the four weeks look ahead with the most focus on the current and next week.

When we reconnected about a month later, Josh said he felt a bit disappointed because the team didn’t seem very engaged in the huddles – he was still doing the bulk of the talking. I suggested that whenever a manager brings in something new, it takes time to get folks to understand the process. And often the process needs both repetition and some adjustment. I also encouraged him to have people from each of the teams bring their numbers to the huddle and do the reports in person.

How are they doing six weeks into the new year? Amazing. Josh shared a few outcomes that demonstrate the value of metrics, giving people a stake in the outcome and open communication.

1. The team raises the questions about when the numbers are not what was expected.
2. They aren’t blaming; they are asking each other: What happened? What can we do about it?
3. He isn’t getting frustrated or angry about when things are missed. The team sees and is catching the issues themselves.
4. The first quarter in their business tends to run at a loss – it is just the cycle of this business just as it is the cycle of other businesses affected by weather in the upper Midwest. Interestingly, they had their best January ever and ran a profit; small as it was, it was better than a loss, obviously.
5. The team is working together better.

Happier employees, happy customers, happier owners. We all win when we all win.

The post Priorities and Metrics: Why getting them right matters (Part 3) appeared first on Great Outcomes Consulting.

1. Goofy labels for routine things
2. So many metrics that no one pays attention.
3. Objectives or priorities that are supposed to be measurable but aren’t.
4. Goals that are actually steps in an project plan.
5. Metrics without financial transparency.

The subject of Part 1 was about financial transparency. Your work force needs to understand the financials of the business because the metrics create a line of sight from their work to the financials. This line of sight is critical to identifying good metrics for individual teams to assess their work. Knowing that line of sight is why labels, priorities and the “right” metrics are important.

Goofy labels are a distraction. They don’t make the work “fun”. The goal for all communication is clarity and conciseness. And some precision helps as well. If you have to tell a story to explain what a label means, change the label.

Too many metrics are also distracting. Whatever your industry and business, you will have loads of stats to monitor. It is absolutely true that an organization needs to “measure what matters”, as stated by many business books. The problem is that not every metric that you track will help your team move the lever that moves the metrics that determine every organization’s success: net profit and cash flow.

Finding the metrics that matter most – the levers that move the result on the financial statements – usually doesn’t take that much time to identify. There just aren’t that many that drive net profit and cash flow directly. Those two or three metrics – AND NO MORE – are the starting point for levers/metrics in the departments or divisions around the organization.

If you are an executive in a larger organization, you are likely to say that it just isn’t possible. In a large company, it may be more challenging, but it isn’t impossible. It is vital that you focus in on the core metrics or your hundreds or even thousands of employees will not have a clear sense of what success looks like. Net profit and two other metrics are all you need.

Consider that Paul O’Neill transformed ALCO by focusing on safety. Wall Street analysts thought he had lost his mind; the stock price was dropping, so obviously his focus should have been on shoring that up. His focus  on safety ushered in a transformation that benefitted the workers and shareholders, far better than the current executives in the company have been doing since his departure after more or less abandoning his successful structures[2].

Once you have the core metrics for the organization, now your teams have what they need to begin identifying their levers to move those metrics. Which brings me to #3 and #4.

Objectives need to be measurable. Objectives and goals are not tasks in a project plan; they are the foundation on which a project plan is built. The project plan is replete with the many actions that will move the levers that are measurable, as identified in the objective. A metric is not whether you accomplished a particular task or set of tasks. We all have important tasks that need to be done to keep our organizations running smoothly. The question is: Are we doing the work that keeps our organization in business?

Every department or division in a company needs to know what their line of sight metrics are to net profitability and the core metrics of success.

Someone reading this might think that the workers become “widgets” and “order takers” with all this focus on levers and metrics. The exact opposite is true, BECAUSE you started with financial transparency and a stake in the outcome. You can’t hide bad decisions when you have financial transparency. People are more engaged when they are given both information and the accountability to help serve customers and improve the profitability of their company, even if they are only stakeholders and not shareholders in the company.

The post Priorities and Metrics: Why getting them right matters (Part 2) appeared first on Great Outcomes Consulting.

I have a number of pet peeves under this heading.

1. Goofy labels for routine, basic things
2. So many metrics that no one pays attention.
3. Objectives or priorities that are supposed to be measurable but aren’t.
4. Goals that are actually steps in an project plan.
5. Metrics without financial transparency.

To give credit where it is due, I love The Great Game of Business by Jack Stack. His approach is logical, inclusive, transparent and focused on building teams made up of good business people. And they know how to have fun in their work. Jack Stack and his book didn’t teach me these lessons but he confirmed and wrote succinctly about what I learned from strong managers and leaders in my early career.

Let’s start with #5. Senior managers often hesitate to share the core financials with their teams. Initially, they are concerned about whether the average worker will understand what the financials mean. They are sometimes concerned that confidential information will be shared inappropriately in the community. Other times they are concerned that the information will be a distraction: the average worker doesn’t need to know the financial health of the company. When an organization is struggling, the managers may be concerned about worrying their teams. I have heard all of these reasons from clients. Let’s look at each one.

They are right that the average worker may need some guidance to understand the financials. The “average” worker quickly learns basic accounting concepts. As Jack Stack has pointed out, if the average avid sports fans can understand complicated stats, they can understand an income statement, cash flow and balance sheet. You aren’t teaching them to be accountants; you are teaching them to understand the stats of the game that is your business and industry.

As for confidentiality, your team already has access to confidential information that makes a big difference to your organization’s success. If they aren’t disclosing that information willy-nilly around the community, what makes you think they will share the financial information? Besides, don’t you trust the people who work for you?

The “need to know” argument implies that an organization hires people who cannot understand and apply information to the decisions they make. Decisions that the average employee makes every day can make a difference in the success of the company, if they are given the chance to learn and see how their work contributes to the success of their organization. Knowing the financial status of the company heightens the average worker’s awareness that what they do matters; when they know their work matters and how it matters, they become more engaged in their work and they make better decisions about their work.

Some executives may think that delineating their colleagues into “need to know” vs. “just do your job” groups is simply arrogant and disrespectful to the individual who work with them. Consider the role of janitor. Why would they need to know how their company is doing? What impact can they have the work of the business? You never know. Jack Stack tells the story of a janitor at the plant stopping him as he walked through the factory to ask whether he noticed that 75% of their business came from one customer and whether he thought that might be a risk to the company. Heads down, focused on the work, the executives hadn’t noticed…yet. That one comment by the janitor raised a flag for the company and they intentionally began working on increasing the diversity of their customer base. Only a short time later, their largest customer cut back, which hurt but not as much as if they hadn’t brought in new clients. Don’t make assumptions about what individuals in the company can contribute. If you invest your trust in your team, they will invest themselves back into the organization.

“I don’t want to worry my team” is paternalistic and lacking awareness. If the organization is struggling, the team already knows. In fact, they may be creating a story in their heads that the organization is in worse shape than it really is. The stress of most managers whose organizations are struggling is visible and obvious to most of their colleagues. When times are tough is the worst time to avoid sharing financial information; in other words, when are times are tough is the right time to share financial information. You need every ounce of awareness, creativity and improved decision-making of every individual to help you turn around a struggling organization.

Basically, you aren’t hiring stupid people. You are hiring smart people who have the capacity to learn and understand basic financial information. As they learn the basic financial information, they are also learning how their work helps grow the revenue and limits the expenses…or not.

Jack Stack recommends giving people a stake in the outcome, that is the success of the business. The financial knowledge is the first step to creating an incentive plan that gives folks a stake in the success of the organization. Pet peeves #1-4 get can derail a well-intentioned incentive plan, even one based on the company’s financials. Those pet peeves are explored in Part 2.

The post Priorities and Metrics: Why getting them right matters (Part 1) appeared first on Great Outcomes Consulting.

The bigger question is: Why don’t more businesses invest in helping managers learn to manage more effectively? Often, they pay top-dollar fees to leadership development consultants to work with their senior executives to help them operate better together, and yet spend precious little teaching their team leads and supervisors core supervisory and management skills. When businesses do pay for training they do so because it promises to teach the 5, 10 or even 15 core skills that will transform participants into great managers in as few hours as possible.

The content of these rapid-fire courses is actually pretty solid in most cases; the problem is that it is delivered with the equivalent of a fire hose: 10 topics in eight hours. Most employers are lucky if the participants retain one or two bits of information. In most cases, almost nothing is retained after a few weeks back on the job.

Good training that builds skill takes time and real investment. If you want great teams to do great work, you need to invest in those who oversee the work and build the teams, not as an afterthought but as a core principle of success.

It is less expensive than losing good people because of unskilled supervisors who have learned techniques from untrained managers. Hiring and training a new employee costs six to nine months of that employee’s wage or salary. Companies that are losing workers earning an average of $15 per hour are incurring a cost of $15,000 to $23,000 per person. Most of these former employees leave because of unskilled and inept supervisors. If you doubt poor supervision is the cause, do a search for top reasons why employees leave: most of them tie back to bad management in one way or another. Do another search for why people stay and you will discover the reasons tie back to good leaders.

The best way for people to learn and hone skills – any skill – is with focus and practice. Acquiring a leadership skill is the same as developing any other technical skill: it takes time, dedication, and practice; all of which require investments of both time and money on the part of the business.

Let’s do the final math. If it costs a minimum of $15,000 per departing employee because of poor supervision, what are you willing to invest in training people to be good managers and leaders? Retaining more workers who want to do good work is the obvious smart business decision. Training supervisors and managers to lead workers is the smart business investment.

The post Building better retention with better supervisors appeared first on Great Outcomes Consulting.

Hate #1: The binder on the shelf

I hate strategic planning that delivers a binder filled with data that buries the essence of the process. Once on the shelf, no one ever pulls the damn thing off for any reason, not even the people who put it together. The process of getting to the binder does have value because the process is the thing. Having gone through a process of considering the future and where they want to take their teams, managers have had something important imbedded in their brains, often unconsciously, that guides them to fulfilling the vision. The binder is no more help than the elf on the shelf at Christmas, and just as annoying.

Hate #2: Creating dozens of project plans from the strategic plan

One company worked with a consultant who helped them craft a strategic plan that generated three strategic “pillars” under which multiple projects proliferated prepared by the “lieutenants” of the “captains” of the “pillars”. A whopping total of more than 24 plans were developed with varying degrees of specificity. Another company identified 10 – yes, TEN – initiatives from their strategic planning process.

I had one practical question for them: When are you supposed to implement these plans in the midst of doing the work of the business?  If this amassing of project plans sounds like a waste of time, you have hit upon why they are ill-conceived and unhelpful: they amount to make-work. More specifically, make-work under the direction of consultants who strive to demonstrate they are adding value when they are simply detracting from what really matters: good work. Good work makes a difference to the organization, the people who work there, the people they serve and their communities.

Hate #3: Little or no integration

I could simply say “See #2” because time wasted on peripheral project plans is often central to the lack of integration. Time spent on unworkable project plans is time not spent identifying what needs to happen with the work of the business as a result of the strategic plan. If nothing changes with the day-to-day work, then the organization cannot actually get where they want to go. Something has to change to make space and capacity to accomplish the direction envisioned in the strategic plan process. The adjustments aren’t necessarily big, but, over time, the shifts in how work is done create significant changes.

Hate #4: Short timeframe

The benchmark for strategic plans is two to three years. And this timeframe is reasonable…as long as it doesn’t limit the bigger vision for the organization. In Built to Last, Jim Collins refers to these visions as BHAGs – Big Hairy Audacious Goals. In his words, “BHAGs are bold, falling in the gray area where reason and prudence might say ‘This is unreasonable,’ but the drive for progress says, ‘We believe we can do it nonetheless.’ ”

Consultants have latched onto the concept without clear understanding of what those goals actually entail for an organization – how big should the goals be and how long will they take to achieve. Okay, to be fair, some consultants get it…usually the ones who have spent a fair amount of their career leading teams in accomplishing BHAGs as part of their organization’s vision and plans. BHAGs take effort to change processes, which require integration, collaboration and commitment throughout an organization, which takes time and focus. BHAGs aren’t the vision itself but the strategy to get to the vision. Which means, one or two BHAGs every two to three years to get to that 10 or even 20-year vision.

Hate #5: Missing the point of strategic planning

Too many organizations enter into strategic planning processes as if the “plan” is the point. It isn’t. Fulfilling the organization’s purpose in the midst of the constantly changing marketplace and communities is the point. The purpose of the process is to reflect on the current hits and misses; to consider what it will take to do more and better for the people and communities served by the organization.

This last statement may make it sound as though I am referring to nonprofits. Not the case. For-profit companies that exist for a mission bigger than the necessary profits they generate do better for their teams, their customers, and the communities. Why are people leaving some organizations in droves? Why are some companies struggling to hire and retain while others retain more and struggle less with recruiting? It comes down to purpose, culture and leadership.

Note that I did not say profit was not important: no profit, no company, no way to fulfill the mission. Profit is required to ensure sustainability. But profit without a grounding in mission sucks the energy and joy out of the work. Sure, lots of profitable companies don’t focus on purpose. In the short run, they will do fine, even great for their executives and investors. But, eventually, there will be a fumble, a choice or series of choices that spiral out of control. Remember Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers.

What I love about strategic planning arises in part but not fully from the flip side of what I hate.

Love #1: Purpose is central

The planning process reconnects and grounds people in why the organization exists. The purpose of the organization – the mission that drives the work and guides the decisions of executives and their teams – can get clouded in the day-to-day tasks without periodically reflecting on where they came from and what they have learned in the journey.

Love #2: The work matters

Taking a step back to look back, people recognize that the work they do matters. Not just for their pay check or driving the success of the organization, but to those they serve and the communities in which they live. It confirms for people why they work as hard as they do and the difference they are making.

Love #3: People already are thinking about the future

The process uncovers and confirms what has been percolating just beneath the surface. All the “what-ifs” and “I-wonder-abouts” bubble up and out in the conversations about where the organization could go with the right investment, the right people, and the right focus.

Love #4: The hurdles are real

The process shines the spotlight on the challenges to fulfilling the mission and what is possible when those challenges are faced head-on. Doing the work the way it has always been done is soul-withering and business stagnating. Problems and missteps can lead to making the work better and innovations that go beyond incremental improvements. The question of what is getting in the way is among the most critical to defining the future.

Love #5: The vision hits the mark and they feel the connection

There is a moment after the hard and no-fun work of articulating the vision when people feel the rightness of the words that describe the vision. That moment never gets old. The words come together in the most extraordinary way. People throw out words and phrases that churn and bounce off each other until somehow – almost magically – the right connections happen and the words align and vibrate with the energy of the first notes of a symphony. These few words sum up the two or at most three strategies that will echo throughout the organization, creating a cascade of adjustments and changes that lead to the future imagined.

Of course, the articulation of the vision and the fleshing out of the strategies is only the beginning. As executives and managers take the concepts to their teams, the work begins to adjust, sometimes only recognized in retrospect, as teams and individuals collaborate and integrate their work in ways that improve results and drive toward the vision. The work is rarely easy and is never without hurdles and setbacks. Sometimes the setbacks cause adjustments to the strategies, even to the point of dropping a strategy that isn’t working. But fulfilling the mission and honing in on the vision bring focus and increase engagement throughout the organization.

Conclusion

In the end of any decision making process, whether that involves strategic planning, retention, or one of the other myriad processes confronting business managers and supervisors, only one thing matters: Good people doing great work to make the world better.

The post Reasons to hate and to love strategic planning appeared first on Great Outcomes Consulting.

The words from above caught my attention: “research shows that women express emotions more frequently than men.” A quick search of research indicates women do not express more emotion than men. Bias attributes more emotion to women, but that is merely a stereotype.

So what else should be questioned from Ming Zhao’s claims? Consider “when emotions are high, intellect runs low so I always have to be assertive to act with integrity, purpose and passion and come up with an educated decision at all times.” This statement makes two important and distinct points: 1. Emotions can hijack our ability to make sound decisions. 2. Emotions enable us to make sound decisions.

First, when “emotions run high, intellect runs low” has been confirmed in research. When the amygdala is activated with high emotion, the neocortex does shut down. Why is that? Because when the emotional decision-making center of the brain is highly engaged with certain emotions – anger, frustration, distrust, fear – the body is perceiving potentially serious danger that calls for immediate action. In short, less thinking and more reacting. Regardless of gender, when we are feeling strong emotions of fear, anger or repulsion, our neocortex is less likely to be engaged.

The next statement is much more intriguing and leads to an important and different conclusion: “I… have to be assertive to act with integrity, purpose and passion and come up with an educated decision at all times.” [Emphasis added.] Integrity and passion as well as purpose are emotions – positive emotions. When we are feeling strong positive emotions of passion, purpose, integrity, trust and respect,  we engage our neocortex much more readily to make informed and educated decisions. Emotions, therefore, are not antithetical to good decision making: they are essential to it.

Emotional competence is the ability to recognize the emotions that are signaling us to be uncomfortable or wary, to name them and seek the reason why “warning bells” are going off, to step back, and to reconnect with our values and purpose to make the decision of how to proceed. Emotions also signal when to move forward, engage, connect and make the decision of how to proceed. We readily recognize when uncomfortable or, one might say, negative emotions threaten to derail decisions; we need to also know when positive emotions move us forward faster. Consider the bestselling business book The Speed of Trust by Stephen Covey. Trust, one of the most powerful, pivotal emotions, either speeds us forward when it is present or puts on the brakes when it is missing and other emotions tell us to be careful.

It is worth saying again: No decision can be made unless an emotional value is assigned to it. Warning emotions signal reasons to slow down; positive emotions can speed up the decision making. Let’s stop talking about “rational decisions” versus “emotional decisions” as if there is a dichotomy. All decisions are emotional. Decisions are also rational when grounded and confirmed by data received that leads to trust.

The post No emotion, no decision: Building a better understanding of how decision making works appeared first on Great Outcomes Consulting.

Three lessons stuck with me from the chief:

1. Training matters before a crisis. It takes practice to be ready for the real event.
2. Teamwork matters in a crisis. Turf doesn’t.
3. Systems matter in crisis.

Training. It ought to go without saying: You can’t train during a crisis; training is scheduled for the ‘just in case’ in the coming months. It also strikes me that we routinely experience smaller, less intense crises in our work, and we need to be ready for those as well as the big ones like 9/11 and COVID 19. Training for and being prepared for the lesser crises are the building blocks for the broader crises. Being ready to handle five people out with a particularly bad year of the ‘regular’ flu or a three-day snowstorm midweek prepares us for working from home today. Giving an hourly worker access to a laptop to work from home because her asthmatic toddler needs nebulizer treatments every hour prepares your team for working from home today. Training in all its forms are the building blocks for responding to all crises – from the smaller everyday ones and those that we either didn’t or possibly couldn’t anticipate.

One last point on training: It isn’t ‘one and done’. Training and practice never stops. Just doing our work every day doesn’t prepare us for the unpleasant surprises. We need to get out of our comfortable, routine spaces and lift our heads out of the daily work, no matter how intense the work is or how busy we are, to prepare for the known and unknown challenges ahead.

Turf. Whether we call them silos or turf is irrelevant. What is relevant is that whatever they are called, they inhibit collaboration and preparedness. If an idea has to be ‘your idea’, then you need to get out of leading. No manager, regardless of seniority – and that includes the president or CEO, is the smartest guy in the room if they think they are. In fact, they are dangerous and a liability to the survival of the organization. In times of crisis, we see exactly how dangerous. In times of crisis, we don’t have time to dance around someone’s ego or pride. What we need are smart people who share, listen and collaborate to “get it right”.

The issue of turf doesn’t reside at the highest levels; it can be seen across some organizations. True, it often begins with the attitude at the top, but it doesn’t reside just in the most senior levels. The issue of turf or silos is further complicated by the efficiency that comes from clarity in function and roles. We often create rules and policies to create clarity, so our managers and colleagues know what is expected of them and for others. The rigidity with which those rules are applied is the problem.

My boss once demanded why I wasn’t challenging a peer. He wanted to know why I seemed to back down when I disagreed with this particular colleague, as I did not with others. His explicit expectation of me to challenge was a reminder that all of us in an organization need to push back, question and suggest to our colleagues AND expect that they will push back, question and suggest in return. If we allow turf or silos to stop the flow of good ideas or to enable bad ideas to be implemented, we will all suffer the consequences. We need each other to become better.

Systems. Crisis demands incredible efficiency. We need technology. We need processes. We need consistency. We need automatic responses. The only way these come together is if we are focused on continuous improvement – and collaboration – all the time. Continuous improvement also means that we focus on not just what’s next but what’s after that and what’s after that. Ray Dalio refers to looking to the second and third consequences in his book Principles. He’s right. It’s not just this decision we are making but what are the potential consequences of this decision? And then what is the potential consequences of those consequences?

Consider the difference in planning when data is used to trigger action that has been discussed in advance. One of my clients defined the three levels of their response to COVID 19:

Level 1: Status quo. Define what is critical and who is critical to core functions. Identify resources and gaps in resources for all those who are and who are not critical to core functions. Set policies for Level 2 & 3 around compensation and time off work.

Level 2: Case in the state. High-risk people or those with family who are high-risk work from home. Work priorities set.

Level 3: Local case identified. Everyone who is not critical to core functions works from home. Work priorities set and adjusted as needed. Support systems set in place.

A lot of work was done at each of those levels. And it was efficient work. Not every question was answered. But the managers could communicate effectively and efficiently based on what was known amongst all the unknowns. Core decisions were clear, expectations were clear. Many questions remain and yet there is clarity and no surprise at each level. The team is prepared and generally ready for what comes next. As importantly, their brains have the capacity to make additional decisions that inevitability will be required. An overwhelming situation is less ‘whelming’ because of the clarity in process and expectation.

This client was able to put this level of planning in place because they had created a culture of continuous improvement, cross-team collaboration, and trust: The foundation of effective systems.

Wrapping up.  These are the building blocks of readiness to respond in crisis: Preparation, collaboration (no turfs) and systems. In fact, they are the building blocks of a successful, sustainable organization. Period.

Good leaders enable and build organizations that are ready for the challenges ahead.

Leaders who don’t need to be the smartest guys in the room.

Leaders who know that training is the cornerstone of preparation.

Leaders who demonstrate respect and collaboration.

Leaders who expect and inspire collaboration.

Leaders who don’t tolerate turf-building and silos.

Leaders who focus on continuous improvement.

Leaders who respect and value the people who work at all levels of the organization.

Leaders who stay focused on the purpose of their organization.

May we all strive to be these leaders.

The post Culture matters. Even more during crisis. appeared first on Great Outcomes Consulting.

Her boss can make at least two responses when she explains how much time she is working. My hope is that he will be appalled and work with her to identify what priorities are the highest and/or support bringing in additional staff to reduce her work load.

On the other hand, he might be an idiot and wonder why she is ‘complaining’ about working 80 hours per week for the last several months.

There are times when an organization is growing and/or is in crisis that its people will be called upon to put in an extraordinary effort to get to a critical goal. However, if the expectation is for that level of effort ongoing, then it is time to find another place to work. No matter the compensation. One’s health, one’s family – simply, one’s life is worth more than that paycheck, especially working for someone who doesn’t really value you as a person but sees you as a means to his (or her) end.

Then I heard the NPR news story in which a woman was working multiple jobs totaling 80 hours per week to make ends meet for her family. (http://www.npr.org/2017/09/03/548255838/the-call-in-minimum-wage) She sees her children for a short time in the morning and in the evening, before and after work. Not even the weekends are her own because she works both weekend days at her retail job.

Hearing this woman describe her life was heartbreaking. What made the conversation even worse was that she believes that her life is normal and others should be expected to do the same. I have no disagreements with her cost-cutting choices to make sure she can afford what she wants for her family. Where I do disagree is that this professional woman – a teacher – cannot make enough on one job to support her family.

How sad is it that we have placed so little value on the people who teach our children or provide childcare or provide home healthcare or in whatever role they have that they need to work multiple jobs to be able to support themselves and their families? And even worse, to think that all this work is what ought to be expected?

I am a capitalist at heart. I believe in the free market. But I don’t believe in greed and going after as much as you can get because the market supposedly allows it or no regulations restrict it. Consider one of the most obvious cases in point: Various pharmaceutical companies are pricing gouging because they can, and they do so without consideration for the impact on the people for whom the drugs were developed. These and other companies that act without consideration for anything other than profit demonstrate the damage that occurs to our society when greed is allowed to run rampant. The decision makers and their shareholders have lost sight of why and how their companies were founded and have been successful. This is a market economy run amok, lacking in purpose and morals.

Those who sit in some corner offices seem to have the perception that they have made it to the top of the heap so can do whatever they choose to continue to amass wealth, regardless of the consequences to others and even to their own souls. Their actions demonstrate the dark side of capitalism – a level of hedonism and narcissism that lacks a moral compass and inflicts pain on real people and society as a whole. Further, it is short-sighted and unsustainable.

It is also unsustainable to expect oneself or others to work 80 hours a week to earn a living wage – one that pays for the necessities and, yes, a few fun things that make life more enjoyable. We need to find balance for ourselves and others – we need to be advocates for ourselves and our neighbors.

Sustainability is hard work. Serving the communities in which we work, recognizing the impact of our decisions on customers and others takes time and consideration. Our decisions do need to generate results that keep our businesses profitable. But we will fail when we focus on only how shareholders and top management benefit.

We always do better when we all do better. Our communities do better. Our colleagues do better. Our souls do better.

The post 80 hours a week appeared first on Great Outcomes Consulting.

It isn’t a hard book to read – Ramo is a good writer and a thorough researcher (13 pages of end notes for 308 pages illustrates how thorough) – but it isn’t for the casual skimmer.

Ramo intent is fairly clear: Beware of how technology is shaping the world at all levels and across all economic and social spectrum. Technology has surpassed most people’s ability to understand how it works and it will continue to further invade (and control) our lives as it further evades our ability to understand or control it. Countries, economies and cultures will rise and others will fall based on their leaders’ ability to see the ‘landscape’ and leverage that knowledge or intuition to gain power. As in all paradigm and technological shifts in history, winners will amass power and influence and the losers will lose freedom and control. Who the leaders are will not be based on current political, financial or social power; a new set of leaders will rise based on who best anticipates, engages and controls technology and information.

Ramo makes the point that we are in the age of networks and of (constant) connection. These networks are unstoppable because they are not linear but multi-directional – he uses the metaphor of a fishnet to illustrate the new paradigm. If data or incursions are stopped at one point, they redirect, go around and connect in another ‘node’.

Two concepts resonated with me:

• Context is important. “What is the nature of the age?” This quote comes from Chapter 10 in which Ramo describes an interaction between US journalist Walter Cronkite and Chinese foreign minister Huang Hua. According to Ramo, Western culture tends to focus on the goal (akin to Stephen Covey’s “begin with the end in mind”); Chinese culture begins with the question “ ‘What is the nature of the age?’ ” In other words, writes Ramo: “…considering the conditions and environment around the problem….The context matters as much as the solution because, even if you think you’ve solved a specific problem, the context endures.” (Chapter 10, page 251)

  Perhaps this is why so many problem solvers within companies fix one issue only to have five more raise their ugly heads. When we isolate problems to seek a workable solution, we miss the context and the context is where we live and work. We miss the context because decision makers don’t ask people closest to the work what is happening, or stop listening too soon or arrogantly believe that they have all the information needed to make the “right” decision. Understanding context demands asking questions (preferably open questions without leading) and listening to many perspectives, especially from those who are closest to the work – especially when we don’t like what we are hearing. It is a humbling process and vital to true leadership and sound decision making.

• Everything is connected. Too often business and political leaders attempt to compartmentalize issues, communities, environments, etc., in an effort to simplify, appear decisive and make progress. The problem is that we don’t live in a world that can be compartmentalized or segmented. We live in a fully connected and interrelated world. We always have. All attempts to solve a single problem without understanding relationships emanating around that problem – like a fishnet – will create waves of more and greater problems.

Humanity has survived many paradigm shifts, many brought about by our own ingenuity and all bringing both beneficial and detrimental changes. No surprise, we are in the midst of another shift and are trying to make sense of it as best we can, as demonstrated by Ramo’s book and others with similar themes. As with all the shifts in our history, we can try to ignore the shift, we can try to go back ‘to a simpler time and place,’ but we can’t and never could. Once Pandora’s box of the new paradigm opened, there is no going back. The best we can do is identify what is most important to bring with us – openness, love, compassion and connection to each other and our environment – and face the changes and challenges head on.

If you are a cursory reader or look for quick-fix ideas, this book isn’t a good choice. If you look for patterns and don’t mind futuristic warnings of potential doom of the world as we know it, The Seventh Sense is worth reading.

The post Facing a not-so-new new reality appeared first on Great Outcomes Consulting.