This week in my monthly newsletter, The Executive Wisdom Times, I wrote about the Confusion of Change or Engaged with Meaning.
For those of you who are not subscribers here is a snippet:
"Every change, every burst of creativity, commences with the identification of a problem or an opportunity that somebody finds meaningful. When people become interested in an issue their creativity is instantly engaged.
If we want people to be innovative we must discover what is important for them. And, we must engage them in meaningful issues. The simplest way to discover what is meaningful is to notice what people talk about and where they spend their energy.
If we're trying to get something done in our organisation and things go badly, it's easier to hunt for scapegoats than to determine the root cause of the problem.
... what might happen if the next time we want to implement change in our business, we involved everybody who cares, so that they may support what they themselves create?"
I received this from a reader in the Greater St Louis Area:
Hi Ric:
I agree with you regarding having engaged team members. Many programs and ideas that I see ... do not get the results that they expect because they do not engage the workforce in the process. ... they have tried many things in the past and they did get the results that they wanted.
... One thing that we insist on that you must know the "root cause" of the behaviors that keeps the culture from being what you want. ... I would like to hear back from you.
Larry Lacy
You may find my response to Larry worthwhile reading and considering:
Hi Larry,
Strategy and culture are two words commonly overused and underdeveloped. And, the buck stops at the top. Salespeople, warehouse staff, workers on the floor, and customer service operators are held accountable. Accountable for their sales, accountable for the speed and accuracy of supply,, quality and speed of manufacture, and their satisfaction of the consumer.
Out of the box assessment tools are never as valuable or as worthwhile as the creation of specific diagnostics peculiar to the organisation, the current culture and the results that are desired and determined to be required.
Feedback evaluations are nearly always done poorly because most are implemented by people who just buy an off-the-shelf product thinking that one size fits all.
You don't begin with questions. You begin with what information you're seeking to learn and validate. Then you back into the questions. The information that you seek has to be tangible and verifiable for it to be worthwhile and be able to be evaluated. For example, “increasing self-awareness and effectiveness” are not clear objectives for behavior change. How will you know when she is more aware or more effective? Objectives must be clear, and only then do you work backwards and develop questions.
Another example: Objective is to help your client (James) become a better leader which would include better delegation and development of subordinates. Questions might include: "What does James do that encourages or discourages subordinate development?" "When delegating, what would you say James does to support or frustrate those he has delegated to?"
The purpose of a "Scorecard" or a "360" and alike is to support personal development goals. Even before executing a Scorecard/360, there are certain business goals to be achieved. Presumably it has been determined that certain behaviors or skills are needed to satisfy the role of the job or move to the next level. Scorecard/360 is to elicit evidence and to identify the specific leverage points needed to help this person grow and develop.
And, just because nobody is talking about you, doesn't necessarily mean they aren't complaining!
Rgds,
Ric Willmot
Recent Comments