Everyday and every business is faced with adversity. Sometimes these challenges are self inflected while other times they may be the result of external forces But one easy way to identify the health of a company is listening for the reactionary words used by leaders.
Yes, there are varying degrees of 'incidents' which will result in greater consequences/ramifications but this simple 'test' can be used for even the most minor setbacks. The reference to 'company leaders' is not reserved for just the members of the Executive Team (CEO, CFO, COO, etc) but to all levels of management (VPs, Sr. Officers, Managers, etc) or anyone in the company that has the responsibility for taking actions and resolving issues on a daily basis. For it is these day-to-day issues (actions and reactions) that really 'drive' a company and will ultimately decide the success or failure of the organization.
The next time an issue occurs and people are 'called' to a meeting, a conference call has been planned, or any other strategy meeting takes place and members are discussing recent issues, listen for the words WHO or HOW.
When the company (leaders) utilizes the word:
WHO = doomed for failure but How = on the right track.
Note that WHO does not need to be a single person but can also be used to identify a specific team, division, department, etc. The result is same, leaders are trying to limit the issue to the result of a failed (Person or Team) which is not a healthy approach and signifies that the company has a flawed system in place for addressing issues.
How many times does a supervisor have a 'poor' performing employee that always seems to do 'something' wrong or incorrect. The result- the supervisor fires the employee, then needs to make plans to hire a new and "better" one. On the surface, this approach is the easiest way to 'address/solve' the issue but also consumes the most resources (the additional expense and lost productivity - time between new hire starts, supervisor's time to interview, additional task for other staff to complete, cost of new-hire training, etc). Once the supervisor has the new hire up to the level as the former, all may seem well until the new employee begins making some of the same 'flaws' and eventually suffers the same fate - and is terminated. Worse yet, is when the supervisor concludes that anyone that takes the job will always perform at this same sub-standard level (because of salary limits, educational experience, etc) and compromises and begins to believe that this is "the best we can do".
Similar issues occur at the highest levels of an organization (public and private) and can be found while examining most national and state headlines. A top CEO is fired because of poor earnings or after making misguided statements during an interview. The Board replaces the executive but a couple of years later finds itself in a similar situation yet again. To top federal, state and local government agencies to members of the local county commission accused of taking part in questionable practices or abusing the power of the office and being removed. But months or years later, more members and agencies are found conducting similar wrong-doings.
We are not saying that some offenses should not result in termination but pointing out that too often the way such issues are addressed starts by identifying a WHO and that by removing or punishing is viewed as THE solution. This is the easy way out as it takes the least amount of time to offer a 'solution' that can be provided to customers, shareholders, upper management, constituents, etc. However, this approach often ONLY results in a temporary fix by removing the visible aliment in the 'WHO' but does very little to address any underlying issues that typically created the environment for such an incident to occur in the first place.... the HOW.
The correct response when issues are addressed is listening for leadership to ask 'HOW' such an incident(s) occurred...
- HOW questions begin to address the Circumstances surrounding the incident and not just Occurrence
- HOW begins to ask if the same result may have occurred regardless of WHO was involved
- HOW also explores what steps may be needed in order to reduce or prevent a repeat
- HOW examines necessary support mechanisms and resources - (people, training, money, structure, etc)
When company leadership begins by asking HOW, they are in a better position to make meaning change that offers lasting improvements and better outcomes.
The HOW approach also promotes a Learning Organizational culture while building confidence and trust in your employees (not seeking to blame people first) and your customers (addressing the situation resulting in greater service).
The difference between mediocre & magnificent is usually a very SMALL effort... or in this case between using one or another SMALL three-letter word.
To learn more about the Performance & Quality Improvement Network, other topics and initiatives - subscribe to this blog, follow us on Twitter, visit our website PQI Network
No comments:
Post a Comment