Why Your Org Chart Might Be Distracting from Strategy Execution

Posted on April 30, 2011 by christian

I have been spending a decent amount of time recently with political scientists, behavioral economists and their research. Why? Because they study how groups of people make decisions and get things done. During a talk on group behavior this afternoon at Indiana University’s Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, it occurred to me that

Your organizational chart might be distracting your people from executing on the organizational strategy

Why? Let’s jump to some basic principles of how people get things done together (from a behavioral economics perspective):

Every individual creates some sort of mental model of their current situation, and the effects that their actions are likely to have on the situation. So when i show up at work every day, my brain automatically starts searching for the answer to the question: “How is my organization doing today, and what do i need to do today to get our project done, or to improve this month’s profits, or to please my co-workers or to improve our organization?”

The ability of a group to work together effectively depends on its ability to create and maintain a shared mental model of the sort mentioned above. If one member of my team thinks that coding today will get our project done, but the others think that sketching will, and still others think we should go on a picnic, there is a good chance that we are not going to work together very effectively.

The more vivid (easy to remember) and relevant (easy for each individual to apply to their own choices) the mental model, the easier it is for the group to create and maintain that shared mental model. This is why heavily visual, simple representations like the X’s and O’s of a football play book or a simple strategy map are usually more effective than a 40-page binder of instructions or a series of vague proclamations. In the absence of a vivid and relevant mental model though, people’s minds will automatically search for anything that will help them to make sense of the situation.

One of the most vivid and relevant artifacts in any organization is the organizational chart which shows who reports to whom. It is arguably one of the things which enjoys the greatest amount of shared understanding (there isn’t usually a lot of debate about whether Bob works in accounting or in marketing, about who holds the position of CEO, or how many divisions there are). It is also very easy to represent visually, which increases its vividness.

Anecdotally, i have found that, in organizations where the strategy or the strategy process are either too complicated or non-existent (see previous post here on other symptoms of this problem), there seems to be a heavy emphasis on the organizational chart and the organizational structure. These same organizations also tend to report that they are not achieving the overall results that they would like.

This is a very unscientific and preliminary hypothesis, but my sense is that these things are related. What do you think?

 

 

 

 

Related Posts:

Posted in Management, Strategy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Still Having Trouble Figuring Out the ROI of Using Digital Media? Check Your Organizational Goals.

Posted on April 22, 2011 by christian

The return on any investment depends on what return i expect to gain, and how soon i hope to gain it. If the return i hope to gain on running marathons or going to bed early is to get a degree in physics in 6 months, then the return on running and getting lots of sleep is very low.  If the return i hope to gain is to get that degree in the next ten years, running marathons and going to bed early might turn out to be a good investment, because of the positive effects that these disciplines have on my work day, ability to focus, and emotional health.

The ability to accurately evaluate a return on investment depends on the ability to understand both short and long-term goals, and how the first support the second.

I have conversations with many people in organizations right now who are not sure about the potential ROI of using digital media as part of their internal or external communications. One reason for the struggle is a lack of fluency with digital media that has to be gained by participation. It would be like a person who has always stayed up late, and who has never put on running shoes trying to figure out how in the world exercise and sleep might help them in their physics research.

A surprising (and surprisingly prevalent) reason for the struggle is a fuzzy or non-existent knowledge of the organization’s set of strategic goals beyond just increasing revenue or getting more customers, etc. Without this knowledge, the ROI of using social media is questionable. Will it make you money soon? Probably not. Will it get you more customers tomorrow? Perhaps.

But if we understand that revenue comes partially from efficiency, that efficiency comes from effective handling of information, and that effective handling of information often necessitates a partial shift away from email (something our research has shown to be a problem), then the ROI of the use of digital media like wikis internally becomes more clear. Or if we understand that more customers may result partially from the authenticity of an organization and that authenticity comes from the ability of customers to connect online with non-marketing people in an organization, then the ROI of the use of social media like social networks becomes more clear.

One final note: digital fluency is the one thing that will help throughout the entire process. The more digitally fluent a person is, the easier it will be to look ahead and to think critically about the potential ROI of using digital media in parts of their organization. To go back to the original analogy, if i have run in the past, i know how the endorphins that running releases may help me to think more clearly about physics. Also, the more digitally fluent the people are who are using the digital media, the greater the likely ROI. An experienced runner is more likely to avoid injuries and to get the benefits of running which will help to support her research goals.

 

Related Posts:

Posted in Digital Fluency, Strategy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

You Might Be Unstrategic If..

Posted on April 20, 2011 by christian

Many people think a good strategy or a strategy process must be complicated. As a result, many organizations either institute highly-complicated strategy processes, or they choose not to institute any at all. Either way, the result is usually not good for the people or for the organization. But how can we know if my organization is in need of a better strategy process?

You might be unstrategic if..

  1. People in your organization are mostly interested in their personal job success or in the success of their department, and not so much in the success of the organization.  Why? Without a shared set of goals, we often tend to fall back on self-interest.
  2. Projects in your organization often go over time and budget. Why? A good strategy process helps people to make smart daily decisions when trying to reach a goal. If those choices are difficult to make, efficiency is difficulty to achieve.
  3. People in your organization do not start projects that are not in their job description. Why? If people are not sure where the organization is trying to go or what it is trying to do, then they are not sure what new things are worth risking. They tend to default to doing whatever their job requires.
  4. People in your organization tend to start lots of new projects that are not in their job description, but have a hard time finishing them.  Why? Different from the previous example, some people’s reaction to lack of direction is to create their own, whether or not it supports the goals of the organization. Most of these projects stall at some point, though, because they don’t get enough support from the organization.
  5. People in your organization don’t trust each other. Why? One of the keys to trust is repeated interactions in a way that lets one person trust that the other shares their goals. If everyone is out to serve their own goals or only those of their own department (see symptom 1), then trust is difficult to build.
  6. People in your organization are generally anxious. Why? Lack of knowledge about a situation and about the future is one of the biggest causes for anxiety. A strategy helps turn that anxiety into a practical to-do list. [1]

Not all of these symptoms are caused exclusively by the lack of a good strategy or a strategy process, of course. But all of them can be helped by one. The really good news is that a great strategy process can be simple, can bring people together, can improve efficiency, and  will make for a better quality of life for employees.

Are there other symptoms that you see in your own organization that you can trace back to this root cause?


[1] quote adapted from a fantastic Tedx talk by the late Tom Music who stated that “..knowledge turns monsters into to-do lists.”

Related Posts:

Posted in Strategy | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Does our staff know why we need a strategy?

Posted on April 15, 2011 by christian

Does our staff know why we need a strategy?

A friend wrote this to me yesterday, hinting at the fact that some people in his organization question the need for strategy. More accurately, these people probably question the usefulness of a strategy process. And they are right to question its usefulness. They have 12 hours of work to squeeze into 8. Previous strategy processes probably consisted of weeks or months of meetings that resulted in a rambling pdf which is now archived in the bottom of every inbox, and a 40-page binder that is gathering dust in people’s cubicles. If this is the type of strategy process these people are thinking of, then they are right to feel that a strategy process is not useful. But processes like that are not good strategy processes. So what is a good strategy process?

A strategy process is nothing more than..
a way to choose between actions to take when trying to reach a goal.

Strategies can take many forms, including..
a to-do list, a one-page strategy map, a verbal plan of action, a 40-page binder, etc.

Good strategy processes..

  1. Have the right level of detail for the group and for the situation. Some groups of people in some situations need a highly-detailed, granular strategy with a formal process for weekly or monthly review. Some will even need sophisticated ways of measuring strategic progress by pulling and displaying data from business systems. Others work best with a very general, simple set of five or six overall goals that are talked about for 5 minutes at weekly meetings. Either way, a good strategy process, for a particular group, will..
  2. Include a vivid strategy that is easy to remember for the people who are choosing what to do in a situation.
  3. Include a relevant strategy that is easy to apply to each person’s current situation
  4. Include a shared strategy. Every member of the group (team, department, organization) should have a similar idea of the overall strategy.
  5. Encourage people to talk about the strategy. The best way to ensure that a group has a shared strategy is to ensure that it is talked about as part of daily conversations. The more vivid and relevant it is, the easier this will be.

What good strategy processes do..
If a strategy process gets these 5 characteristics right (there are more, but these are the fundamentals), it will help a group or organization to

  • make better decisions to support the good of the group or the organization
  • feel less anxiety about the future
  • decrease the number of irrelevant pet projects
  • increase the number of relevant pet projects
  • focus less on corporate structure and technology and more on why these exist
  • increase trust between people
  • increase the ability to measure progress
  • increase efficiency

With this in-mind, the question at the beginning of the post should probably be changed to

Does our staff know which kind of strategy process we need?

Related Posts:

Posted in Strategy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Effective Leaders Use All Media, Including Social

Posted on March 31, 2011 by christian

Does a leader or a manager who is not naturally drawn to the use of digital media need to use them?

Yes.

I have heard two valid-sounding arguments against this, which sound valid at first glance, but which don’t hold up very well under closer scrutiny. The first argument comes from leaders who feel that their organization needs to use digital media for marketing or for internal collaboration, but who echo the logic of one leader who recently suggested to me that

I don’t have to be a rocket scientist myself to manage a team of rocket scientists, so why do i need to be a social media user to manage people who are using social media?

The second argument suggests, as Dorie Clark writes in a recent Huffington Post post entitled “Why Social Media Wastes Leaders’ Time”, that rather than using digital media..

..it’s the forgotten 19th century arts (handwritten notes, personal phone calls, and high-quality personal meetings) that can have the greatest impact.

Both of these arguments are false for many reasons. Rather than spending time picking them apart, let me suggest two alternate arguments (please let me know in the comments if you would like for me to spend some more time picking the original ones apart and i will gladly do so). Here is the first argument:

While a great leader of rocket scientists does not have be a rocket scientist herself, she had better know how to get into their heads and understand the scientific, get-it-done, go-to-the moon engineering culture. She had also better know how to use the media of statistics, blueprints and flow diagrams as a way of communicating with those rocket scientists. A leader in 2011 who does not at least understand digital media (and digital media is not something you can understand by reading about it) probably does not understand the culture of her employees and of her customers, and will have trouble not only understanding and communicating with these two groups, but she will also have trouble understanding how to empower, motivate and help them to develop in a culture which is mediated in increasing amounts by digital media.

Here is the second argument:

Any leader who ever used just one form of media, whether it be face-to-face, email, written notes, letters, emails, smoke signals, carrier pigeons or social media, was never an effective leader. Great leaders always have, and always will communicate through a mix of media. Using each of these enough to know which mix is appropriate for which context is a core leadership skill. A leader in 2011 who does not know when to consider mixing a Tweet with a face-to-face meeting, and when to just send a hand-written note is probably not going to achieve good results.

If you are a leader who is reading this and recoiling because you can’t imagine how you can possibly learn something new like this when there are so many other fires to put out every day, you need not be worried. You can start simply by setting aside a few minutes per day–every day–engaging with your family, friends, and even your colleagues and employees on blogs, Twitter, Facebook or an internal social network. At first though, don’t think of the return on this time investment in terms of profit or efficiency. That will come later. Instead, think of it in terms of understanding your people and your culture, which is core to your long-term ability to lead.

 

Related Posts:

Posted in Digital Fluency | Tagged , | 1 Comment

What’s In a Name?

Posted on March 1, 2011 by christian

What is the difference between new media and old media? Between informal learning and formal learning? Between a business and a university? Between journalism and marketing? Between a professional and an amateur? Between a designer and a coder? Between social media and digital media? Between design thinking and creativity?

If you have spent any time debating these differences, i would like to humbly suggest that you be careful of wasting a huge amount of time.

In times of great change (like the one we are in now) the coherence between words like these and the things they represent starts to strain. Broadcast media is incorporating Twitter posts into newscasts, while blogs embed traditional news into their pages. Formal classroom learning includes very informal methods. Top universities rely on corporate funding and businesses do real research. Journalists have to consider their audience, while marketers are realizing the necessity of truth-telling. Amateurs produce professional quality software. Coders design systems and even interfaces. People in organizations have been doing what we now call design thinking and creativity for millenia.

What most of us (with the exception of philosophers) really care about is not what these things are called, but what they do. With this in mind, we have to be careful not to get caught up in endless debates about the words we use to describe them. As the movie character Forrest Gump suggested, the only people who should be called “stupid” are people who do stupid things

or as Jimmie Dodd and Doreen suggest, a “beautiful” person does beautiful things

or to put it more directly

Journalism is as journalism does

Universities are as universities do

Marketing is as marketing does, etc.

In other words, for most of the people reading this post (if you are a philosopher, you are exempted from this generalization) the things or actions behind the terms are much more important to you than the terms themselves. So the next time you feel a conversation heading down the road of a debate over terms, try steering it away from the terms, and toward the things and actions behind the terms. Try this tactic, for example:

I don’t care whether it is a  [noun] or a [noun], so long as it [verb].

or

If we consider for a moment that [noun] seem to be [verb]ing a lot more in recent years, then..

I think you will see that you will have a much more productive conversation.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Socially-Enabling Media

Posted on February 16, 2011 by christian

I’ve been thinking for a while that we need to move away from discussions of how to categorize new technology and practices, and move toward discussions of what those technologies and practices enable.

So, for example, is Twitter social media or social CRM? I don’t really care.* What i do care about is how Twitter and the practices that have grown up around it (hashtags, following, re-tweeting) enable different sorts of social interactions between people inside and outside of organizations than do other media.

Is the use of a wiki enterprise 2.0 or social business? I don’t really care about this either. What i do care about is how wikis and the practices that have grown up around them (collaborative editing, tagging) enable different ways of getting things done.

What do you think?

* To be fair, whether or not i care has to do with which disciplinary hat i am wearing at the time. One hat is the hat of a practitioner, who cares mainly about the outcomes of using a technology. When i’m wearing this hat, i don’t care about the categories. If you call a technology gobbledeglook, but it achieves a good overall outcome, the practitioner in me is satisfied. The second hat is the hat of an academic, whose job it is to think deeply about the categories and the effects that those might have on the outcomes. If you use the word media when i’m wearing this hat, i’m back looking at the etymology of the word and reams of media theory and the philosophy of technology before you can shake a mobile phone at me.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Posted in Digital Fluency | Leave a comment

Trade-Offs and New Media

Posted on February 14, 2011 by christian

As new media begin to be used widely, it is helpful for us to consider the views of people who feel that new media will change the world for the better, and those who feel that it will change the world for the worse. Here is one quote, for example, from someone who is bullish on the effects of new media:

“..here is something that, once learned, will make people wiser and will improve their memory; I have discovered a potion for memory and for wisdom.” [1]

and another:

“This medium changes the relationship between companies and customers from master and servant, to peer to peer.” [2]

Here is a quote from someone who is not so bullish on the effects of new media:

“In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in the medium, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own … Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so.” [3]

..and here is another:

“When it has once been put into this medium, every discourse rolls about everywhere, reaching indiscriminately those with understanding no less than those who have no business with it, and it doesn’t know to whom it should speak and to whom it should not.” [3]

..and one more:

“media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the medium seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation.” [4]

What can we take away from this? Before we consider, I have a confession to make: when i used the word “new media” above, i really meant “new to the time.” So while quotes [2] and [4] were written in the last few years about digital new media, quotes [1] and [3] were written somewhere around 360 B.C.E. by Plato, about the written language. In all of the quotes, i removed any reference to a specific language.

Why? Because i think it is important to remind ourselves that the trade-offs between the use of face-to-face communications, the written word, the radio, the television, etc. have been debated in the past, and that the addition of today’s new media is just another part of these ongoing debates about the trade-offs.

[1] Plato, Phaedrus 275 A, B (Plato telling the story of Thamus and his reaction to Theuth’s promotion of the benefits of the written language)
[2] Social media strategy consultant and public speaker Jay Baer. Retrieved February 14, 2011.
[3] Plato, Phaedrus 275 C, D
[4] Writer Nick Carr, The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved February 14, 2011.

Related Posts:

Posted in Digital Fluency, Strategy, Tools, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

An Argument Against the Benefits of New Media

Posted on February 14, 2011 by christian

I recently read the following in a story about someone arguing against the benefits of new media:

“..your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in [the medium], which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own … Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so.”

Three questions:

  1. Do you agree?
  2. Which media platform was this person talking about?
  3. Who said it?

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Digital Fluency a Necessary Skill for PR Pros

Posted on February 8, 2011 by christian

The skills these folks are talking about are what we have started calling “digital fluency.” The focus here is on marketing and public relations, but it is becoming increasingly important to have these skills in all functions of the organization to promote collaboration, internal communication, innovation, etc.

One way to get these people into an organization is to hire them. Another is to develop these fluencies throughout the existing organization over time. Here are some specific examples of the different types of fluencies from the conversation:

Innovation Fluency (ability to rapidly but critically reflect, generate creative ideas and put them into practice) : “We’re no longer looking for someone who can deliver the perfectly-crafted message, or who can make the perfect video that perfectly sums up a brand’s message or idea..”

Interaction Fluency (the ability to build and maintain relationships with networks of people): “We’re looking for people who have come from online culture–who understand what makes an online community tick–who knows the rules of engagement instinctively on the web, and who can translate that into strategic counsel for different brands.”

Inspiration Fluency (the ability to understand what motivates other people, and how to tap into those motivations): “We’re constantly trying to get into the heads of the people we’re engaging in, in order to serve them best.”

Involvement Fluency (the ability to understand other people’s strengths): “The easiest way to find those people isn’t by posting a job listing on Media Bistro. It’s by, as an agency person, spending as much of my time as possible in and around those communities on the web.”

Imagination Fluency (the ability to imagine and strategically move people toward a possible future): “..you’re tasked with not only sparking conversation and engaging in conversation, but in distilling the feedback..into actionable business intelligence.”

How about you? What do you think of this video? Do you agree that these are important skills?

Related Posts:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment