Jeffrey Saltzman's Blog

The first of Newton’s laws of motion states “a body that is at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it.” His second law states “a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.” Those same laws seem to apply to the world of employee survey action taking.

Some of those who get survey results never seem to get around to taking action based on the survey results they have in hand. And just like a body at rest, they tend to stay at rest doing nothing with the findings.

• The survey results provided may not be definitive enough for them and they may request additional analysis after analysis until they get around to doing just about nothing.
• The survey results may point to action that is difficult or overwhelming and so the easiest path may again be to let things be just as they are and do nothing.
• They survey results may point to behaviors that go against closely held beliefs that the manager may have, so even though the data says one thing, he or she may simply know in their heart the “right thing to do” regardless of the data.

In one study which pointed out some of the obstacles to having action arise from the survey process, (Wiley & Brooks, 2010), the 3 top obstacles to taking action on a survey were identified as:

• Accountability (12%)
  • Holding organizational members responsible for their role in the survey program; ownership and clarity of assignment
• Resources (12%)
  • Especially time (given the other demands of manager’s job), but other resources as well: training, technical, financial
• Importance (12%)
  • Management (especially executive management) attention to and support for survey

But looking on the positive side for a moment, what are the benefits of taking action, even if it may not be the perfect action based on the survey results? If you look at survey data longitudinally and track which employees saw results from a previous survey vs. those who did not (from within one organization), and which ones saw action arising from the survey vs. those who did not, the data strongly suggests that seeing the data and seeing action, drives a very positive shift in the next survey iteration on critical business performance metrics.

• In one organization for instance if 75% or more at the department level could recall actions arising from the survey their average employee engagement score rise by 5 percentage points.
• In that same organization, those departments where less than 50% could recall actions arising from the survey score their employee engagement scores went down by 13 percentage points.

The benefits of taking action, even if it is not the perfect action are very clear. A body in motion tends to stay in motion, and in our fast changing world, staying in motion; constantly improving organizations based on insightful data which is tied to the organizational strategy is a very impactful way to help performance.

______________________________________________________________________

© 2012 by Jeffrey M. Saltzman. All rights reserved.

Visit www.orgvitality.com

What do organizations want? The answer is nothing. Organizations are nothing more than an abstraction. Organizations are virtual, they do not exist. You can’t talk to an organization. You can’t touch an organization. You can’t expect an organization to operate in one fashion or another.

An organization is an amalgamation, a sum of its people. You can talk to an organization’s people. You can shake hands with its people and you can expect its people to behave in a certain fashion.

So what do organizations want? The answer is they want whatever it is the people within the organization want. If the people in the organization desire to behave in a respectful way towards others, then the organization becomes one that is known for respectful treatment. If the organization is one in which quality is paramount for each and every individual then the organization becomes one that is known for delivering quality products and services. The organization takes on the characteristics by which the majority of its people operate. (It is of course incumbent to the organization to provide the resources that people need in order to operate in the desired fashion).

What is the tipping point, the point at which an organization’s reputation is driven by those characteristics? Is it when a third of the people operate according to a certain shared vision, a half, two-thirds? I don’t know an exact number but I would suspect that the number will vary somewhat depending on the characteristic that is being adopted. Unfortunately, what is very clear is that a negative characteristic much more easily gets associated with an organization’s reputation than a positive one. It takes but a single breech of ethics to taint a reputation; a single quality issue can cause an organization to have to constantly reprove itself with a customer. A relatively minor labeling issue on a report, for instance, can cast the veracity of the whole report into doubt, doubt that is much more easily purchased than is a reputation of quality.

The notion of how an organization will operate, its standards, needs to percolate throughout the entire organization. Critical operating standards need to be infused into each and every aspect of organizational functioning. They need to break through any barriers that might exist as they find their way into each and every pocket of the organization. For instance, safety cannot be the imperative of a manufacturing unit and then felt not to apply elsewhere within the organization. Safety must be infused if it is to stick long term within the organization and become part of what the organization is, how it is defined.

I have had a desire (not an obsession, just an interest) that I have been pursuing for a number of years. I have been hoping to see a moose in its natural habitat. I have taken trips to Alaska, Vermont, Maine and Wyoming that have been at least partially driven by my desire to observe a wild moose. I have been successful twice in my pursuit of the elusive creature, once in Alaska and once in Wyoming. But each time there has been a slight snag. The moose has been so far away from me that they are no more than a small dot, visible as a moose by binoculars only. The notion of being close enough to observe their behaviors, to really feel their presence, to get a sense of what the creature is really like, has been slightly beyond my grasp each time. Each sighting has left me feeling somewhat unfulfilled. Somehow those partial successes have only driven me to plan my next foray into moose observation with a little more intensity.

Just as the pursuit of a desire will often fall somewhat short of the vision of perfection that you have in your head, the pursuit of the perfect organizational environment is an elusive goal as well. There is no such thing as a perfect organization, only a vision of perfection that one can strive for only to find that it is constantly somewhat out of reach. But that doesn’t mean we give up on our vision, our desires, we simply need to plan with a little more intensity for our next foray. We set goals; we set goals not because they represent an end state, but because they represent stops, however brief, along the way. In today’s competitive ever changing environment the eventually end state, the culmination of the dream does not exist. The end goal is an ever moving elusive target, but it is a goal that we must pursue.

© 2011 by Jeffrey M. Saltzman. All rights reserved.

Visit OV: www.orgvitality.com

“For the tyrant has the power to inflict only that which we lack the strength to resist.”

Krishnalal Shridharani – 1939

There is change afoot. Arab countries that had been ruled by authoritarian/despotic figures are undergoing upheaval. And while the verdict will be out for a while, there is widespread hope that something more closely approaching democracy will replace the regimes that existed. There is a good chance that in some of these places one despot will simply be replaced by another, but there is also a chance that should a vibrant democratic entity arise, with free market conditions, that a new center of excellence for commerce, creativity and innovation, and perhaps even tolerance will emerge out of the ashes of the failed states. Allusions to the need for slow gradual change are primary driven by those who benefit the most from a slower pace of change. And contrary to their more recent behaviors, Arab countries have a longer past history of tolerance for people’s differences. The current intolerance of anyone different was and is still a mechanism by which authoritarian regimes hope to keep power, with attention focused on the made-up enemy without rather than on the emptiness within. In many lands constitutions will need to be rewritten, with freedoms enshrined and rights guaranteed. This is a great unfreezing moment, one that the world hasn’t seen since the fall of the Soviet Union, and before a refreezing takes place change needs to be wrought, as much change as possible in order to bring forth the maximum benefits to those who have suffered under oppressive rule. It is scary, yes, for many countries that depended on the stability of the status quo, uncertainty is keeping many awake at night, but the potential benefit is just too great to be ignored or not encouraged.

Could other kinds of organizations, not just nations benefit from some unfreezing of power structures and adoption of new “constitutions” of governance?

My daughter had been off school for a week of vacation surrounding President’s Day. Between vacations and snow days I think she has spent more days at home than in school this winter. At the beginning of the vacation week we headed up to Vermont and did some snow shoeing at Hildene, the summer home of Robert Todd Lincoln, the only one of Abraham Lincoln’s four sons to reach adulthood. Though he did a stint as Secretary of War under James Garfield, he did not become part of a political dynasty. Nevertheless, he did ok for himself, becoming the Chairman of the Pullman Palace Car Company which at one point controlled ¾ of the railroad track in the nation, as well as manufacturing the cars that ran on them.

Later in the week we went to see Mary Poppins on Broadway (discount tickets available at TKTS) and afterwards swung by the NY Public Library, the world’s largest marble structure, on 42^nd Street. I was hoping to show her one of the original copies of the Declaration of Independence that is housed there, but found out from the security guard that it is displayed only on July 4^th and even with me cajoling him to bring it out just for a few seconds for us to look at he wouldn’t budge. We took a tour of the 3^rd floor reading room instead and went through an exhibition that was being held on the texts of three of the world’s religions, and there I did get to show her a Guttenberg bible. Guarding the entrance to the library on 5^th Ave. and 42^nd St. are Patience and Fortitude, two famous marble lions residing on the north and south side of the entryway staircase. Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia named them Patience and Fortitude in 1930, for the qualities he felt New Yorkers would need to survive the economic depression. Ralph Waldo Emerson said that Patience and Fortitude conquered all things.

Most organizations tend not to be run as democracies, but more like autocracies or oligarchies, and a few like kleptocracies, and what I have been describing will provide some examples of that. Robert Todd Lincoln’s mother Mary, put her foot down and much to the embarrassment of Abraham, refused to let her son enlist in the military until the civil war was pretty much over and then only as an aide to Ulysses S. Grant to ensure that he did not see combat. There was no voting, no general agreement about that decision in the household. Mary Poppins ran her household in a “spit spot” fashion, there was no arguing with her when she wanted something done and of course she used a “spoonful of sugar” to make her “medicine” go down. And New York City’s beloved mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia was an authoritarian figure, never letting anyone forget who was in charge. Though elected he ruled with an iron fist and got his way on most issues. Examples of organizations that are not run in a democratic-like fashion can go on and on, so what exactly does it mean to democratize an organization, say a profit making enterprise, and are there any benefits?

Let’s try an experiment. Read through this list of characteristics of an organization and see how many of these describe where you work.

• The organization is full of silos or stove piped and the cooperation of people or groups needed to operate smoothly is restricted as everyone takes care of their own interests.
• Legacy systems and past policies limit the ability to adopt and implement new systems and policies.
• The organization has become routine in its operation, less able to adjust quickly to new situations.
• Personnel and resources already allocated for existing tasks are not easily available for new needs.
• Subordinates fearful of displeasing their superiors may not report accurate or complete information needed to make decisions.
• The initial vision of the organization, the founder’s sentiments, and what it stood for has eroded, and myths or stories of the founding of the organization as well as their symbolism fade.
• If a strong ideology is present in the organization, firm adherence to it may cause inattention to actual external conditions and how the organization needs to change for effective functioning.
• Deteriorating efficiency and competency of the organizational bureaucracy, or excessive controls and regulations, may make the system’s policies and operation ineffective.
• Internal institutional conflicts and personal rivalries and hostilities may harm, and even disrupt, the operation of the organization.
• High potential talent, top performers and those newly hired may begin to depart the organization in response to conditions, restrictions, bureaucracy and pressure to conform to “the way it is done here”.
• Customers are beginning to become apathetic, skeptical, and a few even hostile to the organization.
• Corporate vs. field, line of business or old guard vs. newly hired differences may become acute.
• The power hierarchy of the organization is always unstable to some degree, and at times extremely so. Individuals do not remain in the same position in the ranking, but may rise or fall to other ranks or be removed entirely and replaced by new persons.
• Business Units within the organization may act to achieve their own objectives, even going against the direction of the organization overall.
• With so many decisions made by so few people in the organization, mistakes of judgment, policy, and action are likely to occur.
• If the organization decentralizes controls and decision making, in an attempt to become more effective, its ability to coordinate the organization becomes further eroded.

There are 16 separate statements above describing organizational characteristics. How many applied to your employer? Two? Five? Eight?

I have to admit something to you. These statements were not from a list of organizational characteristics, but rather, I slightly edited and disguised the work of Gene Sharp who wrote “From Dictatorship to Democracy” and this is his list of characteristics and weaknesses of dictators and dictatorial regimes.

For profit organizations are not about to become democracies in the sense that the staff will take a vote and decide on a course of action. Organizations spend much time and effort in selecting and developing leaders whose responsibility it is to lead. The best leaders though are one’s that listen to their people, reflect on what they have learned, and they work diligently to align the organization’s goals to the personal goals of the employees, establishing a mutuality of benefit. By being part of the organization the employee’s personal goals and life ambitions are being accomplished at the same time that the organization’s goals are being accomplished, hence they have a shared interest. This shared interest will result in a greater buy-in on the part of all employees to the organization’s goals. Organizations and specifically leadership that takes into account their employees attitudes, personal goals, life ambitions are behaving in more democratic fashion. Organizations – leadership, of any sort, that attempt to impose their will on employees by means of leverage or formal power may win the battle but will lose in the long run as any employee who can escape will do so, leaving only those who are trapped by circumstance or ability.

In study after study the leadership characteristics that most strongly rise to the top as being worthy of followers are described as:

• Honest
• Forward Looking
• Inspiring
• Competent.

Those are not exactly the characteristics of someone who forcefully imposes their will on others.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kouzes, J., Pozner, B., 2007, The Leadership Challenge, 4^th Edition, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Hildene website, 2010, http://www.hildene.org/

NY Public Library website, 2010, http://www.nypl.org/locations/schwarzman

Sharp, G., 2002, From Dictatorship to Democracy, 4^th Edition, The Albert Einstein Institution, East Boston.

© 2011 by Jeffrey M. Saltzman. All rights reserved.

Visit OV: www.orgvitality.com

0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

-Isaac Asimov’s 3 Laws of Robotics with the additional Zeroth Law-

I just finished reading a science fiction book by one of my favorite writers, Greg Bear. Hull Zero Three is about a massive ship that is sent to colonize another planet in our galaxy, that colonization being the last best hope for mankind’s survival after having systematically exploited and destroyed the Earth. That makes it a fairly typical story as these things go, but when one of the colonists wakes early to find the ship badly damaged, he determines, over the course of the novel, that a civil war had occurred on the ship while he “slept”. Most of those who were to colonize the new planet were kept unaware of the methods and goals that the designers of the ship were willing to employ to assure mankind’s survival and when those goals and methods were uncovered dissention in the ranks ensued. The civil war, internal to the ship, was fought over differing visions of what the ultimate goals of the ship should be and how they should be accomplished.

So here you have a senior group, the designers/managers of the mission, who felt it was necessary to keep overall organizational goals and methods secret from those who were to carry out the mission, the “real” goals being on a “need to know basis” in order to assure success of the mission.  Sounds like fiction doesn’t it? Who could believe that senior managers of an organization would not be clear to others within the organization regarding ultimate organizational goals and methodologies? Hidden agendas, ulterior motives, political manipulations, or simply poor communications are the makings of a good story, unless of course that story unfolds in the real world in your company or organization.

The pursuit of efficiency and the corresponding breakdown of work into its subcomponents, with each subcomponent being performed by an expert in that task was one reason that people lost sight of the bigger picture, what the organization stood for, its goals and how it was going to go about accomplishing those goals. Craftsmanship can be lost when an individual’s tasks are performed in isolation of the other tasks required for ultimate organizational functioning. It then can become very easy to perform blindly, overlooking or literally not seeing ineffective or perhaps even distasteful, illegal or immoral practices occurring elsewhere within the organization. A sales group who has no idea what operations can actually deliver upon, marketing being similarly divorced from an organization’s actual capabilities are not rare occurrences. Overall operational quality can go by the wayside if the view I have of my job is to simply put bolt A into slot B and my perception is that quality will be delivered by the quality control department, or that others will be the ones to worry about things that are beyond my own task. Conversely, those in operations/engineering/service delivery may be oblivious to the need to manufacture or provide what will actually sell or to stay closely in tune with what customers want. What you begin to develop is O Robot, the organization acting in a robotic-like fashion to develop, market, sell and deliver its products and or services, with each simplistic robot/employee doing the individual element for which it was organizationally programmed or because of interest, skill, or willingness to expend effort, programs itself.

But I feel like I might be doing robots a disservice. Isaac Asimov’s fictionalized robots were much more advanced than those notions and behaved according to the laws of robotics stated above. And large advances are being made in the real world to make robots behave in a more human-like fashion. According to a paper in the journal Interaction Studies (2007) among the traits a robot will need to exhibit to be viewed as more human-like are:

• Acting with autonomy
• Containing intrinsic value  – being valued for simply being, not only for what it can do
• Being held morally accountability for its actions
• Engaging in reciprocal relationships – adjusting its expectations and desires as it interacts with others
• Demonstrating creativity
• Imitating other’s behaviors normatively– because of a desire to fit in socially
• Distinguishing or identifying actions that break social conventions.

It might be considered a step up if humans operated consistently or valued others according to a similar list of what we expect from our future robots to make them seem more human.

In the 1970s, there was for a time the notion of job enrichment. It was all the rage. Organizations, it was felt, had gone too far in breaking down jobs into elemental components, and in order to achieve happier, more satisfied or engaged workers, what was necessary was to enrich their jobs to make them less robot-like. Workers therefore were given more of a “whole” piece of work to do. You don’t hear much about job enrichment today, do you? It was not carried out very well in the majority of cases and in some cases workers whose jobs were enriched were not happier, but went on strike for higher wages and/or benefits, since more was being expected of them. This occurred not because enriching jobs was wrong, but because of fundamentally poor management practices or poor implementation of the job enrichment schema. In some cases workers were given new skills and responsibilities, but were in many ways still treated and compensated as unskilled labor, destroying any sense of fairness or equity they may have had.

An organization’s ethics is a broad and somewhat nebulous definition, but can generally be stated as the values to which the organization subscribes. How it behaves from a legal perspective is only one piece of the ethics equation. Over the years I have found that each organizational member’s view of ethics can be quite varied and is very dependent on where within the organization that member sits. The definition of ethical behavior by a blue collar worker is indeed different than the definition of ethics by management and ethical definitions will differ between professionals and administrative assistants or supervisors etc. And there are often differences in understanding or saliency of communication as different groups think about what is ethical to them. Forgive me, Isaac Asimov, for taking liberties with your Laws of Robotics, but given the way some organization attempt to operate in a robot-like fashion, I could not help but adapt the Robotic Laws into Organizational Laws that might just form a basic foundation for big-picture ethical behavior in organizations.

Organizational Laws

1. An organization may not harm the Earth, or, by inaction, allow the Earth to come to harm.
2. An organization may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
3. An organization may not harm a constituent (e.g. employee, customer, citizen, supplier, member), or through inaction allow a constituent to come to harm.
4. An organization must follow societal laws and regulations except where such laws and regulation would conflict with the First, Second  or Third Law.
5. An organization must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the other Laws.

One has to wonder that if these relatively simplistic Organizational Laws were widely followed would we be better off today in terms of our environment and society? Or are these notions too simplistic? How do rewards and punishment fit into the organizational role? What is the role of the organization if it decides to punish one member for harming another? And what is the role of rewarding members differentially based on merit? Etc. Possibly too simplistic, but I have to say I am intrigued by the overall framework. Thoughts?

© 2011 by Jeffrey M. Saltzman. All rights reserved.

Visit OV: www.orgvitality.com

A group of us, with a great deal of experience at this task, got together and pooled our collective knowledge of linking employee survey results, such as an index of employee engagement or other index scores (e.g. safety, customer service culture, organization effectiveness, innovation, turnover, risk-taking, customer satisfaction) to management incentive compensation systems.

Some organizations feel that the way to have maximal impact on “moving the dial” on critical measures of organizational performance is to put your money where your mouth is and to link the performance on these indices to a manager’s compensation. Now, there are about as many ways to perform that linkage as there are organizations out there, but when we compared notes as a group, certain characteristics and guidelines of systems that are deemed more successful seemed to consistently rise to the surface. Here is a listing of the guidelines that we came up with and that have proven successful in a great many organizations.

Overall Guidelines

• Transparent:
  • Be open and clear about what is being done and how.
  • Avoid a “black-box” mentality. The calculation of the scores should be transparent and easily understood to all of those affected by the system.

• Require Visible Leadership Support:
  • Leaders should encourage employees to participate in data collection,
  • Hold managers accountable for sharing results with employees and action planning,
  • With assistance as needed, leaders create plans for using survey results within their area of responsibility,
  • Create and cascade high level action plans,
  • Have regular feedback to staff on activities related to objectives.

• Make the Effort Substantial and Relevant:
  • Rigorous survey and process design,
  • Ongoing validation through rigorous research of the instrument, demonstrating why it matters (e.g. linking index scores to business metrics),
  • Commit to continue the survey program on a regular basis.  Any performance goal or incentive program works best when consistently applied over a longer period.  Managers and employees begin to understand what types of efforts lead to success. This understanding is critical for the program to effectively motivate and reward improving the work environment.  The commitment to continue should include plans to re-administer the survey and the goal or incentive program on a regular basis.
  • Ensure that the managers who are affected by the performance goal or incentive program have the ability (including time, budget, and other resources) to make real improvements on areas identified as the priorities.

• Have a Transition Period:
  • A “dry run” period where everyone gets comfortable with the process, the calculations and what is being incented, as well as what has to happen to achieve incented goals.
  • The “formula” for the linkage should be communicated well in advance.  As with any incentive or performance management system, expectations should be communicated well enough in advance so that managers have a chance to react and do not feel the “rules have changed” in midstream.

• Provide for Mid-Cycle Corrections:
  • Providing feedback mid-way through the cycle so managers are not surprised by year-end achievements or failures. Provides an opportunity to focus on what is working or correct what is not.

• Apply Incentive Compensation to Appropriate Levels/Managers:
  • Incentive pay should be aimed at senior managers or those long enough in their roles or those whose responsibilities can directly impact results.  Senior managers can often typically influence more organization-wide topics than a lower level or front-line manager.
  • Senior managers can also have group goals set (goals that they pursue as a group) as well as individual goals for their own units.

Guidelines for what/how to incent:

• You Get What You Reward:
  • Reward the behavior you want, not simply target attainment

• Amount to Incent:
  • The percentage of incentive compensation commonly linked to employee engagement surveys is typically between 5-15% of the total incentive compensation. Other items such as customer satisfaction scores, achieving financial targets etc. make up the rest.

• Create Baseline First:

• The first time out, goals should be kept simple, learn the process, create basic action plans and make any critically needed changes.  Second time out, goals can get more complex and are set for both action taken and score movement.

• Numerical Goals Need not be Uniform:
  • Those at 25th percentile or lower, need to improve more (i.e. move their scores further) than those at 75th percentile or higher. Those at top of distribution can have maintenance goals. Specific goals are best set in consultation with supervisor, rather than by rote formula.
  • Base the program not just on improvements, but on attaining and maintaining a specified level of favorability.  In this way, the managers who are already good at fostering a positive working environment are not punished.  It is always easier for those who need the large improvements to realize the largest gains.

• Goals Need Not Be Insular:
  • A Combination of Company Goal/Business Goal/Personal Goal can drive the message that both teamwork as well as personal achievement is required to achieve maximum benefit.
  • Goals can also be set only at an organizational-wide or BU level, and not at an individual manager level.  Lower level managers/supervisors can have goals related to activity (completing action plans) rather than numbers.

• Goals Need Not be Limited to Next Cycle:
  • Longer-term goals aimed at the “ultimate” desired end-state are often necessary. For instance, a 6-point change in score over two years rather than 3 points within one takes a longer-term view.

• Set Goals Against an Internal Benchmark:
  • Goals set against an internally derived standard often carry the most weight, and credibility, since the goal is to look like how other parts of the organization, or groups within the organization already looks.

Things to Avoid

• Blindly Chasing a Number – Score Attainment as Only Goal:
  • Targets are often set and people then can lose sight of what they should really be trying to accomplish as they chase the number. Hitting an engagement target represents potential, nothing more. The business does not magically take care of itself just because you hit a number.

• A Direct Connection to Non-Management Employee Bonuses:
  • Too often employees are encourage not to “screw it up” for everyone and to respond positively on engagement when their own and their immediate supervisor’s bonuses are simply tied to a numerical target.

• Unrealistic Improvement Targets:
  • If an unrealistic targets or behaviors are selected as goals, when most people don’t achieve goals, they will either look for “work-a-rounds” or the process and goals lose credibility.

• Statistical Significance as Driver of Goals:
  • As you go deep in organizations, groups get small and make statistical significance an inappropriate choice. Practical significance with a business orientation is best.

© 2010 by Jeffrey M. Saltzman. All rights reserved.

Visit OV: www.orgvitality.com

Organizations are companies, producing products and services for sale, but they can also be volunteer fire departments, bridge clubs, reading circles, religious organizations, or schools. Let’s define an organization as any group of people who get together for the accomplishment of shared goals that are better and more easily accomplished together than by any individual alone. And let’s define mediocrity as being average or similar to other organizations. With some rare exceptions, the last thing an organization wants is to have its products or services to be viewed as hum drum, just like anyone else’s.

Imagine you are looking into a room with a divider down the middle. On one side of the divider there are 2000 molecules of oxygen and on the other side there are none. There is a hole in the divider allowing the oxygen molecules from one side of the room to move to the other, if in their random bouncing around they perchance pass through the opening. At the beginning of this thought experiment, when all of the oxygen is on one side of the room, you have a greater degree of order than when some of it begins to diffuse to the other side. How many ways are there (various combinations of molecules) to have all of the oxygen molecules on one side of the room while the other side has none? The answer is that there is only one way to accomplish that. How many ways are there to have one oxygen molecule on one side of the room and the other 1999 on the other? The answer is 2000, because any one of the 2000 molecules could be the one to move the other side of the room. Now, how many ways are there to have 2 oxygen molecules on one side of the room and 1998 on the other? The answer jumps to 1,999,000, because there are that many combinations of any 2 molecules that can theoretically move to the other side of the room.

So if you think of perfection as having all the oxygen molecules on one side of the room, neat and tidy (a state of low entropy), there is only one way to accomplish that, and as you move away from perfection (a higher state of entropy) the number of ways to accomplish oxygen diffusion rises very rapidly, in fact it rises logarithmically. If you think of the eventual end state of this thought experiment, that the oxygen gas will equalize itself across the entire room with 1000 molecules on each side of the divider, the  number of ways to accomplish that jumps to 2 x 10⁶⁰⁰ (that is the number 20 with 600 zeros after it).  There are a huge number of different pathways than can be taken to reach equilibrium of oxygen distribution within the room.

Across many physical processes, the world we live upon, over time, tends to move from rare conditions, for instance, all the molecules of oxygen on one side of the room, which can be accomplished only one way, to much more common conditions, i.e. the number of ways in which the oxygen can diffuse itself across the room. And we should all count ourselves as very lucky that the world works this way, or you could be walking around in your neighborhood and all of a sudden find yourself in an area lacking in oxygen. Don’t you just hate it when that happens? “Honey, why are you so blue?” “I was out jogging and ran into an area with no oxygen.”

In many respects the results above reflect the probability of one type of event, equilibrium of the oxygen distribution across the room (very likely to happen over time), against the probably of another event, that all of the oxygen would be on one side of the room (not impossible, but very unlikely). While the number of possibilities for the combinations of which molecules will end up on one side of the room or another is huge, the likelihood of any one molecule, over time, ending up on one side of the room or another is 50/50. The difference in difficulty in determining which combination of 1000 molecules will end up on one side of the room vs. the other, compared to predicting the likelihood of any one molecule ending up on one side or the other is not dissimilar to challenges organizations face in creating effective and efficient organizations as they try to maximize current performance while building future organizational potential.

Organizations may start out with somewhat “rare” conditions, a unique combination of people, or new technology, or a hot product, etc. but as they grow and bring in more and more people there will be a natural tendency for the organization to reflect the characteristics of the population external to the organization, as well as being faced with all of the same problems that commonly occur to other organizations. As an example, technologies and products can be copied over time, becoming a dispersed capability available to many organizations, or someone else can achieve the same result with another technology.

This effect will cause an organization to run the risk of becoming quite average or mediocre if they are not constantly injecting new energy into critical processes. As more and more individuals diffuse into the organization, the natural tendency will be for the internal conditions within the organization to reflect, by and large, the external environment from which they came. If they do not, it means that there is some form of systematic bias at work, which can work in the organizations favor or against the organization depending on the type of bias.

And as organizations need to pick and choose in which activities they should invest and spend resources, which will have the most impact on organizational performance, the natural tendency is that they will begin to look more and more like other large organizations, especially as they continue to grow in size. Since organizations tend to operate within similar environments they all tend to have very many similar issues and struggles. In cases like this benchmarking to look like other organizations, even those others most admired, is an attempt to strive for mediocrity.

Think for instance of a selection procedure that is designed to determine whom to hire. Say there is one opening within an organization and 100 people apply for the job. In order to determine which “one” to hire you put the candidates through a rigorous screen. The research on the screen indicates that higher scores on the screen tend to result in hiring people with better job performance. The operative word here is “tend”. Just as you cannot predict for certain which side of the room a particular molecule will end up upon, you cannot predict with absolute certainty which “one” out of the 100 applicants will be the most successful over the long term in the job, or even if the one selected will actually fail. The best that the research can do is to give you better odds at success. That improvement in odds provided by the selection procedure is when you are taking one person at a time, think of the added complexity if you were to try to determine the best person of the 100, to interact with the others already within the organization, and not just against the job. Which combination of 1000 potential employees will result in an optimum solution? The odds of successfully achieving that perfect combination are quite low, but luckily while there may only be one perfect combination there are thousands or perhaps millions of somewhat less than perfect, but very acceptable solutions to be had.

An organization’s ability to improve those odds leading to exceptional performance, depends on how well and how thoughtfully practices and procedures have been put into place that resist the natural tendency to simply become like everyone else, expending the necessary energy to create the rare conditions that makes them exceptional. Beating the odds requires the constant expenditure of organizational and individual energy.

© 2010 by Jeffrey M. Saltzman. All rights reserved.

Visit OV: www.orgvitality.com

The arrow of time in our universe is unidirectional, moving from the past, to the present and forward into the future.  No matter how much we might desire to freeze moments that are precious to us, capturing forever their special meanings, they slip through our fingers as time marches on oblivious, neither slowing, standing still, nor retreating from its own journey. Though we sometimes seem to view ourselves as disconnected observers of time, remembering past and projecting or modifying the future from some place outside of the flow, we live within the time flow and are firmly subject to it.

One thing that is certain, as time moves forward things change. Things change for people as well as for organizations, inexorably. And just like you cannot control the flow of time in which we reside, you cannot slow down, stop or reverse change from happening. But both individuals and organizations can do things that will help them cope with change and to deal with, mitigate and even use its effects to personal and organizational advantage.

One key to dealing with the effects of change is to become more resilient, on an individual level and an organizational level.  How does a child raised in poverty in the Bronx rise to become a Supreme Court judge, or a child from humble roots in Ohio become the Speaker of the House, or a child raised by a teen mom, in an unstable, unpredictable environment, rise to become President of the United States? These were not children of privilege, these were children of resilience. Look at the innumerable children of immigrants, living and growing up in marginal conditions, who over the years became the engines of our economic prosperity, the pillars of our educational institutions, the creative geniuses behind our innovations and technological breakthroughs, or perhaps simply the doctor who saves the life of your child.

Organizations of resilience are seen everywhere we turn, from family farms, to single proprietor craftspeople, to large private sector corporations, to governmental entities, to NGOs and educational institutions. During the course of a year these organizations may be dealing with recession and the resultant drop in business, the next a merger or acquisition perhaps a hostile takeover, the next a disruptive new competitor, the next a disruptive new technology.  Each and every organization out there today will have a continuous stream of challenges that they will need to successfully overcome. And in today’s environment those challenges are coming at them at a faster and more furious pace.  How do these organizations become more rather than less resilient to the forces that will constantly impinge and perhaps even use the constant state-of-change to their advantage?

Resiliency is the notion of positive adaptation when faced with significant adversity or environmental threats. This definition implies that significant threats or severe adversity is present and that the individual or organization positively copes with those threats. The research that has been done on resiliency has shown that being more resilient rather than less leads to more positive outcomes for both individuals and organizations. And it is pretty clear that organizations that partake of certain activities can enhance their resiliency. Cutting across the literature the activities that make organizations more resilient seem to fall within 3 main buckets. The first one is paying attention to and mitigating the effects of the external environmental factors. The second bucket is investing in organizational capabilities and the third is recognition of achievements. Each of these buckets has sub-activities that could be summarized as follows:

Environment

Monitoring: Information collection, environmental monitoring and the appropriate analysis, dissemination and actions surrounding that information (for example, employee, customer and supplier surveys, mystery shopper, competitive benchmarking, technology awareness monitoring, market trends, the gathering and analysis of other business metrics)

Reducing: Minimizing the occurrence of negative chain reactions that can occur from one threat, before they spiral out of control. Compartmentalization of negative events so that they do not affect the entire organization. (for example, by the use of strong internal and external communications networks, strong accountability systems).

Investment

Warding: Investing in a shared vision, a shared operating style, senior leadership, employees, products and services, and quality—the standardization of those products and services as well as organizational procedures. (for example, creating a customer service culture, of a values statement, or a standard of operational excellence)

Transforming: Turning risks into opportunities by developing a culture of innovative and creating organizational capabilities (for example, rewarding innovative ideas and performance that goes above and beyond to solve problems, creating deep bench strength, tapping into the diversity of talent and developing that talent)

Enhancing: Increasing organizational effectiveness and efficacy (for example, cost control, state-of-the-art business processes, contingency planning)

Achievement

Celebrating: Celebrating and rewarding organizational and personal accomplishments (for example, successful completion of organizational and personal goals; installing robust reward and recognition systems)

In reviewing a number of models and then stepping back from any single model of organizational performance, there appear to be six enduring challenges that virtually any organization faces in its pursuit of growth and financial sustainability, in terms of increasing its resiliency or, more generally, Organizational Vitality. These are the challenges that organizations need to become more resilient upon. Three of these challenges can be viewed as internally focused and there can be viewed as externally focused. They are:

Internally

Clear and Compelling Leadership. The overarching mission and direction of the organization needs to be developed and translated through its leaders in order to properly secure and align resources.

Engaged Employees. Organizations need to create an engaging experience to encourage the most from the people who fuel the processes, create the innovation, and deliver for the customers.

Quality Work Processes. Products need to be efficiently created and, along with services, effectively delivered.

Externally

Attractive Offerings. Organizations seek to create value by providing customers—particularly paying customers—with valued and competitive products and services.

Service Orientation. Organizations need to instill a service orientation. No matter what the organization offers, it must be offered in a manner that distinguishes the organization.

Customer as Brand Advocates. Developing brand advocates who are willing to speak highly of your products or service in this interconnected age is critical.

Increasing an organization’s resiliency like any other activity is not a magic bullet that solves each and every problem faced, however the evidence does seem clear that resiliency enhancement can have positive and lasting organizational performance improvement affects.

References:

Saltzman, J.M. & Brooks, S.M. (2010), Strategic Surveying in the Global Marketplace and the Role of Vitality Measures. In Lundby, K. (ed.), Going Global: Practical Applications and Recommendations for HR and OD Professionals in the Global Workplace. Jossey Bass.

© 2010 by Jeffrey M. Saltzman. All rights reserved.

Visit OV: www.orgvitality.com

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.” – John Stuart Mill

Ok, I have to admit it, in the spirit of continuous improvement, I went looking for moose again, dragging my family along (but I don’t think they minded). This time, with the aid of Jerry the Moose Whisperer, I found one. My search for the elusive moose has provided the material for a number of blog pieces over the years as well as expeditions to various parts of the country and became the title of a book I wrote on organizational goal setting called “A Moose in the Distance”.

Each summer we take a vacation as soon as school lets out and before camp starts for my daughter. This year we drove up to Maine. We spent a day in Freeport, rummaging around its shops and the fabulous L.L. Bean store, and taking in a Saturday night concert on the green. Then we headed further north along the coast to Acadia National Park with its breathtaking seascapes and mountain vistas. On the way to Acadia, we took a rest stop in Georgetown, which sits on the very end of one of those Maine peninsulas, those fingers of land that jut out into the Atlantic Ocean. Sitting on the dock in Georgetown was the Five Island Lobster Company which gets its seafood, the day’s catch of Haddock and Lobsters, from the fishermen returning to the dock and cooks them up fresh for those who manage to find them. A very popular place as its reputation for quality sea food has people seeking them out in this out of the way location.

We clambered aboard a whale watching tour boat in Bar Harbor, traveling 10 miles or so out to sea, first visiting an island where Puffins breed and then in an area called the ballpark, we caught sight of a rare and endangered North Atlantic Right whale, with only 400-450 left, a Finback and a few Minke whales. All in all we had a whale of a time, even though maybe a quarter of the people on the ship ended up sea sick. Every crew member was walking about suitably attired in surgical gloves, carrying paper towels, disinfectant spray and barf bags.

Then we headed in-land and further north to Bingham, Maine and North Country Rivers, an outfitter, lodging and camping facility, where Jim, provides white water rafting, bicycling, ATVs, snowmobiling and moose safaris among his offerings. The cabin we stayed in was on the edge of a grass landing strip and I have to admit to being somewhat startled early one morning as a small plane took off right outside my window.

At the end of our first evening there, pretty far out in the middle of no-where, on a logging road cut through the dense forest, marshes and ponds, in a van being driven by a guide known as Jerry the Moose Whisperer, we caught sight of Matilda, a moose of noble character who graciously gave us about 3 minutes of her time before retreating into the denser forest. It felt like little more than an extended glimpse, but it fulfilled a goal I had set for myself a number of years earlier to see a moose in the wild. It was a great feeling to accomplish the long sought after sighting. We also did some hiking there to Moxie Falls, a waterfall deep in the woods and rode trail bikes down an old railroad bed, which North Country Rivers had helped convert for use by the general public.

And of course I couldn’t help myself, analyzing the behaviors of the organizations around me and the people who were part of those organizations, wondering what lessons I could incorporate from these experiences into my worldview. While some of the messages about what makes for interesting experiences and product differentiation are very clear, I came away with mixed feelings about the state of humans, our societies and what we are capable of. First let’s look at organizational experiences offered and how they stood out in a positive fashion.

L.L. Bean is well known for the quality of their products and their 100% satisfaction guarantee. But I have access to that through their catalog sales or website. The experience in their store in Freeport however stands out as a differentiator for me. First, the attitudes of the sales force is superb, they genuinely convey a feeling of wanting to help. Second, the selection is mind boggling. You needed a trail bike? Here are 150 different models to choose from. The store itself is open 24/7, and many make it an experience to go to the store at off hours which is quite a different experience than when it is packed during the day. Within the store you can sign up to take classes, or go on expeditions using their gear. They are a good neighbor, visibly supporting the local community and environmental causes that people care about. Can only large organizations operate in this fashion? Looking at some of the smaller organizations I encountered on this trip answers that question.

The Five Island Lobster Company is not a large organization and yet it too offers a very unique experience in its own way, residing in a small building, almost a shack on a dock, offering up some of the best tasting fish and lobster you will ever eat. Yes, the selection here is limited to what the fishermen bring back as the catch of the day, but the experience and quality is unsurpassed. What makes people drive 20 miles down a narrow peninsula to a small building on a dock to eat some fish, knowing that the only way back is to retrace your footsteps back up that 20 mile long road? A unique experience, supporting a fishing culture that is long on historical significance and today is carried out in a sustainable fashion, in an area that visually will simply take your breath away and most importantly, serving a very high quality product.

The uniqueness of experiences is perhaps best brought out by the whale watching and moose safari. Yes, you can cook your own fish, you can take a boat out on the ocean yourself (and perhaps return), you can drive your own car into the back woods of Maine, but the likelihood of having a successful experience, spotting the whale or seeing the elusive moose, becomes much greater when you engage in those activities with organizational specialists dedicated to creating experiences that you would have a hard time duplicating on your own.

When the experiences you have and the organizations that create them link their products to higher causes, such as preservation, research, job creation, education, or personal health and fitness, people are likely to feel even better about engaging in them. For instance, each whale expedition had on board researchers from Allied Whale, part of the College of the Atlantic who were collecting data on the whales for research purposes. The boat stopped at an island and took the time to talk by radio to a researcher who is spending the summer collecting data on Puffins and other birds during the summer breeding season, conveying a bevy of up to the moment facts and figures. The Moose Whisperer engages in a non-stop dialog, educating his passengers about growing up in rural Maine, environmental conditions and the wildlife to be found along the trail, not to mention some other odd characters who add local flavor, like the squatter on the paper company land who occasionally is spotted wandering about naked. While he played at being the simple country-bred man, it was very clear that there was a very articulate, skilled and thoughtful person under the exterior façade. And North Country Rivers itself is creating jobs in an area that would be hard pressed otherwise to create them.

High quality products, processes that deliver up experiences and services that are unique or hard to duplicate, supplied by experienced staff who obviously take pride in what they do and perhaps want to share some of what they know with you, letting you in on some mysterious or moosterious, but perhaps hard to acquire information. When taken all together they create an unbeatable combination.

Though I would say that I felt very positive about most of my experiences this trip, and would certainly recommend the trip to anyone, at the other end of my musings, I could not help but feel somewhat depressed by spotting floating garbage bags, plastic and other waste in what you would want to be pristine ocean waters. Historically the Right whale was so named by whalers, because to them it was the right whale to kill, of the right size and once killed because of its high blubber content, floated to the surface. And kill them they did, almost to the point of extinction. There were instruction cards on the boat from NOAA on how best to disentangle sea turtles from fishing nets, a man-made hazard that has threatened that graceful species.

And out in the middle of the Maine woods, on land which had been denuded by lumber companies, garbage such as bottles, cans, bits and pieces of machinery, plastic pails and in general debris left by logging operations was not hard to find. I know we need to exploit the resources of this planet in order to survive ourselves. I have no argument with those who hunt or fish and consume what they catch or kill, or make their living that way. I enjoy reading newspapers as much as anyone and have been known to dabble in woodworking. I have no desire to live in a cave with no heat or air conditioning, wearing crudely fabricated garments (hey wait a minute, that’s what my wife says I wear). But, ever since we have been exploiting the resources of this planet, why has our civilization done so in such a destructive a fashion? Why have we driven so many species such as the Right whale to the point of extinction? Why when we harvest lumber, even if we do so in a sustainable fashion, do we leave the garbage of our operations scattered behind us? Didn’t their parents teach them to clean up after themselves? Why can we not operate in a way that preserves the resources of this planet in such as fashion that future generations will need in order to be successful? I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush, as there are many organizations out there doing the right thing and operating in a fashion that should be modeled by others. Yet, until they become the standard by which everyone operates, it is in our best interests as a society to make sure organizations operate in a fashion by which our planet and all the creatures with which we share it with can prosper.

During the Passover meal in Jewish households, there is a point in the meal at which a matzah is broken in half and one portion hidden for the children in the room to find later, it is called the Afikoman. The search for the Afikoman by the children is to help remind those present that “what seems lost can be recovered, and what seems broken repaired”. It is up to us to make those sentiments something more than a meal-time ritual.

© 2010 by OrgVitality, Jeffrey M. Saltzman. All rights reserved.

Visit OV: www.orgvitality.com

As we seek to understand extraordinary events we would be well served by examining what has become ordinary.

Ordinary things provide comfort, for as they become familiar parts of our lives they can help us achieve a sense of consistency, a sense of control, a sense of predictability. We are creatures of habit, even if for some the habit is to never do the same thing twice. We seek out similar experiences to ones we have had in the past. Some seek the rush of adrenaline from the thrill of trying new things and others the comfort of unchanging routine. For many the morning cup of coffee, tea or juice served just so, creates a sense of being on track, of not having to deal with something out of the ordinary first thing in the morning. We settle into our routines. But we can’t afford to become complacent about our routines.  Complacency can lead to obsolescence, to overlooking risk, to not seeing the world as it truly is right before your eyes.

Sometimes when you look at the people on the edges of society, people who operate beyond the limits of what most of us would consider ordinary behavior, the edge itself becomes a magnifying glass, providing insights that we might normally overlook. For instance, the swindler who is caught, on one of those exposé TV shows, in a complex web of lies while trying to scam people, sees the behavior as acceptable because “everyone lies”. To the scam artist it has become ordinary to cheat, to lie, and to steal. It has become part of the normal way of conducting oneself.  To change someone’s behavior you must change what is accepted as “ordinary”.

The work environment is no different, and what we consider to be ordinary becomes part of the normal course of events, the way we conduct ourselves and our business. For a manager, as an example, an ordinary thing may involve shaving that budget just a few percent each year. It becomes normal to cut on an annual basis in an attempt to become more efficient and to increase bottom-line performance. And while each cut by itself may seem minimal, over the course of time they may add up to an extraordinary draconian situation. It would not surprise me at all if the managers responsible for the Deep Water Horizon drilling platform felt those pressures to cut just a little bit here and there to increase efficiency, to bring that well in on-time and under budget. Cutting simply becomes part of the normal operating routine, it becomes ordinary. Yet not pushing one’s performance can lead to complacency and the risk of a competitor coming along and making you and your organization obsolete. Leveling the playing field by putting into place minimum standards of “ordinary” is necessary to break that cycle.

But there is a balance that must be struck. That balance is between maximizing current performance (operating most efficiently) while at the same time creating future potential for success (operating in a fashion that leads to other and new opportunity). If the balance swings too far one way or the other the organization and all of it constituencies are at risk. An organization that monitors itself with respect to that balance, adjusting and correcting imbalances that occur can achieve higher levels of performance.

Ordinary things are found in and can help interpret extraordinary circumstances. After Abraham Lincoln was assassinated an inventory was conducted of the contents of his pockets. You might wonder what the 16^th president of the United States, the gifted leader who gave us the Gettysburg address, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13^th Amendment, and the continuance of the United States itself, had in his pockets at the time of his death. What things would this man, whose achievements are viewed as extraordinary carry around on his person? The inventory produced two pairs of spectacles and a lens polisher, a pocketknife, a watch fob, a linen handkerchief, and a brown leather wallet containing a five-dollar Confederate note (a souvenir from the recently visited and captured Confederate capital) and nine newspaper clippings. He was carrying ordinary things expecting nothing more than a pleasant evening at the theater.

On the other hand, a very ordinary 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee with 133,000 miles on it just sold for $26,437.50, a sum far greater than book value. This ordinary vehicle commands such a price because it was once the personal car of the 44^th president of the United States, Barak Obama. It is an ordinary car to which an extraordinary value is ascribed due to its provenance and the person who paid that amount certainly expects the car to at a minimum hold its value if not to increase in value substantially. I have to add here that I too drive a 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee with only 89,000 miles on it, with good rubber, and I would accept somewhat less than $26,000 for it.

Listening to music, a walk in the park, a ride on the train, cutting the grass, taking the family out for dinner, are all examples of what some would say are quite ordinary behavior. But what we define as ordinary not only changes over time but is affected by changing standards, by geography, by economic conditions, by culture and status among other factors. My child is lucky enough to get vaccinated against a whole host of childhood diseases, vaccinations that other children in other parts of the world will forego. What is ordinary for her would be extraordinary for others. Some things that you might view as extraordinary, if it is happening to you, say removal of a gall bladder, or the repair of a hernia, are quite ordinary for the surgeon who performs similar operations almost daily. Sometimes it is very difficult to see how an extraordinary event for yourself, like a graduation, a promotion, a marriage, the birth of a child, a diagnosis of cancer, can be quite ordinary for observers to that event from a more dispassionate vantage point.

And if you’ll indulge me, if we take it to a higher plane, while we may all be ordinary, each and every one of us nothing more than flesh and blood, we are all extraordinary in that we are all, each and every one of us, made up of star stuff. Each and every atom in our bodies first came into being in the heart of a star and was released from that heart upon the death of the star in an explosive nova. The early universe you see contained only lighter elements such as helium and hydrogen. Other heavier elements of which we consist (e.g. carbon, oxygen, iron) began to be synthesized only after the first generation of stars coalesced and ignited the fusion process at their cores. That stellar fusing process created the very atoms of our being. When those first generation stars exploded the heavier elements were released, and made available for the earth to form and for life itself to come into being. While we at times may feel quite ordinary, our origins are clearly extraordinary.

Extraordinary events are oftentimes surrounded and caused by what has become standard or ordinary in terms of how people behave. And different people have differing definitions of what is ordinary. Finding out what that definition consists of can lead to insights into their behavior and consequent events. In some corners, corruption and bribery have become ordinary, in other corners the desire to squeeze out a bit more profit drives what is accepted as ordinary behavior, and in other corners it is standard for people to go way above and beyond what others would consider ordinary to be in service of those who have less than what they do. We do have the ability to change the definition of ordinary, each and every one of us. We do it all the time. All we have to do is something extraordinary and then make it routine.

© 2010 by Jeffrey M. Saltzman. All rights reserved.

Visit OV: www.orgvitality.com

There are those who think only they know best when it comes to organizational decision making. And while it is perfectly ok to have strongly held opinions, it also behooves one to know when to listen to the wisdom of the crowd. Assuming that you have crossed the Rubicon and are ready to heed or at least consider the advice of those who are usually more than willing to share some, there are some guidelines that if followed can make the process not too overwhelming and perhaps increase the probability of success. This is a quick summary and the highlighted links will point you to more detailed discussions on each topic.

1. Don’t try to do too much. If every manager within an organization once a year picked one meaningful thing that went above and beyond and actually made it happen, significant positive change would occur. If two things were chosen, one should support an overall organization-wide initiative and one should focus on local conditions. By limiting the number you also eliminate excuse-making. You either did it or did not. Reference: The One Thing.
2. Every organization has strengths. Sometimes picking actions that build off of and are natural extension of the strengths, the skills and talents already in place will be more successful than actions that come out of left field. If you are trying something new as an action and do not know how to accomplish it, set a learning goal – how you will learn more about and develop the skills that enable you to succeed on the action. If you are very familiar with how to improve on a particular issue then set a specific measurable goal. Reference: Increasing the Wealth of Organizations.
3. People are people. We can spend our time searching for the differences between us, but when it comes to the world of work and what people fundamentally want and expect out of the work environment we are all much more similar than we are different. We all more or less want the same things. Find me a person on this planet, of any age, of any gender, of any ethnicity for instance, that does not want to be treated with respect and dignity. (I exclude those with pathology). Think about how the actions you are considering can help fulfill these basic universal needs. Reference: People at work: or it is Life and Searching for a gang in Nebraska.
4. There are no magic bullets – success, most of the time, boils down to some brain power, hard work and a dose of being in the right place at the right time. Those who spend their lives searching for magic bullets, elixirs, quick fixes will spend their lives searching in vain. Reference: Models, Representations of Reality
5. Don’t prematurely shut down the creative process. Create a lot of good ideas in a brain storming mode. On a second or third pass through the ideas generated, narrow the field. Pick the one thread that can be most leveraged, the thread that could unravel or hold together the whole organizational tapestry. Reference 40:1
6. Your actions are at risk for failure. As you plan them out, understanding common reasons why actions fail can help you avoid pitfalls. Actions can fail because of a. lack of knowledge/training, b. lack of correct business processes, c. lack of desire/support. Reference: Errors
7. It can be good to measure, to create metrics to measure your progress, but just because you are not measuring does not mean what you are doing is not good. Where you can create metrics, do so. Reference: Managing what you are not measuring, and Measuring what you are Managing.
8. You will make mistakes. It is a given. Mistakes and errors will occur as you pick and execute on your action plans. Don’t be so consumed with making the absolute right decision that you make no decisions or miss opportunities because of decision delays. Reference: Peanut Butter Anyone?
9. Change happens- look forward not back. Reference: Well I Guess that is not Going to Grow Back.
10. Openness and transparency regarding what you are doing is the best policy. If you cannot be open and transparent about it ask yourself if you should be doing it. Reference: Transparency and Organizational Success.
11. Aim High. Reference: Abnormal Change.

© 2010 by Jeffrey M. Saltzman. All rights reserved.

Visit OV: www.orgvitality.com