Meaning or measurement

A recent Wharton article focuses on the topic of how to measure employee performance in a world where output volume is no longer an effective measure. A good topic, but a decade or more out of date. The shift away from “production line” approaches – in manufacturing as well as services – started at least as long ago as the introduction of desktop computers.  They provided a way to bring information together quickly to respond to customer requirements faster, but more importantly more flexibly.  This, along with other changes in business models, created customer expectations around service, speed, and innovation that many businesses are still struggling to fully respond to.

Of course, the professors at Wharton know this.  They describe the problems that can come from a “more output for less input” mentality, and sensible steps that can be taken to move away from that.  But, underlying the various difficulties and solutions they discuss is the question: “what leads some employees to be more productive and others less so?”. Forget how you measure it, how do you increase it?

An interesting angle on this comes from an experiment discussed by Dan Ariely in a recent TED talk.  (BTW, I’m a big TED fan. A great source of inspiration, information, and innovation.) The result of the experiment was that people would work 50% harder – for less money on average – if there was even a small amount of meaning or purpose to their work.  50%.  Given the size of that increase, it’s worth considering how much time and effort you spend on creating meaning at work, rather than measurement of work.

What's really holding you back?

Frustrated with results, but not entirely sure what the problem is?  Here’s a checklist to start diagnosing what’s really holding you back:

1. Are you thinking about – and talking about – your situation productively?  What’s the balance between “we have to…” and “we want to…”? ("Want to" tends to be more productive.)
2. How big is your definition of “we”, as in “we want to…”?
3. What’s the level of energy, courage and confidence in the organisation? If it's low, why?
4. How clear is the purpose of your business?  Is it only about shareholder returns, or are there aspects of your purpose that will appeal broadly?
5. Are the values and accepted behaviours in the organisation supportive of working quickly in collaboration?
6. Do you have reliable, fast-cycle management processes for information sharing and co-ordination of action?
7. Is there a written set of goals, timelined plans with clear accountabilities, and measures of progress?
8. Do you have an written, shared model of how your business works today?
9. Do people across the business have visibility to external developments that might impact them?
10. 10. Do you have a rich and fresh flow of analysis, insights, and intuition about the business? Could you be missing key aspects of your situation?

Both could work - how do you make your leadership choice?

My good friend Francois Gall tipped me off to a really great letter to shareholders from Amazon. There's a lot in it to think about: the link they see between their customer-driven focus and their unending quest to improve, their frank recognition that to make progress you have to accept you'll make mistakes, the consistency of their direction over time. But, the thing that struck me the most was that they admit there are at least two approaches to maximising business success.  One (customer focus) which they've chosen and one (competitor focus) which they haven't. If the data and analysis tells you there's one best option, there's really no choice.  In my experience, business  isn't often like that.  Usually, there are at least two sensible options (sometimes more) and all the analysis in the world can't show you which is best.  When there are multiple directions that could lead to the results you want, then it's down to a real choice - and that's where leadership starts.  When both could work, how do you make your leadership choice?

Are fishermen always liars?

We all know about the stories fishermen tell of the one that got away. I'm wondering if fishermen aren't liars in a different sense. To catch a fish, they offer something: a worm, a fake bug, something. But, it's not what it appears to be. It's a hook disguised as something tasty (at least to a fish). In essence, it's a lie. It only works because the fish can't tell the difference. It's not a fair exchange, it's basically theft.

Maybe that's ok if you're lying to is a fish. But what about lying to people? How many businesses only work because they know more than their customers, because their customers can't tell the difference? However many, the truth is they aren't creating any real value, they're just lying, cheating, and stealing.

Distant or deep?

At a Green & Tonic event this week, in discussion with Pater Madden of Forum for the Future, which is a non-profit organisation working globally with business and government to create a sustainable future. We got onto the topic of working with business leaders to help them make strategic decisions about what they want for their business. One technique we both use is to ask them to think about a time comfortably in the future  and what they would like to see then.  The benefit of this is that it allows them to step away from the constraints and pressures of today, to become clearer about who they are and the values they have, and to see what they need to do differently to be true to themselves. As you might imagine, this gets into areas that go well beyond "increasing shareholder value".

The thought that struck me is that the real point of the exercise isn't to look at a time that's distant, but to look at today in a different and deep way.  And, I think most strategy work - particularly in today's unpredictable, fast-paced world - needs to be more about taking a deep look at where (and who) we are and what that means for what we should do now, rather than spending too much time peering into a future that most likely won't ever happen.