Part III: Leadership and Organization Development by Design - Strategic Agility

Strategic agility is all about leadership thinking and decision making.

Let's focus on thinking. I really like Kenneth Craik's definition of thinking. He proposed thinking is a feedback support process which is both physical and mental in nature. The process occurs between the time we perceive something and the resulting actions. As humans, we decide a couple of things either consciously or unconsciously. Among them are:

1. How long to remain in the thinking process
2. The framework we will utilize to examine our perceptions

A choice to overly lengthen or delay the thinking process can also lead to "analysis paralysis".

In an excellent piece of work titled Mental Models, the authors said, as humans, we tend to see things through mental frameworks we have constructed. The frameworks or mental models and patterns we use can lead us to either course:

1. rectification (correction)
2. reinforcement (keep going in the same direction)
3. redirection (new paths forward)

Therefore, our view of the world, ourselves, what we are to do, and how we are to do it are
dependent on the mental models we have constructed. These models help us to anticipate and clarify our interactions with others and with the environment.

Consequently, according to McKendree, Small, and Stenning, mental models are a tool of thinking and they are constantly evolving models of models. Mental models and representations are so powerful that they can affect not only the rules, procedures, and strategies one holds but also how one performs (Mental Models, 1983). So, in terms of speed and the frameworks utilized, leadership thinking agility is astronomically important. Why?
 

If strategy and the goals of the firm are interdependent, then a mistake in strategic thinking can lead to a mistake in goals established for the firm. How could this happen? Robert Grant proposed agility challenges occur as a result of behavioral and cognitive factors. Included among the factors are:

1. rigidity relative to core capabilities (sticking with core competence no matter what)
2. social pattern disruptions (patterns of collaboration, coordination, communication)
3. perceptions of threats to power (control)
4. and complex configurations between strategy, structure, systems, culture, and employee skills (complexity).

According to Grant, we also have a tendency to lock into common structures and strategies and to prefer what's known over what's to be discovered. The preferences are reinforced by what is called bounded rationality and satisficing. Bounded rationality refers to the limited capacity of humans to process information. The limitation ultimately leads to constraints on the set of choices from which one can select. Satisficing refers to settling for satisfactory rather than optimal performance as a result of the termination of the search for better solutions once a satisfactory performance level is achieved.

Consequently, Hickman proposed the response to the environment is a critical and systemic thinking challenge for which leaders have to be adept at conceptualizing their strategic insight. Leaders have to be adept at surfacing their thinking and associated underlying assumptions in order to understand how they operate to undermine their own intentions. Again, thinking ability is critical because as Odiorne (1979) explained, a mistake in goals will produce a mistake in activity.

So, what is an L&OD professional to do in the face of these challenges during complex and chaotic times. Well, to use a Becky-ism, proposing that "it is 5 o'clock somewhere" is not the answer. This Becky-ism was the cue that it was time for Happy Hour and the alcohol that comes along with it. Yes, and one must soberly face up to these challenges.

The key as an L&OD professional is to examine underlying assumptions as part of the work. If true clarity and communication is to be attained, then this level setting step should not be missed. Why? Because, in my experience, often the underlying assumptions are different for each key decision maker. Further, the key decision makers may also not be on the same page regarding key terms or words they are using to describe the circumstances or solutions.

So, is everyone really on the same page and singing from the same hymn book? Are we just assuming so? Would you think it probably important to have clarity regarding assumptions for alignment, change management, and true sustainability of solutions implemented. As a very wise and wonderful leader once said, if the assumptions are right then the options to deal with the challenges stand the chance of being right.

The next post will include a discussion of three strategic organizational frameworks leaders may be using to make decisions. Until then, ask and answer the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.
View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/
Follow @PhyllWright Twitter

This post contains an "ism" from a former colleague, Becky Hall. She could easily come up with quips to add humor to any situation. Of course, no alcoholic beverages were allowed during the course of a work day from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at any time. So, at various times during the day, if a heavy conversation led most of us to think we needed to be at Happy Hour immediately, then Becky would break the tension by saying, "Well, it's five o'clock somewhere!". This was, of course, a joke! Thank you for the humor Becky.

References
Craik, K. J. W. (1966). The nature of psychology. Stephen L. Sherwood (Ed.). Cambridge,
          United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis (Seventh ed.). Chichester, United
          Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hickman, G. R. (Ed.). (1998). Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era. Thousand
           Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McKendree, J., Small, C., & Stenning, K. (2002). The role of representation in teaching
           and learning critical thinking skills. Educational Review, 54(1), 57-67. Retrieved from
           http://web.ebscohost.com.library.dub.edu:2048/ehost/pdf? 
           vid=5&hid=114&sid=63b1980c-eb34-4915-b639-892cf7e89aa5%40sessionmgr102
Mental Models. (1983). In Dedre Gerner and Albert L. Stevens (Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
           Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst? 
           action=openPageViewer&docId=55455342#
Odiorne, G. S. (1979). MBO II: a system of managerial leadership for the 80's. Belmont,
            CA: Fearon Pitman Publishers, Inc.
 
 

Part II: Leadership and Organization Development by Design - Organization Strategy

According to Robert Grant, strategy is about winning and strategy links the organization to its environment.

I recall a conversation a year or so ago in which a leader and I were discussing the misuses of the word "strategic"? It sometimes seems that people use the adjective, strategic, to indicate they are visionaries who leave the details to others. Misuse of the term strategic, to borrow a Venita-ism, just "wears me slick". So, let's do a little level setting.

What does "strategy" mean? Robert Grant and Jim Underwood said, strategy is an approach or a plan that answers where and how organizations will compete to make money or create value for their benefactors. For-profit and commercial non-profit organizations also have to ensure they are generating the highest net present value of the organization's future cash flow. Underwood suggests companies who create and execute good strategy are far more successful in achieving the goal of profit maximization than those who do not.

As a quick reminder, Grant wrote the primary benefactors of profits in for-profit organizations are the shareholders. According to Hansmann, in non-profits and government owned organizations the public is the primary benefactor. Non-profits and government owned organizations may also have security holders who are benefactors (e.g., those who have purchased Treasury notes, bonds, T-bills, etc.).

Grant also proposed the firm’s goals and values are or should be directly linked to its strategies. Consequently, developing winning strategies requires significant thinking agility of leaders and staff within organizations. Hickman described leadership as sensing, analyzing, and incorporating environmental changes through processes of interactions between themselves and employees. Yet, he also proposed, while leadership initiates the first steps toward change, employees are expected to be involved as “highly motivated critical thinkers and actors who perform equal but different roles than leaders to meet their mutual goals”. Do you think this sounds like a recipe for employee involvement and engagement? Under these conditions, hoarding information is definitely not a good idea.

So, why should leadership and organization development (L&OD) practitioners care? Great question! Let's assume leadership has a somewhat accurate perspective on the organization's environment. Accordingly, let's also assume leadership has developed a strategy, a critical few strategic goals, and objectives. Let's also assume you have facilitated or they have let you in on their thinking.

Once you are clear about their thoughts, as L&OD practitioners, the job is to ask key questions and provide consultation regarding talent implications and gaps. Why? The reason is alignment. Yes, it is the best way to ensure L&OD work is focused and cohesively meeting the organization's needs. Key questions you could ask and collaboratively answer once you are clear regarding the environment, strategic goals, and objectives include:

1. What must leaders and staff know?
2. How must they behave/act? and...
3. What must they be able to do in order to respond to environmental challenges, execute the strategy, and achieve the resulting key strategic goals and objectives?
4. Which, if any roles, are missing or need to change?
5. How will knowledge, skills, behaviors, roles, and goal accomplishment be reinforced?
6. How will knowledge, skills, behaviors, roles, and goal directives be quickly adjusted as environmental challenges dictate?
7. How will differentiation in rewards for success be leveraged to motivate leaders and staff? 
8. How will you continuously improve and tie outcome metrics to your L&OD efforts?

To be strategic, the big picture or vision is of critical importance and so is some sense of the appropriate level of details or plans. Chaotic and complex times demand some non-linear and inclusive thinking. In these times, to borrow another Amy-ism, we should consider "both/and" when comparing alternatives rather than risk the fallacies of either/or decisions.

After all, truly strategic people should be able to show meaningful outcomes that support their claim of "strategery"! As you may recall, "strategery" was coined by James Downey on Saturday Night Live in a sketch where Will Ferrell played President George W. Bush. The term was later adopted by some in Bush's administration as a joke. Yes, I am joking a little and I am very serious at the same time!

In the next blog, strategic agility will be the topic. Until then, ask and answer the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.

View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/

Follow @PhyllWright Twitter

This post contains a phrase I adored from one of my former leaders. Her name is Venita McCellon-Allen. She gave me an opportunity, the encouragement, and the motivation to grow! Thank you Venita. The phrase or Venita-ism is "wears me slick"! This post also contains another Amy-ism from Amy Tawney. She could produce these nuggets of gold in a split second flat. This time its "both/and". Don't you love it!

References


Grant, R. M. (1998). Contemporary strategy analysis (Third ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom:

      Blackwell.

Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis (Seventh ed.). Chichester, United      
     
      Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hansmann, H. (1996). The changing roles of public, private, and nonprofit enterprise in 

     education, health care, and other human services. In V. R. Fuchs, (Ed.), Individual and 

     Social Responsibility: Child Care, Education, Medical Care, and Long-Term Care in 

     America (pp. 245 - 275). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from 

     http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Hansmannthechangingroles.pdf

Underwood, J. D. (2002). The new corporate strategy. Oxford, United Kingdom: Capstone

     Publishing.

   

For the Love of the Leadership and Organization Development Profession

                                              A Point of View from the Desk of Phyllis Wright, Ph.D.


Before proceeding to the next post on Leadership and Organization Development by Design, some may be wondering why I am including names of theorists and references to their work in my blog. I am so glad for the curiosity.

I have chosen to be a continuous learner in leadership and organization development (L&OD) because knowledge is changing rapidly and one can never know everything. Further, Ryan C. Mack, said the first half of success is knowledge. But, knowledge by itself is not power.

The second half of the success equation is action. So, knowledge plus action equals power. As such, I am as much of a proponent of having a strong theoretical foundation in L&OD as I am for being able to demonstrate flexible and practical application. Why?

Yes, action is the second half of the success equation. It's the effectiveness and efficiency of the actions taken that make the difference. Too often in my career across four industries and working with other colleagues from across the country, I have witnessed or heard of programs designed by well meaning people not delivering anywhere near desired outcomes. I have often wondered what the causes might have been. After all, most of these programs required huge investments of money, time, and energy.

So, I have speculated and asked myself questions such as:

1. How many of these failed programs were not established based upon sound design principles and clear outcomes?
2. What barriers hindered success? What could have been done to overcome the barriers?
3. Are users or clients putting into them what they expect out of them?
4. How often are some of these programs favored or not by very influential people and/or managed by people who feel they can't push back because they want to protect or build their careers while hundreds of thousands of dollars continue to be poured into the programs despite the performance evidence or lack thereof?

Nonetheless, one of my wise and wonderful mentors said when failure happens for one person on the team it tends to reflect on all. Consequently, writers like Dr. Barbara Kellerman, author of The End of Leadership, can rightfully question the viability of L&OD practices when sufficient evidence of success is scarce.

As a member of the L&OD community, my desire for this blog is to bear my portion of the responsibility for the success of the profession by sharing what I have learned. To be an effective contributor means one must commit to getting and keeping their house in order through continuous learning...academic and experiential. Then, and only then, does contributing make sense.

So, my hope in sharing is to ensure underlying L&OD theory and knowledge of how and when to place resulting programs into practice are not the predominant reasons for failure. As with any profession, whatever the reasons for failure, the impact can ignite a spread of mistrust and disrespect of L&OD practitioners and their work.

A body of research and knowledge exists for L&OD. My hopes are:

1. The work is understood and known by those who are "hanging out a shingle" and/or printing L&OD professional titles on their business cards, and/or claiming expertise on their social network profiles, websites, and/or blogs.
2. Practitioners are striving to practically apply their knowledge.
3. Practitioners have made the commitment to continuous and deep learning in the field, measurement rigor, sharing of learning and even adding to the body of knowledge.

The integrity of the profession demands admission of knowledge gaps and pursuit of proper understanding from all who are practicing.

Why is this important? To illustrate...If one needs a triple bypass, then who will be selected to perform the operation? Will the person needing the triple bypass typically select someone to perform the surgery who does not have a proven track record supporting their background and/or experience in performing the surgery? If you said not intentionally, then I agree.

Likewise, if an unproven investment of $50 billion is placed into a development program annually of any type, then do you think a valid question could be who is supporting the investment decisions? Accordingly, while very helpful, would you agree L&OD practice is not just a matter of practitioner popularity/likeability? Further, unless agreed to for very clear, aligned, specific, short-term, and monitored pilots or development activities, would you agree the L&OD practice is not the best place to host consultants who are using the organization as their "guinea pig"?

I am sure this would never happen. Nonetheless, would you also agree L&OD is not the best place to play out influential leaders' career legacy and/or attention grabbing projects and/or political favors for service providers selling products or services that are not aligned with supporting the accomplishment and sustainability of business goals? Further, unless there are agreed upon benefits and clear understanding of risks, would you also agree L&OD is also not the best place to sell services and/or products that undermine or compete with programs already in progress because of the potential breakdowns in program cohesiveness?


Additionally, while mistakes will be made and lessons will be learned, would you agree consistent patterns of fragmentation, errors, and poor quality must be addressed sooner rather than later due to the organization wide impact of most L&OD programs? Do you think there is a chance unsuspecting clients are counting on "expertise" from their consultants and clients may not know when they are not getting the best advice?

The crude reality is months or even years could pass before consultation errors or program failures surface when intentional and well placed metrics are absent. The passage of time may even make course correction almost impossible. By that point, do you think it likely, practitioners/consultants may have already collected their pay checks and may be happily working with their next client as a result of the great recommendation the unsuspecting organization has unwittingly given them? Perhaps, this is why Kellerman suggested leadership development industry consultations come with a warning.

Maybe I am the only one in my career who has observed what I will share next. So, this is purely my perspective and to borrow a Martha-ism, "Lord deliver me from" those claiming to be L&OD practitioners that don't know that they don't know what they are supposed to know. Further, deliver me from those who figure out they don't know what they are supposed to know and decide arrogantly to continue to defy logic and to continue to move forward as they abide in "la-la land".

Accordingly, would you agree it best for practitioners to always be willing to challenge themselves on what they think they know and always be willing to learn and obtain proper support and promptly course correct? The L&OD profession, leaders, and staff within organizations utilizing their services are counting on practitioners' recommendations adding long-term value and establishing a sustainable return on investment of dollars (ROI), energy, and time spent. Value measurement is the hard aspect of the soft work done in L&OD.

Accordingly, do your observations align with the following statement? As much as personal popularity/likeability helps and is needed, the strongest ROI, professional credibility, and trust comes from knowing and being able to put what one knows into practice efficiently and effectively. Is it unreasonable to believe if interventions are well chosen, then their efficiency and effectiveness can be enhanced when there is executive and unwavering support for the removal or reduction of the impact of inevitable barriers? Would you agree common barriers include:

• political "pork" (i.e., anything that is unnecessary and added and maintained per the desires of those with influence)
• political power plays and/or resistance from influential personalities
• organization barriers such as:
• problematic organization structures
• fragmented systems,
• programs, processes, and procedures that clash with or undermine the intervention

...just to name a few? Would you agree the list is longer?

As Dr. Kellerman has so eloquently argued, there are 50 billion reasons to get L&OD work right. I tend to agree. I hope we can engage in dialogue about how to do just that.

In the next post, I will get back on schedule by posting Part II: Leadership and Organization Development by Design - Organization Strategy. Until then, ask and answer the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.

View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/

 
Follow @PhyllWright Twitter      


This post contains a Martha-ism. The Martha-ism is "Deliver me Lord". Martha Moten is my husband's barber. As he acts out Ms. Martha's tales, he typically has me laughing hysterically after his visits to the barber shop. Yes, my husband is somewhat of a comedian at times. I am, typically, in tears from laughing so hard. Thanks Ms. Martha for your consistent and humorous stories! Laughter is truly good for the soul!

References:

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Mack, R. C. (2011). Living in the village. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.