A Quantum Voyage

Helping Us All

In Sharp Contrast

This past week, I was reminded of what good results can be achieved if we catch problems early and well in sharp contrast to what can happen if we don’t!

In the early part of the week, a client and I had a good conversation about his business, a non-profit organization, treating emotionally and mentally deficient children and their families. Our conversation focused on his successes. I found out that within this past year, eighty percent of his children with truancy problems, have returned to main- stream educational programs, entered a vocational high school, or earned their GED! Assuming these children continue on their uphill climb, they will become contributing, healthy citizens.

        Several days later, I was confronted by “the lifers” I see at a maximum- security prison when I volunteer.  Instead of becoming contributing members of our society, they cost our tax- payers approximately $40,000 per year and closer to $100,000 per year if they have chronic illnesses as many do.

        If we put our resources behind helping the young, we have a better chance of a positive outcome. The cost in dollars to provide this help when they are kids is a small investment that yields invaluable returns in terms of human lives and societal integrity. And as a by- product, we don't need to build more prisons. What a concept!

-RSL

Eye on the Ball

An article by Fred Collopy appears in the most recent issue of Business Week. Dr. Collopy is a Professor of Information Services at Case Western. In his article he discusses the “problem with problems”. The time honored process of problem definition by its very nature, eschews alternative approaches to resolution.

“A somewhat subtler problem with the defacto emphasis on problems is the long  term effect it has on how managers think about our jobs.”

Our position is that, simply put, keeping our eye on the ball, keeping focused on the goals rather than the obstacles, will deliver better results. Dr. Collopy goes on to characterize the preoccupation with problem solving as “Deficit Thinking” and suggests that we'd do better focusing on what is right with our organization and our strengths. In this way, we would tend to look for opportunities rather than fixing what may not be broken.

Clearly defined goals insist that the individual or group who owns the goal consistently keep their eye on the outcomes and the benefits of goal accomplishment. In this way, we're constantly looking for new or different ways to move forward. We want the “pot of gold at the end of the rainbow”. The tension that exists btween where we are and where we want to be exerts positive pressure, motivation, to take the steps necessary to get what we want. Overcoming obstacles becomes just part of the process.

In our experience, we've found that people with opportunity seeking attitudes tend to out perform people with problem oriented attitudes. They are generally more open to new ideas and methods which they then apply to their situations. Their outcomes are usually better and this creates a positive self-fulfilling prophecy arena for themselves in which to function.

Strategy is a Funny Thing

Jack Welch, former Chairman of GE, articulated one of the most famous strategies in business. Paraphrased, it said, “We'll be number 1 or 2 in a line of business, or we'll get out of that business.”

Powerful stuff. There aren't many people with the guts to make that kind of strategic commitment. And that's what that statement is; a commitment to an organization's long term position in a given arena. A clear guideline for all those involved, that their performance and behavior must take into account this future state.

When we listen to our colleagues, clients and prospects use the term “strategic planning”, we wonder what they really mean, because when pressed for an explanation, they usually say that they're working on “next year's goals”. This is not strategic planning. In fact, from our perspective, there is no such thing as strategic planning. One can only formulate strategy. Executable goals bring a strategy to fruition. Executable goals and planning how to achieve them can incrementally lead to the point where a strategy has become the reality. A strategy is too big, too amorphous to get a human head around in the executable sense.

It has been said that poor execution will sink the best strategy. Trying to execute directly on a strategy just can't get the desired results. Generally, it gets poor results and many unintended consequences. Creating a system of organizational goals can get the desired results. One can make plans to achieve goals. Goals are the most powerful tool for human achievement. Goal setting is a technology and an art. It takes into account the realities of the moment and the possible futures.

Peter Drucker said that when making decisions, one must do it with the absolute knowledge that the information being used will probably be obsolete before the outcome of the decision is reached. That's the risk inherent in taking the action required to achieve goals that will support a strategic commitment. It is also why one can not execute directly on a genuine strategy. The time line is too long and the unknowns are myriad.

In our over 30 years of consulting experience, we have learned that small and mid-size organizations can get along without explicit strategy, but not without explicit goals. Goals make it possible to know how the organization is doing compared to what it wanted to do during any given period. Without them, people in organizations concentrate on “activity” and eventually become enslaved by it. (I believe Robert Heinlein said that). Real appraisal of performance can happen when there are goals. Without them, appraisal sessions tend to become a bully pulpit for the manager.

Strategy is a wonderful concept, to be embraced at the right time in an organization's development. The time is always right for goals.

Looking Forward After the Fact

“In three years, IBM (NYSE: IBM) has poured at least $10 billion into a new division, Information On Demand, built around the theory that businesses are drowning in a sea of unorganized and underutilized data.” Here's the article.

We applaud IBM, Oracle, SAP and the other firms that are working to bring order to chaos. There are nuggets of gold in data warehouses around the world. With all this technology being brought to bear, the operational history of an organization should be readily available for use in decision-making.

While laudable, keep in mind that the information being culled is historical; it has already been generated by the efforts of the people in the organization. It's similar to the accounting function. That is, “the beans are being counted.” Terrific, on the face of it. We believe, however, that not enough attention, time and effort is being focused on the front end. People's activities created the results that are represented in these data. Our question is: are these human activities the right ones, leading to the desired outcomes?

Our experience with the small and mid market shows that there is an abundance of “executing before the planning is done”. We believe that this is probably true to in the Corporate/Enterprise market as well, albeit, to a lesser extent. Regardless, why is this the apparent case? Why does articulating a vision, formulating strategy and building an organization-wide executable system of goals get short shrift, while combing through a mountain of results is de rigueur?

In a word, Leadership. If the CEO/President/Head Honcho of an organization doesn't champion the process, it doesn't happen. If the leader isn't committed to looking forward and leading the effort to determine the organization's future, no one else can or will. If there is no future magnet attracting the organization, then the market, or some other external influence will make that determination for it. The historical data being massaged will represent what the people in the organization produced based on their best efforts; but not necessarily what the organization wanted.

Remember, Without a system of goals, our only motivation is survival. If just surviving is OK with you, don't change anything. If planned, realistic, controlled growth is more your style, change is required. You make the choice.

-RSL