Mike Beitler's Biz Blog

Lessons From Nonprofits

2008-10-15T21:54:00.000-04:00

Can we business executives and consultants learning anything from nonprofit executives? Yes.

I have had the opportunity to work with some very competent nonprofit executives. I just read an article in this month’s “Chief Learning Officer” magazine that reminded me that successful nonprofit executives are a source of ideas for us profit-oriented types.

In the article, the authors (Strauss, Rosenheck, D’Aurelio, & Rosenheim) shared Sarah Clark’s “seven daunting challenges” as director of outreach and training at Amnesty International. Most, if not all, of her “challenges” face business executives as well.

Long-Term Vs. Short-Term

Nonprofits tend to have a long-term focus since they are not judged on a quarterly basis (although this has been changing for some nonprofits). This has allowed nonprofits to “incorporate capacity-building initiatives” that often “span years or decades.” Learning and development (L&D) officers at for-profit companies should look at these nonprofit programs.

Volunteers

Nonprofits rely heavily on volunteers. Nonprofits cannot demand that volunteers participate in training. Nonprofits have learned how to motivate volunteers to learn. We can certainly take advantage of this knowledge.

Training on a “Shoestring”

Nonprofit executives have learned how to provide training on very tight budgets. E-learning and technology is used of course, but these nonprofit execs have also learned how to take advantage of a wide range of training possibilities. Here again for-profit L&D officers can learn from their counterparts in the nonprofit sector.

My Suggestion

What am I suggesting? I am suggesting that you take an executive from your favorite nonprofit to lunch and discuss training issues.

To learn more about organizational learning and other organizational effectiveness topics use the Search function on my blog or read my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning” (available at Amazon.com or my website www.mikebeitler.com).

ProBusiness with Dr. Mike Beitler

2008-09-28T19:53:00.000-04:00

“Pro Business with Dr. Mike Beitler”

Internet-Radio Talk Show

Premieres October 23

Every Thursday

Airs Live 10AM Eastern/7AM Pacific

Repeats 10PM Eastern/7PM Pacific

Join Mike and his guests as they discuss business improvement ideas and issues affecting business from a libertarian, free-market perspective. Listen as global leaders in business, economics, and politics share “how to” and “what’s new” insights. Email your question for Mike’s guests for on-air coverage. (If your question is used on-air, you’ll receive a free copy of Mike’s new book for your contribution to the show.)

“Pro Business” will air live on the VoiceAmerica Business Network on Thursday mornings. Catch re-broadcasts 12 hours later or visit the archive of previous shows. Save this link: www.business.voiceamerica.com.

Mike wants you to be actively involved. Your questions and feedback are critical to a vibrant and relevant show. Don’t wait until October 23; start the dialog now! Email Mike your questions and suggestions today.

Please forward this message to everybody you know.

Ways to Fail

2008-09-04T18:06:00.000-04:00

In a recent Harvard Business Review article, Paul Carroll and Chunka Mui wrote about several ways big organizations fail. Their warnings apply to small organizations and individuals as well, albeit on a different scale.

Carroll and Mui included the synergy mirage, pseudo-adjacencies, stubbornly staying the course, and betting on the wrong technology as ways for big companies to fail. They are right, and they offer many examples. But small organizations and individuals make the same mistakes.

The synergy mirage is clearly demonstrated in corporate mergers. The authors shared the example of a group disability insurer merging with an individual disability insurer. At first glance it appears smart. “It turns out they had entirely different sales models and customers.” The mistake: defining talents and skills in very broad terms.

Instead of defining yourself as an accountant, perhaps you should say you are a cost accountant specializing in cost containment in the auto parts manufacturing industry (a talent and skill set very different from that required of an accountant who specializes in small business start-ups).

Pseudo-adjacencies are also common mis-steps of even the most sophisticated business decision makers. Carroll and Mui give the example of a school-bus operator company spending millions of dollars to move into the ambulance services business. The company “expected its logistics expertise to carry over, but discovered ambulances were not a transportation business but a highly regulated health care business demanding skills it sorely lacked.”

Stubbornly staying the course can be an admirable trait in an organization or an individual. But at some point, it is important to know it’s time to abandon the original plan. I have purchased stocks “on the way down” believing they were cheap and the price would rebound quickly. Eventually I had to admit the stock was properly priced at its lower level, and sold at a loss. Selling at a loss is painful (financially and emotionally), but it is better than continuing to accumulate loses.

Finally, betting on the wrong technology is typically associated with organizations not individuals. But individuals also bet big on a particular skill set. Refusing to accept the fact that they are becoming obsolete, their value in the marketplace falls on a daily basis.

I hope you can see how easily these mistakes can be made in large organizations. But equally important (or more so), can you see how you can make these mistakes in your own career?

To learn more about organizational and individual effectiveness use the Search function on my blog and read my book, Strategic Organizational Learning (available at Amazon.com or my website http://www.mikebeitler.com/).

There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

Changing Learning Organization Priorities

2008-08-05T19:11:00.001-04:00

In my book, Strategic Organizational Learning, I emphasized the importance of creating a learning organization culture. If your organization is going to remain competitive, knowledge is your most valuable competitive asset. Thus, the goal of a learning organization is continuous learning by every organizational member.

While the goal of the learning organization has not changed, the priorities for creating and maintaining a learning organization culture have shifted. I have mentioned these changes in previous blog entries. And now I have research to support my claims.

Josh Bersin’s organization, Bersin & Associates (B&A) recently completed a study of 800 corporate learning and development (L&D) leaders that indicates shifting priorities for learning organizations.

Back in 2003, B&A’s study of L&D leaders found these leaders focused on learning technologies and learning management systems (software), implementation of e-learning, and managing the proliferation of technology. Clearly technology was foremost in the minds of these leaders.

Five years later, B&A’s 2008 research revealed L&D leader top priorities to be:

1. Improving business alignment.
2. Reducing costs.
3. Improving program effectiveness.

While technology is still a concern, of course, business issues now dominate the thinking of these L&D leaders.

So, as I have said in previous articles, if L&D professionals want to be invited to the strategic planning meetings they must develop business acumen.

David Beitler, CCNA, MCSA (my eldest son), has been predicting for many years that technology for any particular field would become ever more transparent. He was clearly right.

In the past, we had to train our people on the technology before we could train them with the technology.

Now, technology has become so user-friendly and pervasive that technology is no longer the focus. Technology has become transparent. Now, we can focus on creating strategically relevant content.

To read B&A’s findings in detail, take a look at the August 2008 issue of Chief Learning Officer magazine.

To learn more about organizational effectiveness topics use the Search function on my blog and read my book, Strategic Organizational Learning (available at Amazon.com or my website http://www.mikebeitler.com/).

There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

More Loyal Customers

2008-07-24T20:49:00.000-04:00

I specialize in organizational and individual effectiveness. Customer loyalty is outside of my area of expertise. Fortunately, I know the leading expert in the field: Kevin Stirtz. I just finished reading Kevin’s latest book, More Loyal Customers: 21 Real World Lessons to Keep Your Customers Coming Back. As the subtitle suggests, Kevin’s advice is real-world. The book is easy-to-read and easy-to-apply.

In Kevin’s book you will learn:

· The most important things you can do to keep customers coming back.
· Six powerful steps to deliver great customer service.
· How to create customer “evangelists” for your company.
· What your customers really want.

If you need to know more about building customer or client loyalty, (don’t we all?), go to Kevin’s website www.StirtzGroup.com.

To learn more about organizational effectiveness topics use the Search function on my blog and read my book, “Strategic Organizational Change, Second Edition” (available at Amazon.com or my website www.mikebeitler.com).

There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

Learning From Mistakes

2008-06-28T13:26:00.001-04:00

Is your organization, or client’s organization, benefiting from its mistakes? Is the organization stagnant, afraid to try something new, avoiding mistakes at all costs? While we all prefer successes over failures, failures are a better teacher.

In a recent Harvard Business Review articles by Amy Edmondson she contrasted the execution-as-efficiency approach of General Motors (GM) and the execution-as-learning approach of General Electric (GE). In 2007, GM posted a loss of $38.7 billion, while GE posted a profit of $22.5 billion. Since both of these gigantic companies were founded in the industrial age, it behooves us to ask, “What’s the difference?”

Edmondson believes the difference is in how they think about execution. I agree.

While the execution of procedures according to plan is very important in a manufacturing facility (or any kind of organization), it can inhibit innovation, process improvement, and learning because it discourages deviations from the old way of doing things. As Edmondson points out, “experimentation and reflection are vital to sustainable success.” GM and GE clearly demonstrate the importance of intelligent experimentation, ingenuity, and resilience in the face of adversity.

Creating an execution-as-learning approach requires organizational culture support. Changing organizational culture is very difficult and costly is terms of time, energy, and money. In some organizations the benefits will not out weigh the costs.

To support an execution-as-learning mindset, the organizational culture must view work process policies as guidelines subject to change and improvement. Small changes must be a way of life. Feedback must be two-way. Learning from mistakes (rather than burying them) must be encouraged. Fear must be reduced; fear cripples learning.

To learn more about organizational learning and other organizational effectiveness topics use the Search function on my blog or read my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning” (available at Amazon.com or my website www.mikebeitler.com).

There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

Virtual Learning Teams

2008-06-11T22:37:00.000-04:00

In a recent study by Brandon Hall Research, 74 percent of professionals surveyed said their teams work in shared virtual settings. Virtual work teams are now commonplace. Is your organization, or your client’s organization, maximizing the learning and knowledge transfer of these teams?

Dr. Hall shared his findings and recommendations in the May 2008 edition of “Chief Learning Officer” magazine.

First, adopt the principles used by project managers. Regardless of job level or title, “empower everyone, minimize silos, and maximize a collaborative approach.”

Second, use team inventory tools to highlight knowledge and skills available to the team. Make Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and/or DISC results available for team members. List what each member brings to the table: subject matter expertise, interests and hobbies, relationships with various customers and groups, knowledge of particular global regions or countries, etc.

Third, use technology such as “conference bridges, webcast environments, video conferencing, IP phones, document sharing tools, texting, IM and survey building tools.”

Don’t think of virtual teams simply as work teams. Virtual teams should always be considered to be development tool. Once you assess the learning needs of your workers, consider what learning needs can be met through the virtual team.

To learn more about e-learning and other related topics use the Search function on my blog or read my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning” (available at Amazon.com or my website http://www.mikebeitler.com/).

There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

Learner-Driven Learning

2008-05-04T13:47:00.000-04:00

In 1992, I got involved with a community of practitioners (consultants) and academics who advocated self-directed, or learner-directed, learning. We believed we were on the leading edge of organizational learning. Perhaps we were, but we were more than a decade in front of the curve.

While I believe learner-directed learning will not (and should not) replace classroom training, its application is becoming widespread.

In a recent article, David Wilkins (Senior Director of Product Strategy at Mzinga) offered three scenarios in which learner-directed learning should be considered in place of (or in addition to) instructor-led training. Let me give you the three scenarios and then we’ll look at some possible learner-directed learning solutions.

Scenario 1: A salesperson is on the phone with a prospect who needs a quote about the solution set with “X” features and “Y” number of users.

Scenario 2: A salesperson is learning about the new pricing model and its various options for the first time.

Scenario 3: A salesperson is in the final stages of the sales cycle and needs some advice on how to position the new pricing model effectively.

Can you think of some out-of-the-box (or out-of-the-classroom) solutions for these three?

Here are some possible solutions suggested by Wilkins:

Scenario 1 Possibilities:
· some sort of job aid
· “Ask a Question” database
· instant messaging connection with other salespeople

Scenario 2 Possibilities:
· webinar
· PowerPoint or mini-course

Scenario 3 Possibilities:
· an expert-located thru a social network
· discussion forum
· video of an expert salesperson

Wilkins also asked the reader to imagine the following three possibilities:

· a course that is treated like a YouTube video with all of the surrounding comments, cross-links and the ability to connect with the author.

· a course repository to which an employee could subscribe via RSS---think iTunes meets e-learning.

· a curriculum that includes videos, blogs, wiki entries, a dedicated discussion forum and links to the profiles of all the other participants.

Can you begin to see the value of these learning opportunities?

There are also great knowledge management possibilities here as well. This is a great way to capture the knowledge of the baby-boomers before they retire. That should be the topic of another blog entry.

You can read David Wilkins’ entire article in the May 2008 issue of Chief Learning Officer. And for more information on this and other related topics use the Search function on my blog or read my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning” (available at Amazon.com or my website http://www.mikebeitler.com/).

There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

Emotional Intelligence

2008-04-22T18:25:00.000-04:00

This blog entry is an article by consultant/coach Tom Haizlip. Many of you may have already purchased Tom's "How to Get Your First Clients" on http://www.yourconsultingsuccess.com/.

In this article Tom discusses how Emotional Intelligence causes Star Employees to really shine.

Click below to get a copy of the article.

http://mikebeitler.com/haizlip/Haizlip-Emotional_Intelligence_Star_Employees.doc

----

For more information about individual effectiveness visit www.mikebeitler.com/freestuff.html and http://www.yourconsultingsuccess.com/

Multiple Payoffs

2008-03-25T19:51:00.000-04:00

I recently read a Harvard Business Review article by Stewart Friedman that got me thinking about using my time more effectively. Friedman recommended what I call “multiple payoffs” for each planned activity. We all have limited time, so we need greater return on each invested hour of our time.

Friedman gave the example of an executive who raised money for a charity that her company sponsors by running a marathon with her son, thus simultaneously gaining visibility for her company, spending more time with her family, giving to the community, and improving her health. Multiple payoffs!

A few years ago, Nido Qubein introduced me to this idea. You can use the Search function on my blog to read more about his ideas, or check out his website http://www.nidoqubein.com/.

Do you have personal examples of multiple payoffs on single activities in your life? If so, let me know. I’d like to share them with my readers.

For more information on this and other individual effectiveness issues use the Search function on my blog, and read my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning” (available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble bookstores, or my website http://www.mikebeitler.com/). There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

Mid-Career Change

2008-02-18T21:30:00.001-05:00

I just read an excellent article, “The Existential Necessity of Midlife Change,” by Strenger and Ruttenberg in the February issue of Harvard Business Review. As some of you know, I wrote my masters thesis and doctoral dissertation on mid-career adults.

Many of the mid-career professionals I interviewed had contemplated or completed a midlife career change. These career changes can be highly rewarding and inspiring. Or, they can be disastrous financially and emotionally.

Strenger and Ruttenberg emphasize the importance of being realistic. It is unlikely that an ophthalmologist can become a successful concert pianist at the age of 40 without any precious musical training. Playing piano may become a wonderful hobby, but an unwise career choice.

I counsel executives to look for opportunities where their experience uniquely qualifies them. (Strenger and Ruttenberg clearly agree.) In a competitive world you need advantages that are hard to duplicate.

Do you know your strengths? You should take every assessment instrument (from Myers-Briggs (MBTI) and FIRO to the Campbell Interest & Skills Survey) you can. Self-knowledge is critical when considering a midlife career change. Fortunately, most of you already have more self-knowledge than you did 10 or 20 years ago. But, you can never have too much self-knowledge. We all have blind spots; get feedback.

Strenger and Ruttenberg go on to talk about the organization’s role in helping its mid-career professionals deal with these issues. If your organization is committed to organizational and individual development, this is an important part of talent management.

For more information on this and other organizational and individual effectiveness issues use the Search function on my blog, and read my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning” (available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble bookstores, or my website www.mikebeitler.com). There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

Innovation Killers

2008-02-03T23:14:00.000-05:00

In a recent Harvard Business Review article, Christensen, Kaufman, and Shih demonstrate how financial tools are stifling innovation in organizations. As a former Chief Financial Officer and CPA, I made these same arguments many years ago. Unfortunately, my arguments fell on deaf ears. I imagine these HBR authors will meet with similar frustration.

Financial tools have an intoxicating power. Once a number has been computed, all rational discussion ceases. In many cases a rational discussion never gets started. Calculating a number is often seen as the only “work” that needs to be done before making a decision.

Obviously, with my background, I see the value of financial tools in decision making, but these tools should not be used as a substitute for the hard work of developing and defending rational arguments.

While the use of these tools are being questioned by the HBR authors at the organizational level, it’s important to recognize how these tools are abused at the individual and societal levels as well.

A widely used financial tool, “Discounted Cash Flow and Net Present Value,” can stifle a new venture by assuming the present success of the organization can be sustained indefinitely. Comparing the value of a new venture to the presumed “indefinite sustainability” of the current strategy is a bad idea. We live in a competitive and changing world.

Innovation involves risk. Risk involves the unknown. Trying to eliminate the unknown with financial tools (no matter how sophisticated) is unrealistic.

Individuals and organizations should allocate a percentage of resources (time, energy, and money) to new ventures. Some of these investments will have to be written off when they don’t work out. But, that’s a cost of innovation. That’s a cost of success!

For more information on this and other organizational effectiveness issues use the Search function on my blog, and read my book, “Strategic Organizational Change” (available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble bookstores, or my website www.mikebeitler.com). There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

ISPI

2008-01-23T23:17:00.001-05:00

Last Thursday I had the opportunity to speak to the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) Carolinas chapter. I enjoyed the lively discussion with like-minded professionals. I have had the pleasure of working with Dr. Bud Benscoter, the chapter president, for the past few years. Bud and his board of directors are doing an excellent job serving performance improvement professionals here in the Carolinas.

ISPI membership includes trainers, executive coaches, change consultants, leadership assessment experts, and project managers. Anybody interested in performance improvement, including both independent and in-house consultants, should get involved in ISPI.

You don’t have to live in the Carolinas to participate in an ISPI chapter; you can find ISPI chapters nationwide. Plus, ISPI is planning its national conference in New York City from April 3 through April 8, 2008. The National Conference is a great learning and networking opportunity. Check out ISPI at www.ispi.org.

For more information on this and other organizational effectiveness issues use the Search function on my blog, and read my book, “Strategic Organizational Change” (available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble bookstores, or my website www.mikebeitler.com). There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

Talent Management: Strengths vs. Weaknesses

2007-12-09T17:03:00.001-05:00

The term “talent management” has become a popular buzz word, but there is little understanding about what talent is. Talent is not the same thing as human capital. Talent is part of human capital.

The human capital available to an organization includes the knowledge, skills, experience, and talent of its individual members. Knowledge and skills can be developed (and experience can be gained) throughout the individual’s career, but talent is fixed.

Talent is the prerequisite for the development of knowledge and skills. So, the proper assessment of talent is critical for an organization’s success. Some organizations have wasted enormous amounts of money trying to develop knowledge and skills in workers who lack the prerequisite talent.

When we talk about “assessment and development” it is important that we understand the definition of each term and the relationship between the two.

Many organizations are in agreement on how to do assessment. Organizations such as the Center for Creative Leadership and the Gallup Organization use and create assessment instruments. Both of these organizations are in general agreement about the assessment process, but they differ philosophically about development.

The philosophical question is: “What should we do with the assessment results?” The assessment process gives you a list of strengths and weaknesses, but the assessment process does not tell how to best focus developmental efforts. That development question is a philosophical one.

The Gallup Organization chooses to focus on strengths, while the Center for Creative Leadership focuses on weaknesses. This is a major difference. How the organization and individual spends limited resources (time, energy, and money) is a critical decision.

Focusing on weaknesses has some serious limitations. Developing your weaknesses is very frustrating if you don’t have the necessary innate talents. Plus, it typically yields disappointing results. The best the individual can hope for is mediocre performance. Focusing on weaknesses, the “deficit approach,” is a poor investment of limited resources.

Focusing on strengths has the advantage of building upon existing talents. Individuals feel good about themselves when they use their talents. They feel competent. They receive praise from others. And they are confident that they can overcome any obstacles. The strengths approach consistently leads to improved performance. Focusing on strengths (developing existing talents) is a great investment for the organization and for the individual.

For more information on this and other organizational effectiveness issues use the Search function on my blog, and read my book, “Strategic Organizational Change” (available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble bookstores, or my website http://www.mikebeitler.com/). There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

Ineffective Board Members

2007-11-26T20:03:00.000-05:00

As a senior executive for ten years before becoming a consultant, I’ve known many ineffective board members. In a recent Business Week article, Jack Welch described several types of ineffective board members. The article brought back many vivid memories. To protect the guilty, I will not use their real names.

Kenneth was the Do-Nothing type. He obviously never read his board reports and was perfectly content with whatever the CFO (me) said about the financial reports. While I appreciate the high level of confidence he had in me, the role of the board members is to challenge senior managers. At the end of every discussion, he would simply ask, “What would happen if we did nothing?” Sometimes that’s a valuable question to ask; sometimes it’s completely worthless.

George was the Peace-At-Any-Price type. At the first sign of controversy, he recommended cutting a check to silence any opposition. This practice undermines management trust in the board. The board should oversee management and offer support, not abandon management at the first sign of conflict. Management is always under attack from various stakeholder groups, the media, and Wall Street. Believing that senior management has the organization’s best interests at heart is a good assumption.

Tom never understood that the board must function as a single unit. While a spirited debate is healthy before the vote is taken, it’s dysfunctional after the vote. Tom often had his own agenda. As a Personal-Agenda type, Tom worked on his issues with or without board support. Tom spent much of his time trying to control a board-within-a–board.

Clarence was the classic Meddler type. He liked to think of himself as the CEO of the branch in the city in which he lived. He would stop in the branch office to “help out.” In effect, Clarence was “holding court,” where he would change policies established by the board, the COO, or branch manager. “Good directors focus on the big-picture issues,” says Jack Welch. I agree. Clarence’s role should have been one of organizational oversight, not running day-to-day operations.

Finally, Raymond was the Pontificator type. Jack Welch accurately described Raymond as “opining on matters of state, such as world events, social trends, the company’s history, or his own area of expertise.” Obviously, these distractions added little to board effectiveness.

Effective board members spend hours perusing the board reports, including the financial statements. Effective board embers ask tough questions. Effective board members provide wisdom, sound counsel, and support. My hat is off to all you board members who do your job well.

For more information on this and other organizational effectiveness issues use the Search function on my blog, and read my book, “Strategic Organizational Change” (available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble bookstores, or my website http://www.mikebeitler.com/). There are also many free resources on the Free Stuff page on my website.

After-Action Reviews

2007-11-11T21:21:00.000-05:00

I teach an MBA elective course called “Organizational Learning.” It has become a popular course because MBA students, many of whom are mid-level executives, have heard senior executives proclaim “the knowledge of our people is our most important asset.”

While this proclamation typically makes people feel warn-and-fuzzy, it does not reveal how senior management plans to develop this “most important asset.” Unfortunately, many senior management teams don’t know how to enhance organizational learning and knowledge.

Every knowledge-driven organization should have a plan to create/acquire, capture, and disseminate organizational knowledge. The creating/acquiring function can largely be accomplished with the use of after-action reviews (AARs).

In my “Organizational Learning” course, my students watch a 20-minute video about how the U.S. Army uses AARs. Immediately after every army action the entire team stops wherever they are (in the field, if it’s a field exercise) to review what happened. They ask themselves:

∙ What went right?
∙ What went wrong?
∙ Why?

Since the video gives the impression that the Army AARs (they use the term “AAR” as both a noun and a verb) everything, I asked a retired-officer friend if the Army, in reality, AARed everything. His response, “Mike, the Army even AARs its AARs.”

While AARing everything is not practical in most business organizations, the process of after-action reviews should play a part in the organizational learning efforts of every organization.

Earlier this week, Preston Yarborough (a colleague of mine here in North Carolina) sent me an academic article entitled “Learning From Successful and Failed Experiences: The Moderating Role of Type of After-Event Review” (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006, Vol. 91, No.3, pp.669-680). The three researchers (Ellis, Mendel, & Nir) concluded, “After successful events, the most effective review is that of wrong actions; whereas after failed events, any kind of event review (correct or wrong actions) is effective.

While I appreciate the researchers’ desire to maximize the AAR process, I’d be happy to see organizations doing any kind of systematic after-action reviews. The AAR process is time-consuming, but it’s time that’s well investing.

For more information on this and other organizational learning issues read my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning,” available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble bookstores, or my website www.mikebeitler.com. There are also many free resources available on my website.

Futurism Resource

2007-10-15T19:20:00.000-04:00

For this week's blog entry, I'm actually connecting you to another blog. I'm connecting you to David Beitler's Futurism blog. David, my eldest son, is a futurist and high-tech expert for a Fortune 100 IT company in the Research Triangle Park, NC. David has been a great resource for me. Now I'll let you in on this great resource!

You can access his blog here:

http://davidbeitler.blogspot.com/

FREE 6-minute Clip from "Overcoming Resistance to Change"

2007-10-04T20:37:00.000-04:00

This week, I though I would send you a FREE 6-minute clip from my 42-minute DVD entitled "Overcoming Resistance to Change."

Please let me know what you think..

You can watch the clip if you click here

Premortem Versus Postmortem

2007-09-04T21:22:00.000-04:00

All of you are no doubt familiar with the painful process of conducting a postmortem after a project has failed. There is always that nagging question, “Shouldn’t we have seen this coming?” Frequently, somebody in the group (maybe it was you) did see the potential for failure in advance, but did not have a safe way to share the concern.

Conducting a premortem may help avert a potential disaster.

Premortems look at the causes of failure in advance. It is exciting to have an exuberant group of committed colleagues at the beginning of a project, but irrational exuberance blinds the group to real threats. Premortems allow group members to generate plausible reasons for failures.

A premortem is easy to understand conceptually, and it’s easily lead by a team member. (Premortems can also be unemotionally facilitated by an independent consultant.)

By imagining the project failing, premortems allow the team to trace potential failures backwards to their causes. Premortems are worth the time and effort.

Does your organization, or your client’s organization, use premortems for important projects?

For more information on organizational effectiveness see my book, “Strategic Organizational Change, Second Edition.” And check out all of the free resources on my website www.mikebeitler.com.

How to be a Great Supervisor

2007-08-22T20:16:00.000-04:00

My blog entry this time is a FREE special report from Thomas Haizlip, a leading executive coach. Even if you are a seasoned supervisor, you'll be able to put these skills to use immediately.

Click here to get the report.

New, FREE eBook by Kevin Stirtz

2007-08-02T18:40:00.000-04:00

Kevin Stirtz, "The Smart Marketing Guy", has just released a new, FREE ebook called “The New Rules of Public Speaking: How to get more customers by speaking to groups like a professional”

He will teach you:

-How to get speaking engagements
-An 11-step checklist to help you plan your speaking
-Tips on how to work with groups that book speakers
-45 essential rules to speak like a professional
-A list of valuable resources to help you get started
-And more...

Click here to get The New Rules of Public Speaking. (PDF file)

Visit http://www.stirtzgroup.com/about/ for more information about Kevin Stirtz.

Talents & Strengths

2007-07-26T20:29:00.000-04:00

Since I started my newsletter/blog in June 2005, I have had a chance to get to known many of you via email. One recurring concern I’ve heard is “Am I in the right career?” That’s an important question for all of us.

Fortunately, helpful guidance is available. Two of the best books to guide your quest are by Marcus Buckingham:

“Now, Discover Your Strengths”
“Go, Put Your Strengths to Work”

In the “Now” book, Buckingham provides a link to a website where you can take an assessment instrument that will tell you your top five strengths. Mine are Intellection, Achiever, Futurist, Focused, and Learner. That’s insightful for me because it tells me to avoid jobs better suited for Competitors, Harmonizers, Relaters, etc.

The “Go” book is basically a workbook containing worksheets to help you analyze the work situations that energize you (give you strength) or drain you (make you feel weak and frustrated). While reading this book you may discover that you are wasting your life in a job that is meaningless to you, or you may find (as I did) that you’re in a position that will energize you for the rest of your life.

After you read the books, please let me know your comments.

By-the-way, have you used the search function on my newsletter/blog? The archive is there for your benefit. If you are looking for an answer to an organizational or individual effectiveness problem, try the search function at the top of blog. One of my subscribers in New York told me it’s his “secret weapon.” I am disturbed that he needs a secret weapon in his organization, but I get the point.

Laissez-Faire Leadership

2007-07-11T21:24:00.000-04:00

In the past, researchers have characterized laissez-faire (hands off) leadership as a neutral management style; a style that has no real impact on workers. But now, a research brief, by Stuart Sidle, published in the May 2007 issue of the “Academy of Management Perspective” journal (pp.75-77) indicates that this belief is wrong.

Sidle’s summary of Skogstad et al.’s (2007) research “shows that danger lurks” in organizations with laissez-faire leaders. Laissez-faire leadership “is actually a form of destructive leadership that may lead to serious psychological distress in the workplace” (p.76).

Laissez-faire boss behavior includes:
∙ failing to initiate any structure for employees
∙ failing to communicate performance expectations
∙ failing to hold employees accountable

The Skogstad et al. (2007) study found “employees managed by a laissez-faire supervisor were likely to experience role ambiguity.” Role ambiguity can have a serious negative effect on productivity. Role ambiguity leads to:
∙ unclear messages about goals
∙ anxiety about prioritizing tasks
∙ unproductive performance evaluations
∙ confusion about responsibilities of the job

Skogstad and his colleagues also found “high levels of interpersonal conflict among coworkers” where laissez-faire leadership was present. In these environments, minor disagreements “escalated into workplace wars.” Even more disturbing, they found that laissez-faire leadership, role stress, and workplace conflict “provide fertile ground for another occupational danger, bullying at work.”

Many managers who practice laissez-faire leadership are convinced they are empowering employees by leaving them alone. This can be true if the employees have extremely clear roles and responsibilities. But, it’s very likely that laissez-faire leadership is having a negative impact on productivity and job satisfaction.

Is your organization, or client’s organization, suffering from the negative effects of laissez-faire leadership? To read the findings of Skogstad et al.’s research please see:

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland., M.S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. “Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,” 12(1), 80-92.

Crisis Management

2007-06-19T21:50:00.001-04:00

I recently heard an excellent presentation by Rick Amme. Rick is a crisis/PR expert who is worth listening to.

Rick shared the following ten principles for crisis response:

1. Take care of the victims or perceived victims.
2. Fix the problem. (When did you learn about it, and what did you do about it?)
3. Notify stakeholders (do not use the media).
4. Provide information to the media quickly.
5. Rehearse critical press interviews.
6. Don’t make it worse.
7. Get it over with.
8. Tell the truth.
9. Reassure!
10. Follow your crisis communication plan.

Is your organization, or client’s organization, prepared to handle a crisis? If not, check at Rick’s website www.amme.com.

P.S. I appreciate the positive feedback I have received of my new “Overcoming Resistance to Change” DVD. Please keep the comments and suggestions coming. They are appreciated! You can check out a free clip on my website www.mikebeitler.com.

How to Avoid Career Burnout

2007-06-05T22:08:00.000-04:00

How to Avoid Career Burnout
Six Simple Rules to Conquer Stress
By Thomas J. Haizlip, M.A.

The Pursuit of Happiness

For many people, career and the pursuit of success has become the dominant force in their lives. Americans are working longer hours only to end up having less time and energy to spend enjoying the fruits of their labor with family and friends. According to a March 2001 study, over 50% of us do not get enough sleep. The average time we spend stuck in traffic each day, just commuting to work, continues to rise and has almost certainly contributed to the “road rage” phenomenon. The consequences of this pursuit for achievement and success has left many feeling burnt out, sick, and unhappy. Almost 50% of all primary care physician visits are stress related.

Take Care of Yourself First

Despite all our efforts, most of us seem no closer to achieving that goal of financial independence or personal fulfillment. Dale Carnegie once remarked, “Remember happiness doesn’t depend upon who you are or what you have; it depends solely upon what you think.” By focusing inward and developing and practicing a few simple guiding principles, you can avoid being swept up into the rat race and practice a more balanced approach to living in both your personal and professional life that will allow you to have a more pleasant experience on that journey from being to becoming.

1. Your Work is Not the Measure of Your Worth

What you do to earn a living does not define you as a person. How much money you make is not an indicator of your worth or success as a person. It is far better to be a contented garbage man than an unhappy bank president. There is worth and dignity in all work. If money was the measure of how important someone’s job was – Mother Theresa should have been a billionaire. Develop interests that have nothing to do with your work. Volunteering is an excellent way to keep perspective on what is really important in life.

2. Acquire Two Close Friends and See Them Regularly:

Francis Bacon said, “Without friends, life is a wilderness.” One of the first signs of overwork is social avoidance and withdrawal from our friends. Close friends are people you can share your thoughts and feelings with openly, without fear of being judged. They accept us and show us caring and love. Force yourself to schedule weekly time with friends the same way you would schedule a business meeting. See them more often, not less often, when things get stressful or tough at work or home. These enriching experiences will help offset the draining ones you experience.

3. Learn to Talk Positively to Yourself

Mark Twain once remarked, “Few people know of the low opinion I have of myself or how little I deserve it.” When we make mistakes, most of us speak to ourselves with harsh language. No one grows through self-condemnation. Instead, learn to talk to yourself the way you would talk to a close friend who had made the exact same mistake and learn to practice self-forgiveness and encouragement.

4. Accept That You Will Not Be Liked By Everyone

The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius once said, “There is no man so well loved that on the occasion of his death that someone does not rejoice.” Being an independent, intelligent, and thoughtful person means that you will meet people with opinions and ideas different than your own. The need to be liked by everyone is based on insecurity from within. When we can accept that we can have honest disagreements and that we do not have to befriend all people, then we free ourselves from the tyranny of always worrying about what other people think. Learn to practice civility toward all and let go of the desire to be adored by everyone.

5. Your Choices Will Limit Future Choices

When I was a boy, I was a lad of infinite promise. At this point, I no longer think I am going to grow up to become president. The choices we make today will have an effect on the choices we can make tomorrow. Choice is a balancing act between risk and security. Strive to develop the capacity to tolerate risk if you hope for great gain. One must also learn to know oneself well enough to set limits in order to avoid unacceptable losses. This is why I no longer keep ice cream in my home.

6. Think Willow Tree Strong Instead Of Oak Tree Strong

Oak gets its strength from being inflexible, dense, and rigid. But, in strong winds, the same factors that make the oak strong also make it vulnerable to toppling over. In these conditions, the soft and flexible willow is the “stronger tree” because of its ability to bend and sway with the wind. Too many of us think that being strong is about being fixed and rigid in our positions like oaks trees. When the winds of change, such as downsizing or merger, begin to blow then it’s the oaks among us that soon begin to topple. Those employees who can be flexible in their approach to problem solving stand the best chance of weathering out the storm.

About The Author

President of Skills For Success, Inc., Thomas Haizlip was a clinical psychologist for 14 years before becoming an executive coach and management consultant. He specializes in helping managers and executives learn how to become emotionally intelligent and how to lead others by inspiring people to work together to achieve mutually beneficial goals. He is available for executive coaching, speeches, and workshops and seminars.

For more information visit: www.skillsforsuccess.ws

Nido Qubein on Change

2007-05-04T10:38:00.000-04:00

In a recent BizLife Magazine article, Nido Qubein (a North Carolina business leader and President of High Point University) shared his thoughts on “Implementing Change.” I’d like to pass along some of his thoughts to you.

If you have already seen my DVD “Overcoming Resistance to Change,” some of Nido’s suggestions echo what you heard me say on my video. But, Nido adds several suggestions that are definitely worthy of your consideration.

Nido began by saying, “People hunger for stability amid change.” This is true. People need a sense of security and stability. Fear of loss can be paralyzing. Paralyzed workers are not productive.

Nido believes a company can promote stability several ways:

1. “Explaining the reasons for the change.”

As I explained in my video, employees will resist whatever they see as nothing more than management’s “Change de jour.” Employees are busy. They must see the change as important, relevant, and urgent.

2. “Showing how the company’s plans keep risks to a minimum.”

This is also true. Most large organizations are full of members who are risk-averse. It is critical to be mindful of that fact.

3. “Emphasizing the things that will remain the same.”

This provides predictability and continuity.

4. “Letting people know what to expect, step by step.”

As I stated in my DVD, employee anxiety is reduced when leaders provide as much information as possible. Transparency leads to trust.

5. “Letting people know that management has confidence in the change.”

Nido emphasizes the importance of managers leading throughout the change. Leaders must “get out and talk to people.” Leaders must be highly visible during change initiatives.

6. “Commending them and recognizing them for the constructive changes they make.”

I could not agree more on this one. As a change consultant, I help organizations overcome resistance to change. Invariably, I spend a considerable amount of time working with leaders on determining appropriate rewards for the employees who display the new behaviors required for successful organizational change.

Does your organization, or client’s organization, follow Nido’s suggestions? You can learn more about Nido Qubein’s leadership advice by visiting his website http://www.nidoqubein.com/. You can view video clips of my “Overcoming Resistance to Change” DVD at my website http://www.mikebeitler.com/.

HR’s Dinosaurs

2007-04-25T10:09:00.000-04:00

I have many friends and colleagues who work in HR. So, when I saw the title of John Sullivan’s recent article (“HR’s Dinosaurs”) in “Workforce Management” I braced myself.

Sullivan begins the article by asking, “Why do we still have HR generalists?” He describes HR generalists as “hand-holding, silo-building, no-change agents who serve as barriers to HR having a measurable business impact.”

Professor Sullivan goes on to add that HR generalists are “gatekeepers,” “fierce defenders of their turf,” and resistors of measuring results, and guilty of making their jobs so “vague and convoluted that no one could possibly come in and make a case for streamlining the function.”

While each of Professor Sullivan’s accusations deserve attention, I believe there is a bigger issue here for HR generalists (and in-house HR specialists for that matter). HR professionals are perceived as adding little value to the organization. I have read many articles recently about HR professionals becoming strategic business partners. That simply will not happen until HR professionals can bring higher perceived value to the strategic planning table.

If you are an HR professional, do you know enough about the business of your organization to add strategic value? Sullivan’s article may sound harsh (and my question may sound harsh), but Sullivan’s comments accurately describe senior management’s perception of HR in most organizations.

We must continually ask ourselves, “How am I adding value?”

For more resources on organizational and individual effectiveness, check out my newsletter archive on the free stuff page of my website www.mikebeitler.com or read my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.”

Leading Through Transition

2007-03-20T20:45:00.000-04:00

In their excellent book, entitled “Leading with Authenticity in Times of Transition,” Kerry Bunker and Michael Wakefield describe 12 competencies that leaders need during times of transition. They offer a graphic illustration of how the competencies can be overdone, underdone, or “about right.” The about right area is very narrow.

The “narrowness” of getting it just right indicates how difficult it is to lead through a period of transition. A leader must not only have the 12 competencies, but know when he or she is overdoing or underdoing.

To add further complexity to the challenge, Bunker and Wakefield point out that all 12 competencies must remain in balance. They use the analogy of the spokes of a bicycle wheel. Avid cyclists know they must adjust the tension of each spoke of their wheels to keep their wheels “true.” This process, called “truing,” is critical for high performance.

Staying with the bicycle wheel analogy, Bunker and Wakefield illustrate their “Transition Leadership Wheel.” The model show trust as the hub with twelve spokes representing the competencies needed to effectively lead during times of transition.

The twelve spokes or competencies are:

∙ catalyzing change
∙ coping with transition
∙ sense of urgency
∙ realistic patience
∙ being tough
∙ being empathetic
∙ optimism
∙ realism and openness
∙ self-reliance
∙ trusting others
∙ capitalizing on strengths
∙ going against the grain

While the list is intimidating at first glance, don’t worry, Bunker and Wakefield offer detailed guidance and helpful worksheets to assist leaders in developing these competencies. This compact guidebook, only 100 pages in length, is a small on time demands but big on valuable advice.

For more resources on organizational and individual effectiveness topics, check out my newsletter/blog archive on website www.mikebeitler.com or read my book, “Strategic Organizational Change, Second Edition.”

Self-Employed Magazine

2007-03-06T20:45:00.000-05:00

My blog entry today will be especially interesting to my readers who are consultants (or hope to become consultants someday). It is an article recently published in "Self-Employed" Magazine. I am quoted in the article, and you will also read intersting insights from Alan Weiss, Mark Haas, and other consulting experts. If you have any interest in consulting take a look. Please let me know your comments.

Here is the PDF version of the article:
http://www.MikeBeitler.com/newsletter/Self-EmployedMagazine.pdf

Also, if you are interested in consulting please visit my other site here:
www.YourConsultingSuccess.com

Knowledge Leadership Journal Interview

2007-02-13T22:27:00.000-05:00

This post is from an interview with the "Knowledge Leadership Journal."
----------------------------

Michael Beitler began his career with KPMG, one of the world's largest consulting firms. While at KPMG, he had the opportunity to work with a client list that included the world's best companies, both domestic and international. He left the firm eventually to establish his own consulting practice in Washington, DC. After three years, he was offered an executive position at a southeastern bank (one of his clients). Mike was soon promoted to Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer. In this position, he was responsible for strategic planning, investments, accounting, management development, and organizational development. After ten years in banking, Mike returned to consulting and training.

In the years that followed, Mike built a successful practice specializing in organizational effectiveness. He has worked with clients in North America, Europe, and Asia. Mike’s clients have included General Motors, Coca-Cola, Wachovia, BASF, Daimler Chrysler, IBM, BB&T, and John Deere. Mike’s areas of expertise are strategic change, overcoming resistance to change, strategic learning & knowledge management, and succession planning. His most recently published books are Strategic Organizational Change and Strategic Organizational Learning.

Knowledge Leadership: Two separate but related questions. In your opinion, what is the most effective process by which to formulate an appropriate strategy? Also, who must be centrally involved in that process?

Beitler: The most effective approach to formulating an appropriate strategy is outside-in. While most strategic planning approaches include some form of SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, the starting point is critical. The process must begin with an external analysis (opportunities and threats). The internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) are only relevant in relation to the externals (opportunities and threats).
In my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” I describe several strategic planning approaches, including a few of the “new” non-traditional approaches. The problem with the non-traditional approaches is their attempt to diffuse responsibility for the process throughout the organization. Senior management is responsible for formulating an appropriate strategy. Senior management must be involved and committed to the process.

Knowledge Leadership: In your most recent books, you assert that both learning and change must be “strategic.” Sounds like you are an advocate of action learning. Is that true?

Beitler: Yes, I am an advocate of action learning. And yes, I believe both learning and change must be strategic. Organizations have limited resources (time, energy, and money). These limited resources must be invested in the most effective ways possible to implement the strategic plan. Action learning provides the mental model for formulating and implementing the strategic plan.

Knowledge Leadership: One subject to which you have devoted a great deal of attention is resistance to change. For example, what Jim O’Toole characterizes as "the ideology of comfort and the tyranny of custom." How to overcome such barriers?

Beitler: In a recent television interview, I was asked, “Why is there so much resistance to change in organizations today?” I responded, “People are busy. They have to see how the proposed change is relevant.” In my keynote speeches on overcoming resistance to change, I exhort leaders to identify the perceived fear of loss. Proposed changes always bring a perceived loss of some sort. Perceived irrelevancy and/or perceived fear of loss are the causes of resistance to change. O’Toole speaks of the “tyranny of custom.” He is right, but don’t forget that custom also offers a sense of security.

Knowledge Leadership: What are the most important responsibilities of a consultant?

Beitler: The most important responsibility of the consultant is to bring value to the table. On my website (www.YourConsultingSuccess.com) every special report and article says something about the importance of adding value. The consultant adds value (and is paid more) when he/she fulfills the role of a strategic partner. The consultant must ask the right questions, the timely questions, and the tough questions. Every consultant should learn process consulting and performance consulting skills.

Knowledge Leadership: Given your response to the previous question, to what extent can – and should – senior managers share those responsibilities? That is, think and function as a consultant?

Beitler: That’s a great question. I wish I were asked that question more often. Senior managers are frequently in a consultative role. Senior management development should include training in process consulting and performance consulting skills.

Knowledge Leadership: Many of the most valuable business books are written in response to an especially important question. Is that true of Strategic Organizational Change?

Beitler: “Strategic Organizational Change” was written in response to the question: How can organizations systematically formulate and implement effective change? The answer is to propose, formulate, and implement only those change efforts that will help fulfill the mission and strategic plan of the organization. All other changes are irrelevant and a waste of limited resources (time, energy, and money).

Knowledge Leadership: To what extent is Strategic Organizational Learning a sequel to your earlier book? How does it differ from Strategic Organizational Change?

Beitler: Rather than as a sequel to “Strategic Organizational Change,” I wrote “Strategic Organizational Learning” to provide detailed guidance on how to implement organizational learning interventions. Since the scope of “Strategic Organizational Change” was so broad, only one chapter could be devoted to organizational learning interventions. In the twenty-first century, many organizations are described as knowledge-driven. Effective organizational learning is now a critical core competency for most leading organizations. Keep in mind, organizational change always requires new learning.

Knowledge Leadership: In an article, which appeared in the Harvard Business Review in 1963, Peter Drucker observes, "There is surely nothing quite so useless as doing with great efficiency what should not be done at all." Presumably you agree.

Beitler: I am a big fan of Peter Drucker, and this is perhaps my favorite Drucker quote. Drucker is emphasizing the importance of the “why” question. I have seen countless organizations prematurely working on the “how.” Until the organizational members know why they are doing something, it is a waste of limited resources to focus on how to do that something with great efficiency. “Why” should be answered before “how.”

Knowledge Leadership: Assume that an organization has an appropriate strategy. From your perspective, how to establish and then sustain proper alignment of action and learning with each other as well as with that strategy?

Beitler: I am glad you used the word “alignment.” Once an appropriate strategic plan has been adopted, all other organizational activities should be aligned with it. All action, learning, and change should have a strategic purpose. This is the only effective way to invest limited resources.

Knowledge Leadership: You began your business career about 30 years ago. What do you wish you knew then that you know now? Why?

Beitler: When I went through business school 30 years ago, I wish I had been told about the importance of bringing value to the table. All of us business students wanted to be successful, but we didn’t understand how to earn the big bucks. We didn’t understand that employers and clients wanted value for the money they spent. I now tell my students, “If you want to make more money, bring more value to the table. Think creatively. Solve problems. Add value!”

Knowledge Leadership: Looking ahead 3-5 years, what do you expect to be the greatest single challenge facing senior-level managers? What must they do to respond effectively to that challenge?

Beitler: Over the next three to five years, the greatest single challenge facing senior managers will be attracting, developing, and retaining talented workers. Senior management must learn how to assess and develop talented individuals. Unfortunately, most MBA programs do not provide these critical skills. Acquiring these skills will be the topic of my next book.

For more information about Mike's books, speaking, and workshops please visit his website at www.MikeBeitler.com

Placement & Talent Management

2007-01-25T19:39:00.000-05:00

Whatever happened to the concept of “placement?” I can remember, in the not too distant past, talking with client organizations about “selection and placement.” They still talk about selection, but placement is now largely ignored.

Placement is critically important to both organizational and individual effectiveness. Placement is related to selection, but placement should be considered as a separate and distinct function in its own right.

Selection, as it is now practiced is the process of selecting a particular person for a particular vacancy in the organization. That sounds fine until we consider the negative consequences of such narrow thinking. Consider the following example:

I recently had lunch with a young professional who was hired by a large financial services company. He liked the company, but he quickly realized the particular job did not play to his strengths. As time went by, he became more and more frustrated because his unique talents were not being tapped. His energy level (as well as his motivational and productivity levels, I suspect) dropped steadily as his job called upon his weaknesses, instead of his strengths.

Eventually, the talented young professional updated his resume and prepared to leave the organization. The day he was going to resign, he heard about an opening in the IT department. He was perfect for the position. He knew the technology, as well as the culture and processes of the organization. He put his resignation letter back into his briefcase and applied for the job.

The following week, he was told that he could not be considered for the position. He could not even be granted an interview. He could not be considered for the job because of company policy. Company policy stated that “an employee cannot be considered for any different position in the organization until he/she has completed at least one year in the position for which he/she was hired.” Ridiculous? Obliviously!

How does the organization or individual benefit by keeping a talented person in a position for which he/she is not well-suited for at least one year? When questioned about the policy, the company said, “The one-year demonstrates loyalty.” Loyalty? Should companies be spending limited resources on loyalty or productivity?

Placement is about putting talented people in positions were they will be most productive. Selection is about getting talented people on board. Jim Collins talks about getting good people “on the bus” before you decide where to go. Selection is about getting good people on the bus.

Keeping people in positions where they are not highly productive demonstrates the worst management practice that I can imagine.

In the twenty-first century, management’s responsibility for managing talent is more important than ever. Managing physical assets is no longer top priority for many organizations. Maximizing human capital is now job number one for most management teams.

Selecting, developing, and retaining talent must be seen as critically important in every organization. Does senior management in your organization understand this essential responsibility?

For more resources on organizational and individual effectiveness topics, check out my other blog articles and my website www.mikebeitler.com or read my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.”

Phil Bowers on the Frontline

2006-12-20T00:45:00.000-05:00

Phil Bowers, President/CEO of Professional Skills Development, sent me these comments in response to my “Culture Last, Not First” article. Phil is an expert on developing frontline managers. I think his comments are very insightful. Please let me know what you think.

Mike, I enjoy your work and especially enjoy reading your thoughts on your blog.

Your recent comments on where “culture” fits in the change process (Culture Last, Not First Nov.1, 2006) prompted me to write to offer up a different perspective. I understand the position you hold (and that of Kotter). The idea of undertaking a wholesale change of culture first would be a daunting task.

The primary focus of my practice is the training and development of front line managers and supervisors. Their view of the organization is very different from those that may be taking a strategic level view of a change initiative.

So consider the following:

You mention that we count on embedding the successes of a change initiative into the culture of the organization, so success first, culture last. (As you put it, “Trying to create a new culture before demonstrating success simply doesn’t work anywhere (except in theory). Real people in real organizations demand “proof.” Kotter and Cohen, in their book “The Heart of Change,” say, “New behaviors will not become the norms, will not take hold, until the end of the process.”)

When we talk about a strategic change initiative, we are talking about the future. Discussing the future means we are discussing uncertainty. Uncertainty means the likelihood of mistakes goes up. (How much proof can we really have about the future?) My premise is, how well the organization is equipped to handle mistakes is key to how rapidly people will embrace change.

From an operational point of view, this means that the lower in the organization you go, it is more about “safety” and less about “proof of success” that will encourage change. (Culture first.) Why do I say this?

The results of strategic level decisions may not be seen for months or even years in some cases. The lower you go in an organization’s management structure, the more you remove this insulation. The results of decisions made by front line managers are very often visible within days or even hours. A well intended decision, based on a changing business model, which results, say with an upset customer, is rarely well received. What would motivate a manager to take such a risk? I say that only a culture of safety will support the behavior. This leads to a culture “first” scenario.

There is another option that is often used, and that is adding enough controls to this level of decisions (sign offs, permissions, approvals) to ensure success, but that is another culture all together.

As we have discussed, I believe that the front line can have a tremendous impact on the bottom line. We simply have to stay committed to their development.

Mike, thanks for your time and the dialogue. Keep up the good work.

Phil Bowers, Founder
Professional Skills Development
www.professionalskillsdevelopment.com

Positive Performance Improvement

2006-11-15T23:42:00.000-05:00

I am currently reading an outstanding book by Richard and Robbie Gerson on performance improvement. I realize that all of you have read books on performance improvement, so let me begin by telling you why this book is outstanding.

Most books on performance improvement (PI) focus on systems, processes, and mechanistic models. The Gersons’ book focuses on the performer.

I was surprised (pleasantly surprised) earlier this year when two leading industrial engineers, Ehap Sabri and Arun Gupta, asked me to co-author a book with them entitled “Purchase Order Management Best Practices.” I quickly told Drs. Sabri and Gupta that I didn’t know anything about supply chain management or purchase order systems. But, they wanted me to join “the team” because of my knowledge of change management and the people aspects of change. (Incidentally, the subtitle of the book is “Process, Technology, and Change Management.”)

The Gersons’ book on PI clearly explains what these two leading industrial engineers have learned from real-world experience. Effective systems, processes, and mechanistic models are not enough. The individual performers are critical to improvement/change efforts. This is what makes the Gersons’ book outstanding.

The Gersons believe, “It’s necessary to include the performers’ psychological approach: their levels of self-confidence and self-esteem, how they deal with stress, how well they perform under pressure, if they set goals, their expectations of success, their intrinsic reward system, and what motivates them to achieve.”

There are significant implications for change management, as well as for performance improvement. Change managers must develop relationships with the people who will plan, implement, and sustain the proposed change. Relationship building, a time-consuming task, is in addition to the traditional work on systems, processes, and mechanistic models. Managers must get to know the performers.

Are the managers in your organization (or your client’s organization) prepared to handle the relationship building that’s necessary to implement and sustain organizational change? If you have already read my book “Strategic Organizational Change,” I recommend that you read Richard and Robbie Gerson’s “Positive Performance Improvement.” The two books together will save you substantial time, energy, and money.

Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions. I always appreciate your feedback.

Culture Last, Not First

2006-11-01T21:41:00.000-05:00

I have spoken to many management teams about initiating large organizational changes. After the sense of urgency has been created, the executives want to jump several steps ahead. These enthusiastic execs begin talking about changing organizational culture. While I appreciate their enthusiasm, culture change comes last, not first.

Changing the culture is important to support (sustain) new changes, but in practice you can’t change culture first. New changes in how things are done must be shown to be successful first. These successful new ways of doing things require a minimum of time. Trying to create a new culture before demonstrating success simply doesn’t work anywhere (except in theory). Real people in real organizations demand “proof.”

Kotter and Cohen, in their book “The Heart of Change,” say, “New behaviors will not become the norms, will not take hold, until the end of the process.” I agree. The eighth step in Kotter’s popular change model is anchoring the change in the culture. Please notice that this is the last step, not the first or second. “Anchoring,” “taking hold,” or “sticking” happens only after compelling success stories. Make those success stories as vivid as possible.

For further reading, I recommend Kotter and Cohen’s book, “The Heart of Change,” or my special report entitled “Overcoming Resistance to Change,” which is available on my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions.

Urgency Before Vision

2006-10-10T22:15:00.000-04:00

When I first heard John Kotter speaking about urgency before vision, I thought he was wrong. I had been preaching vision first! I told countless audiences, “Don’t take a single step forward until you have a clear vision.”

Kotter actually agrees with my statement, but he also believes “getting the vision right” is step 3 not step 1. Kotter lists the first three steps in his eight-step model as follows:

∙ increase the sense of urgency
∙ build the guiding team
∙ get the vision right

The order of these three steps is very insightful. While vision is critical before moving forward, a sense of urgency is necessary to energize the process. Without sufficient organizational energy the vision statement (or mission statement or purpose statement) is just empty words on a piece of paper or poster.

In their book, “The Heart of Change,” Kotter and Cohen state, “Without enough urgency, large-scale change can become an exercise in pushing a gigantic boulder up a very tall mountain (p.15).” How many of you have tried pushing that boulder? I have. It’s hard work and it ends in frustration. Invariably, the boulder rolls back down the mountain.

So, instead of trying to lead a change when nobody wants to follow, let’s energize the followers first. Kotter warns, “Never underestimate how much complacency exists.”

The best way to increase urgency is to show people dramatic evidence for the proposed change. If it’s visual and dramatic it will stir the emotions. Engaging the emotions is necessary to raise the energy level. Dry, analytical presentations do not inspire.

Kotter and Cohen offer two real-world examples of how companies have used dramatic visuals to increase urgency. One company videotaped an angry customer (with the customer’s approval, of course), and presented it during a staff meeting. Nobody in the staff meeting could argue with the video. This was not hearsay; this was a real customer speaking directly to them.

The other case was called “Gloves on the Boardroom Table.” In this case, a frustrated manager wanted to streamline and centralize the purchasing function. The current system was out of control. He decided to use a dramatic visual. Can you imagine the looks on the executives’ faces when they entered the boardroom and saw 424 different pairs of gloves (with price tags)? Four hundred and twenty-four different pairs of gloves from different suppliers at different prices got everybody’s attention. A sense of urgency had been established!

Are you creating a sense of urgency before you try to push change through your organization?

For further reading, I recommend Kotter and Cohen’s book, “The Heart of Change,” or my special report entitled “Overcoming Resistance to Change,” which is available on my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions.

Survivors of Change

2006-09-19T21:25:00.000-04:00

In 1993, David Noer published his book, “Healing the Wounds: Overcoming the Trauma of Layoffs and Revitalizing Downsized Organizations.” Even though I thought the title was a bit too dramatic, the book provides some excellent guidance for organizations after downsizing.

A downsizing results in two types of people: the terminated and the survivors. The terminated, also referred to as the “redundant” (there’s an insensitive term I think you should avoid), are the initial focus of management concern.

“What do we owe the terminated?” is the question introduced into the board room. This question leads to a heated discussion with answers from “nothing” to “lifetime employment.” Of course, lifetime employment is one that I have not heard in awhile, but that gives you an idea of the range of possible responses.

Of course, we want to do as much as we can for the terminated because we are concerned about the terminated individuals. Even though Hollywood depicts us as cold and unfeeling, we business people do have a heart.

But, there is another reason to be generous: the perception of “fairness” by the survivors. Please don’t forget that we (the management members) are now dependent on the survivors.

The organizational impact of a downsizing includes, but is not limited to, the following:

∙ reduced management credibility
∙ reduced loyalty
∙ increased “short-termism”
∙ reduced risk taking
∙ reduced motivation
∙ anger over the downsizing process
∙ dissatisfaction with communication
∙ extra workload on the survivors
∙ a need for more training

David Noer talks about four steps in his model, the “Four-Level Redundancy Intervention Model.” I’d like to comment on the importance on the first three steps.

First, Noer says, “get the process of change right.” This includes a large amount of management planning. It is important to anticipate as many of the consequences of the change as possible. Noer talks about the “efficiency and effectiveness” issues of the change process at this stage.

Second, Noer recommends dealing openly and honestly with the emotional issues. Stage Two involves dealing with disclosed and undisclosed feelings. In my experience, most people are not very good at this. It is self-serving for me to say, but I recommend an independent change consultant during this stage. Organizational leaders need self- awareness and other-awareness to handle this stage well. This stage is important because a solid future can be built upon this “foundation.”

Third, after the emotional issues are dealt with (fear, uncertainty, and doubt--referred to as the FUD factor), it’s now possible to focus on the wide range of needs of the survivors. The survivors need to regain self-confidence and self-worth. This is a good time for the survivors to re-assess their strengths, and to develop new skills.

It is important for the organizational leaders to help redefine the psychological contract at this time. It is also critically important to ensure that HR policies and management practices are aligned with the espoused values of the organization.

For further reading on this topic, I recommend David Noer’s book or my special report entitled “Overcoming Resistance to Change,” which is available on my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions.

Seven Approaches to Change – Part III

2006-08-29T18:22:00.000-04:00

In the first two installments of this three-part series, we looked at the behavioral, cognitive, psychodynamic, humanistic, and personality type approaches to change. In this final installment we will discuss the learning and strategic approaches to change.

The learning model of change is especially helpful when employees must acquire new knowledge and skills to implement a change. During most change transitions there is “performance dip.” This dip is largely the result of the learning curve.

Once you attain a high level of competence, you can execute a task without thinking about it (unconsciously). But, of course, you had to go through a transition period before you could perform at that level of competence.

Managing that transition period, when employees are experiencing fear and insecurity, is less stressful if you are aware of the steps in the learning process:

∙ unconscious incompetence
∙ conscious incompetence
∙ conscious competence
∙ unconscious competence

Change leaders need to understand different learning styles and how to accommodate for them. Obviously, managers cannot learn for their employees, but they can facilitate the process.

The strategic approach to change is the subject of my book “Strategic Organizational Change.” My strategic approach does not ignore the other approaches, but subordinates them to the organization’s mission or purpose.

Every organization and individual has (or should have) a purpose or mission. Once that purpose or mission is clear, a strategic plan to accomplish it needs to be developed.

It’s the strategic plan that determines which changes are relevant, and how multiple changes should be prioritized. Randomly changing things is enormously destructive; changes must be strategically relevant.

As I discuss in my book, any change (structural, cultural, or process) must be aligned with the strategic plan. Change requires resources (time, energy, and money). The expenditure of scarce resources should not occur unless it contributes to the purpose or mission of the organization.

During this three-part series we looked at seven different approaches to change. Each approach has advantages based upon its unique perspective. I encourage you to consider each perspective in all of your own organizational change challenges.

To learn more about strategies and tools for effective change read my book, Strategic Organizational Change (Second Edition), available at www.amazon.com or on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions.

Seven Approaches to Change – Part II

2006-08-22T21:32:00.000-04:00

In the first installment of this article we looked at the behavioral and cognitive approaches to change. In this installment, we turn our attention to the psychodynamic, humanistic, and personality type approaches.

The psychodynamic approach attempts to reveal “why” a person reacts a certain way. Change can generate powerful psychological and emotional reactions—many of which are subconscious. It is possible for an individual to react in a manner that he/she does not understand him/herself (and certainly is unable to explain it to anybody else).

Several authors (Kübler-Ross, Satir, and Weinberg) have added predictive stage models to the psychodynamic approach. These authors suggest that individuals will go through stages (highs and lows) during any significant change. Being aware of the current stage of the change process is helpful to both the individual and the supervisor. The supervisor can help facilitate the change process by properly leading through each stage of the change.

The humanistic approach is best understood by looking at Carl Rogers’ client-centered approach. Even though Rogers was primarily concerned with the therapist role, his insights can be applied to managing workers as well.

Rogers believed change agents must be aware of their own feelings and be “authentic.” Rogers observed that the more genuine the change agent is, the more likely the client (or employee) will change.

Rogers also encouraged the concept of “unconditional positive regard.” Acceptance of whatever feelings the employee is experiencing (including anger and fear), lets the employee know you believe underneath the feelings he/she is okay.

It is critical for managers to learn to control their own emotions and behavior when an employee expresses anger or other intense emotions. Frequently, what is said during an employees’ fit of anger can be surprising insightful for the manager.

Consultants who favor the personality-type approach typically used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (or some other preference instrument). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) helps managers and their teams develop self-awareness and awareness of the preferences of others. I have found this approach to be very effective because most people mistakenly believe that everybody sees the world the same way they do.

By openly discussing team member preferences and personality types, it becomes easier to understand their responses to change. Everybody recognizes that individuals are different, but most people do not have the vocabulary to discuss the differences. The MBTI (and other preference instruments) help facilitate those discussions.

In Part III of this article, the final installment, we will look at the learning and strategic approaches to change.

To learn more about strategies and tools for effective change read my book, Strategic Organizational Change (Second Edition), available at www.amazon.com or on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions.

Seven Approaches to Change – Part I

2006-08-16T01:08:00.000-04:00

I am often asked, “Which approach to change do you prefer?” As the question suggests, there are several general approaches to change: behavioral, cognitive, psychodynamic, humanistic, personality types, learning, and strategic.

While it’s fine to prefer one approach, it is a mistake to disregard the insights from the other approaches. Organizational change is complex because people are complex. We need all the insights we can get.

The behavioral approach focuses on how one person can change another’s behavior by using rewards and punishments. This is my least favorite approach (because it tends to be manipulative and focuses on extrinsic rewards), but there some valuable insights here. Rewards are motivating; punishments are de-motivating.

I had lunch today with Phil Bowers, one of my consulting friends who specializes in first-time manager training. Our conversation turned to the use of rewards in organizations. Based on our experience, we were able to list countless examples of how organizations have used rewards to reinforce behavior—both positive and negative behavior.

One of the leading behavioral psychologists, John Watson said, “Whatever behavior you reward, you get more of.” The implications are powerful for individual behavior and organizational change. If you reward positive behaviors, you’ll get more positive behaviors. But, equally true, if you reward bad behaviors (even without intending to), you get more bad behaviors. What does your organization reward?

The cognitive approach focuses on changing thinking instead of changing behavior. I tend to favor this approach, possibly because I had the opportunity in graduate school to “study under” Albert Ellis (the leading cognitive psychologist).

Cognitivists believe behavior and emotions are the result of thinking. For permanent change, changing behavior is not sufficient; we must change how we think about the issue or situation. Stated simply, “How a person thinks determines how he/she feels or acts.”

The cognitive approach has the long-term advantage of reducing management time spent managing workers. If workers think differently (and receive proper training) about their roles, they can become more self-managing. This will free-up a manager’s time for tasks over than managing, or “micro-managing,” others.

The cognitive approach includes techniques such as reframing, pattern breaking, detachment, and rational analysis. All of these techniques are easy-to-learn and easy-to-apply.

In the next installment of this article, we will look at the psychodynamic, humanistic, and personality type approaches.

To learn more about strategies and tools for effective change read my book, Strategic Organizational Change (Second Edition), available at www.amazon.com or on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions.

After Sales

2006-07-25T23:07:00.000-04:00

I was pleasantly surprised by a recent Harvard Business Review article entitled “Winning in the Aftermarket.” The authors made a case for the large potential ROI on after-sales services and support.

Everybody has experienced poor after-sales service and support. I see this as an opportunity to establish a competitive advantage. The poorer the after-sales service and support in your industry or field, the bigger the opportunity.

This opportunity is not restricted to multi-national manufacturers, such as Caterpillar or John Deere. Small businesses and independent consultants can also use after-sales service and support as a competitive advantage.

The authors of the article correctly pointed out, “it’s cheaper for businesses to increase sales of parts and service-related products than to find new customers.” Are there opportunities here for your organization or your clients?

The HBR article goes on to say, you can “gain unique insight into your customers’ businesses” when you provide aftermarket support. Can you see competitive advantages here? In a highly competitive market, you want intimate knowledge of your customers’ needs.

As you know, many companies outsource after-sales service and support. That’s not necessarily bad. But, every organization should think about the outsourcing decision strategically. The organization should identify, based on its strategic plan, which products it will support in-house and which it will outsource. Cost should not be the sole criterion here.

The article offers “Six Steps for Managing Service Networks” and several other practice tools. To read more pick up a copy of the May 2006 edition of the Harvard Business Review.

For more strategies and tools to enhance organizational and individual effectiveness, visit my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions.

Training, Learning, or Performance

2006-07-11T18:43:00.000-04:00

Training in most organizations is better than it was when I began my career 30 years ago. But, most training still lacks the clear focus that it needs to deliver significant value.

In a recent article in “Chief Learning Officer” magazine, the author spoke about leading the transformation from training to learning. That is a step in the right direction, but it still fails to see the final destination.

Yes, learning is important. I have always been fascinated with how adults learn. (I have published many articles on the subject.)

But, if I may be blunt, senior executives do not care about training or learning. Senior executives only care about performance.

There are four distinct phases in training:

∙ needs assessment
∙ training design
∙ training implementation (conducting)
∙ training evaluation

It is important to keep in mind those senior management expectations about performance. Failure to understand those expectations is the reason for the low levels of perceived value of trainers.

So what’s a trainer to do?

First, during the needs assessment phase, the trainer must clearly define the strategic value of the training. The trainer must know how the training will help the organization implement its strategic plan. Clearly written training objectives should be determined. The following questions must be answered:

∙ What specific performance issues will be improved as a result of the training?
∙ What problem are we trying to fix?
∙ What opportunity are we trying to take advantage of?
∙ How do we answer the trainees’ question, “What’s in it for me?”

Second, during the training design phase, extensive discussions with line managers must determine how the new skills will be applied on the job. Opportunities to apply what has been learned should be available immediately after the training. (This work with the line supervisors is in addition to the designing on the training workshop itself.)

Third, during the conducting of the training, each training technique used must clearly demonstrate the relevance and importance of the new skills.

Fourth, during the evaluation phase, training results (actual on-the-job performance) must be compared to the written objectives.

As you can see, value-added training is a collaborative process. No matter how much the trainer knows about training, it’s not a one-man (or woman) job. Input from line managers (the subject matter experts) is critical.

All training and organizational learning must have strategic value. Does your training add strategic value?

For more tools and strategies about strategic training and organizational learning read my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning,” which is available on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions.

Individual Strengths/Organizational Strengths

2006-06-20T21:15:00.000-04:00

I am sure many of you are familiar with Marcus Buckingham and Donald Clifton’s book, “Now, Discover Your Strengths.” The book is based on extensive research by the Gallup Organization.

The book is typically spoken of as a book about individual development. It certainly is a “must read” for everyone who is concerned about his/her individual effectiveness

But, this book should also be “must” reading for organizational leaders and organizational consultants who are concerned about organizational effectiveness. Let me share a few reasons why.

First, only 20% of the people interviewed by Gallup believed that their organizations utilized their strengths. That means 80% of most employees are not utilizing their strengths to benefit the organization, or themselves.

Second, most companies are operating with a fix-the-weakness “developmental” model, instead of helping employees develop their God-given talents. Trying to develop workers for jobs in which they have no natural talent is like “trying to teach a pig to whistle.”

Many years ago, when I was a bank executive, I worked with a retired Army colonel who told me, “Trying to teach a pig to whistle is a lose/lose situation. It frustrates you, and it annoys the hell out of the pig.”

What’s the message for organizations? The job description of managers has to be re-written. Managers must help subordinates discover their strengths, and then help facilitate the development of those strengths. Then we will have a win/win/win situation for the manager, subordinate, and the organization.

To read more about individual development and its role in organizational effectiveness purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com at a 25% discount off of the list price. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions for future articles anytime.

Strategic Planning Sessions

2006-05-30T20:48:00.000-04:00

Over the past 30 years, I have been involved in strategic planning sessions on both sides of “the table,” as an independent facilitator and as an executive. Effective strategic planning involves three distinct phases: before the meeting, during the meeting, and after the meeting. I would like to offer some advice for all three phases

Before the Meeting

I disagree with most of the strategic planning literature that emphasizes the importance of the independent consultant having facilitation skills during the meeting. Facilitation skills during the meeting are important, of course, but they are easily learned (read chapter 3 of my book “Strategic Organizational Change”).

In my opinion, the facilitator (typically an independent consultant, like me) earns most of his or her fee before the meeting begins. Simply putting bright people in a room does not necessarily lead to valuable strategic planning session. Hard work is required before the meeting.

The facilitator must work with the leadership team to establish objectives and a timeframe before the meeting begins. It is not possible, or desirable, to discuss “everything” during the meeting; it is critical to determine the important issues to be discussed. Also, there should be general consensus as to the timeframe being discussed: one year, three years, five years, or ten years.

Identifying the right people to invite to the strategic planning session is an essential task. Keep in mind, decisions are best made by small groups. Getting input from large numbers of people (through interviews or questionnaires) should be done before the meeting. The strategic planning meeting should not become a “town hall meeting.”

It is typically advantageous to plan for more than one meeting. The break between meetings allows the leadership team members to take results back to their departments, divisions, or stakeholders. This time to reflect and gather additional data is quite valuable.

During the Meeting

The facilitator must monitor the quality, as well as the quantity, of participation; each meeting will have unspoken political and emotional issues. The facilitator must be willing to serve as devil’s advocate, or as the voice for minority or unpopular alternatives.

I typically coach the “owner” of the meeting (e.g., CEO or senior executive) on initial behavior during the meeting. It’s important for the senior leader to downplay his or her authority during the beginning of any discussion. I often use a round-robin technique in which everybody expresses his/her opinion before the senior leader gets an opportunity to speak.

Throughout the discussions, the facilitator should remind the group about the agreed-upon objectives and timeframe. It is critical for the facilitator to question assumptions throughout the discussions, no matter how widely held they are.

After the Meeting

The difficult task of implementation begins after the meeting. The facilitator should be retained to help keep the agreed-upon initiatives on track. A few scheduled phone calls (conference and/or individual) may be all the facilitator needs to do to add value to implementation process.

Assuming that there was leadership team commitment on roles, responsibilities, metrics, and reporting during the meeting, implementation of the plan has a high possibility of success. If significant change interventions must be implemented, it will be necessary to hire a change process consultant (possibly someone other than the strategic planning facilitator).

To read more about strategic planning and organizational change purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com at a 25% discount off of the list price. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions for future articles anytime.

Sustaining Change

2006-05-16T22:09:00.000-04:00

The subtopic in the change management literature that is the most poorly developed and confusing is sustaining change. Definitions of sustainability vary widely across the literature, and there is disagreement as to whether sustaining change is good or bad for an organization.

There is relatively little research concerning sustaining change in organizations. David Buchanan and his colleagues (2005) offer reasons for the lack of research. First, “researching change is more interesting than studying stability and, for most managers, the next initiative promises more career value than continuing with established routines,” and second, “sustainability requires longitudinal study and resources to which many researchers do not have access.” (p.190)

Buchanan et al. point out something important about the nature of sustaining organizational change. While planning and the initial implementation of change can occur relatively quickly, sustaining change involves a long period of time. Maintaining a sense of urgency, or even a significant level of interest, is difficult over a long period.

Definitions of sustainability vary based upon the type of change initiative the authors have in mind. Miller (1982) speaks in terms of evolutionary, revolutionary, or quantum changes. Stace and Dunphy (1994) contrast incremental adjustments with company-wide transformations. Pettigrew’s (1985) work focuses on the issues particular to large-scale, risky reorganizations. Clearly, the scale and complexity of the change determines how sustainability is defined.

Another related issue when discussing sustainability of various change initiatives is the concept of an “improvement trajectory.” Sustaining a change at a particular level is not the goal of many organizational changes. To apply Lewin’s (1951) concept of “refreezing” to a new quality improvement initiative could be a serious mistake. In a quality improvement change effort what must be sustained (or “frozen”) is the philosophy of quality improvement, not a particular level of quality. “What is to be sustained?” is a critical question when an improvement trajectory is more important than a particular level of performance.

Is sustaining change good or bad for an organization? Many authors assume that it is good, but many do not. As Buchanan et al. (2005) state, “Sustainability has been widely regarded…not as a condition to be achieved, but as a problem to be solved” (p.190). Sustaining change is a problem when it blocks the need for new or additional change. There are times when a change initiative should be allowed to decay.

To read more about sustaining organizational change purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com at a 25% discount off of the Amazon.com price. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions for future articles anytime.

Change & New Learning

2006-05-09T22:00:00.000-04:00

Every organizational change requires new learning. New learning can come through a variety of means: traditional training, computer-aided training, self-directed learning, and one-on-one coaching.

Most people think of new learning in the form of a traditional, instructor-led workshop. This traditional instructor-led training design is appropriate when there are large numbers of trainees, a need for declarative knowledge, and a small amount of training time. Obviously, we have other choices of methods for acquiring new knowledge. The key to successfully implementing and sustaining organizational change is to choose the appropriate method for acquiring the necessary new knowledge.

In every organizational change there is a need to acquire some (often a lot) of declarative knowledge. Declarative knowledge involves facts and figures—the basic building blocks of higher levels of knowledge.

If large numbers of stakeholders need to acquire declarative knowledge, an instructor-led workshop is typically appropriate. Simply getting all the stakeholders in a room and providing the instructor with all the resources necessary to facilitate the learning of the required declarative knowledge is a wise investment of time and money.

When instructor-led workshops are impractical or inappropriate, it may benefit the organization to create and support other methods of learning: computer-aided training, self-directed learning, or one-on-one coaching.

Computer-aided training (CAT) has become very sophisticated. CAT can provide not only declarative knowledge but skills training in a self-paced format. This approach can facilitate the learning for a wide variety of stakeholders with different levels of knowledge and different learning speeds.

Self-directed learning (SDL) is not necessarily the same thing as CAT. SDL may not involve any computer technology at all. SDL involves providing stakeholders with books, manuals, workbooks, audios, and/or videos. Like Cat, SDL provides a self-paced format. But, before using SDL, I recommend the use of the Guglielmino Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (Guglielmino, 1978, 1997). Obviously, not all organizational stakeholders are “ready” for SDL (Beitler, 2005, Chapter 4).

One-on-one coaching is often appropriate after the trainee has acquired the basic declarative knowledge. Coaching can be provided on the job by a supervisor, peer, or vendor. This form of on-the-job training (OJT) has the advantage of high “transferability.” Transferability is always a training concern. A lot of classroom-type training does not “transfer” well back to the real-world job. The transfer concern is eliminated in OJT.

To read more about this and related organizational change and learning issues, purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions for future articles anytime.

Guidelines for Implementing Change

2006-05-02T22:04:00.000-04:00

Let’s take a look at five specific guidelines that all organizational change efforts should consider during the implementing and sustaining phases of change:

∙ putting a respected person in charge of the change
∙ creating transition management teams
∙ providing training for new knowledge and skills
∙ bringing in outside help
∙ acknowledging and rewarding people

Putting a respected person in charge of the change is critical. Every significant organizational change needs a champion. Organizational change invariably involves learning curves and unexpected obstacles. A respected advocate or champion must be available to others during times of frustration and setbacks.

Creating a transition management team is suggested in the work of William Bridges. Bridges’ (1991) concept can be applied to virtually all types of changes. The interests of internal stakeholders (organizational members in various departments and locations) and the interests of external stakeholders (suppliers, distributors, and customers) should be represented on the transition management team. These teams provide emotional as well as technical support. It is important to know to whom to turn during times of frustration.

Providing training for new knowledge and skills cannot be overemphasized (“Strategic Organizational Learning,” Chapter 3). A feeling of incompetence is a major reason for resistance to change. It is important to have adequate resources to help everyone achieve a feeling of competence with the new skill set as quickly as possible.

Bringing in outside help is essential to keep the process “on track.” Independent consultants who specialize in human process consulting (“Strategic Organizational Change,” Chapter 3) have helped many clients through the change process. These consultants are not emotionally involved, so they are in a position to offer objective guidance.

The acknowledging and rewarding of people for new behaviors are critical leadership functions during the implementing and sustaining phases. Using new skills involves risk—the risk of failure. Acknowledging and rewarding those who use the new skills encourages others to do the same.

To read more about this and related organizational change issues, purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions for future articles anytime.

The Nature of Change

2006-04-26T11:04:00.000-04:00

While I am a vocal advocate for thorough change planning, I know virtually all changes will meet with resistance during the implementing and sustaining phases. Change leaders must anticipate resistance and be prepared to deal with it.

Marketing experts have known for many years that there is an adoption curve for new ideas and fashions. The following figure depicts six different categories of people adopting change at various speeds:

While it’s possible that an entire stakeholder group would fall into one of the six categories, it is highly unlikely. Typically, individual members of a stakeholder group will be dispersed across the six categories. It’s necessary to have an implementation plan to deal with individuals in each category.

From a strategic perspective, it is important to focus on innovators and early adopters first. Innovators are the most open to change; they are the first to embrace something new. Early adopters follow soon after. It’s critical to get these people on board as quickly as possible.

The good news is that it is not necessary to have everybody on board initially. Research tells us that we only need 5-10% of the people adopting the change for the change to be “imbedded” in the organization. And, an adoption rate of 20-25% makes the change “unstoppable.” Whether you agree with those numbers, or not, isn’t the point. The important point is that it is not necessary to have 100% buy-in initially.

These adoption rates vary, of course, based on who adopts first. If senior leaders and opinion leaders adopt first, lower numbers are sufficient. If senior leaders and opinion leaders do not adopt early, larger numbers are necessary to implement the change.

The focus of the change leaders should not be on the late majority or late adopters. They will follow the innovators and early adopters.

Since diehards refuse to accept the change they must be warned, transferred, or dismissed. Rarely is it wise to spend limited resources on the diehards.

To read more about this and related organizational change issues, purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to contact me anytime.

Five-Step Model of Change

2006-04-12T13:00:00.000-04:00

Dr. John Besaw, my friend and colleague in Seattle, has a five-step model for organizational change that is extremely helpful in planning any change effort. His change model describes where we are (“As Is”), where we want to go (“To Be”), and how we are going to get there.

Besaw believes change planning requires an understanding how we are going to get from where we are today to where we want to be. The process must be customized to meet the unique needs of the organization. The process is meant to be flexible, Besaw’s approach should empower the organization, not restrict it.

Besaw envisions a closed-loop, iterative process, broken down into five action steps:

· Where We Want to Be (“To Be”)

· Where We Are Today (“As Is”)

· Gap Analysis

· Prepare Action Plan

· Lead the Way

Step 1: Where We Want to Be (“To Be”)

Begin with the end in mind. Having a clear description of where we’re going is essential to any change process. Therefore, the first action is defining where we want to be.

The “to be” is simply a short statement that will serve to provide direction to the process. This short description is often called an “elevator speech.” An elevator speech is a concise description of where we want to be sometime in the future that can be clearly articulated during an elevator ride. Simplicity and clarity are the criteria here. Detailed planning will be worked out later in the process.

One of the best ways to develop this elevator speech is through a formal group process, possibly facilitated by an independent consultant. This will assist in getting buy-in and commitment. Trust the process; the words will come.

Step 2: Where We are Today (“As Is”)

After setting the direction with your “To Be” elevator speech, you need to make a complete analysis of where you are today, often called “as is” or “current reality.”

The people doing the job know best how it is being done. Their involvement in describing current reality is essential. This step requires listening skills.

Step 3: Gap Analysis

The gap analysis is a critical step in the Besaw approach. The gap analysis provides the foundation for action planning.

It is necessary to realistically assess the gap between where we want to be and where we are currently. This “needs analysis” must consider all of the following critical elements for successful organizational change:

· strategic alignment

· structural support

· cultural support

· human process support

· operational/technical process support

Step 4: Prepare an Action Plan

Preparing an action plan for successful organizational change must be built upon a thorough gap analysis (step 3). Unless the gaps are uncovered during the planning phase, they will require considerably more time during the implementing and sustaining phases.

The action plan must be customized for the organization. Following the action plan of another organization, even if it is referred to as “benchmarking” or “best practices,” is often short-sighted. Every change action plan must consider the uniqueness or “quirkiness” of the organization.

Step 5: Lead the Way

The involvement of organizational leaders cannot be over-emphasized. Leaders must be visible during the planning, implementing, and sustaining of change efforts. If the leaders are not visible, organizational members assume the change is not important. And once the change effort stalls, it’s difficult to get it moving forward again. Leaders must be visible.

Leading change is best accomplished by using a path-goal leadership approach. Path-goal leadership (perhaps more accurately called “goal-path leadership”) starts with a highly collaborative change planning process involving leaders and followers. The “path” becomes the focus after a collaboratively developed change plan is complete. The job of the leaders during the implementation is to clear the path so that followers can accomplish the goal.

To read more about this and related organizational change issues, purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Offshoring Yet?

2006-03-29T13:04:00.000-05:00

In a recent ASTD (American Society for Training & Development) survey, 97.4% of the respondents said their organizations have a skills gap or will have one within a year. But only 8.24% of them said they are considering outsourcing to remedy the gap.

Has your organization considered outsourcing or “offshoring” to India? Have your competitors?

India has become a resource for a wide range of services. This phenomenon involves more than call centers. Many organizations are now looking to India to fill their skills gap.

What’s next for the offshoring-to-India phenomenon? Let me make a few predictions based upon a recent article by Stan Gibson, some informal discussions I’ve had with clients, and a recent McKinsey study.

Gibson’s article, “India 2.0,” was published less than one month ago. The 2.0 refers to the next generation of the India phenomenon.

India’s technology companies have been on an exciting ride for more than a decade. The industry’s revenues have grown 200 times in the last 15 years (eWeek Magazine). Companies such as Infosys Technologies, Tata Consulting, and Wipro have experienced incredible growth and profits.

India’s technology companies have been operating at only 30 cents on the dollar compared to developed countries, such as the U.S. This has made India the “go-to” source for low-cost services. India’s English-speaking skills add a great advantage to its already strong position.

But, what about the next generation of Indian companies (India 2.0)? Ramalinga Raju, chairman of Satyam Computer Services in Hyderabad, India, said, “The last 15 years is the end of the beginning.” Wages are already beginning to rise. Are Indian companies prepared to respond to a changing world? Yes.

In a recent conference in Mumbai, India, companies expressed a collective desire to increase innovation and to globalize. Apparently, India will follow Japan’s model to becoming an economic power. Japan started with low-cost products fifty years ago and eventually moved up to high-end, high-quality products. Will India do the same thing in services? I think so.

Stan Gibson reports, “Indian companies are eager to develop, patent, and license their own IP (intellectual property), instead of just working on projects where their customer retains rights to newly formed ideas.” Gibson goes on to predict that Indian companies will soon begin selling software products.

Education is a critical issue when predicting the future of the outsource-to-India phenomenon. The Indian system has been successfully training tens of thousands technology workers. But a recent McKinsey study found that India will need 2.3 million IT and business process outsourcing workers by 2010. Indian universities simply will not be able to meet the future need at current rates of growth. McKinsey predicts a shortfall of 500,000 workers. There is already wage inflation in excess of 10%.

What will the effect of these trends be on developed countries such as the U.S.? Maybe you should start the discussion at your organization.

To read more about this and related topics, check out my website, www.mikebeitler.com.

Learning Management Systems

2006-03-15T13:07:00.000-05:00

All of us should be familiar with what’s happening with learning management systems (LMS). As organizations move away from a training mindset to a learning and performance culture, LMS will play a central role.

The organization’s LMS should be more than a training documentation system. In a recent article by LMS-guru Elliott Masie, Elliott listed the following expectations for a fully implement LMS:

· a “dashboard” for managers that highlights what their teams and individuals are learning

· an invitation-to-learn system that personalizes and targets individuals based on their current projects and performance goals

· a system to create and maintain a social learning network that enables knowledge sharing throughout the organization

· a system that makes learning recommendations based upon an individual’s preferred learning style

· a system that maximizes the learning power of podcasting, wikis, blogs, and other “extreme learning”

· a system that delivers learning to a wide range of devices, including PDAs and mobile devices, not only to desktops and laptops

· a system that promotes external learning affiliations

· a system that works closely with knowledge management systems

· a system that provides peer reviews of content (similar to the reviews of books provided by Amazon.com)

· a system that can deliver multi-language content, which enables employees to learn in their native language

· a system that will capture informal as well as formal learning

Learning management systems are part of the leading edge of performance improvement interventions. Learning and development departments are now expected to significantly reduce time to competency. LMS will help reduce that time.

In the future, learning will be delivered through an increasingly wider range of channels. M-learning (mobile learning), including laptops, MP3 players, mobile phones, will become a key element in today’s efforts to embed learning in the work process itself.

Take a look at some of the latest innovations from the three leaders in LMS at Learn.com, NetDimension.com, and GeoLearning.com.

To read more about this and related topics, check out my website, www.mikebeitler.com.

Scenario Planning

2006-03-01T13:01:00.000-05:00

When I mention scenario planning, most of my clients say, “I’ve heard of that. Isn’t it a type of strategic planning?”

That’s only partially correct. More important is the question, “Do you know when to use scenario planning?”

Scenario planning is an effective way of doing strategic planning when considerable uncertainty exists. In today’s world, scenario planning is obviously becoming a very important skill.

During scenario planning, senior organizational leaders are encouraged by a facilitator (typically an independent consultant) to imagine not just one probable scenario, but a variety of future possibilities. The goal is to craft multiple diverging scenarios. What emerges from the exercise is a range of choices based upon the opportunities and threats of each plausible future.

Should scenario planning replace all traditional strategic planning? No.

When is scenario planning appropriate?

• the industry is experiencing significant change
• competitors are using it
• few new opportunities appear to exist
• costly surprises have occurred in the recent past
• major differences exist among organizational leaders

In a 1959 Cary Grant movie called “Operation Petticoat,” Tony Curtis, who plays a charming but unscrupulous navy officer, says, “In confusion there is profit.” In today’s uncertain environment, there is great opportunity for organizations that take the time to explore a variety of scenarios.

To take advantage of future opportunities, it is necessary to project new core competencies, new product/service development, and new strategic alliances. This requires thinking outside of the current “box”; it requires exploring a range of possibilities. Keep in mind, each possible scenario has implications for organizational change, organizational learning, leadership development, and succession planning.

To read more about this and related topics, check out my website, www.mikebeitler.com.

Evidence-Based Decision Making

2006-02-15T13:04:00.000-05:00

A rapidly spreading movement in the medical profession is evidence-based decision making. The business community has also begun to take notice. Pfeffer and Sutton’s recent “Harvard Business Review” article argues for evidence-based decision making in business management.

Physicians using evidence-based decision making are committed to identifying, disseminating, and applying the latest research that is soundly conducted and clinically relevant. While this makes common sense, it is not common practice.

Thousands of studies of medical practice are conducted each year. You may find the research findings disturbing. Only 15% of medical decisions are evidence based!

What do physicians rely on the other 85% of the time? It appears to be a combination of the following:

• generally accepted, but never proven, tradition
• methods in which they are most skilled
• information from vendors of products and services
• obsolete knowledge acquired in medical school

Pfeffer and Sutton believe, “managers are actually much more ignorant than doctors about which prescriptions are reliable—and less eager to find out.” A harsh accusation, but one containing a serious reason for concern.

I should point out that Pfeffer and Sutton’s research focuses on “how companies ought to be managed” (their own words). Their prescriptive, rather than descriptive, conclusions often clash with the reality of real-world business decision making. Nevertheless, their work reveals opportunities for improving our decision making effectiveness.

As I stated in my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning,” competence in any profession (medicine, management, or consulting) depends largely on the tacit knowledge gained from experience. While I am an advocate for seeking real-world professional experience, our experience will always be limited.

Pfeffer and Sutton, correctly state, “Seasoned practitioners sometimes neglect to seek out new evidence because they trust their own clinical experience more than they trust research.” They go on to say, “information acquired firsthand often feels richer and closer to real knowledge than do words and data in a journal article.”

So, what am I suggesting? Should you discount the hard-earned tacit knowledge you have acquired over many years of professional work? Of course not. But, I do recommend that you become any active member of a community of practice, read the journals in your field, and always question what you “know.”

To read more about this topic, I recommend Pfeffer and Sutton’s new book, “Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management” (Harvard Business School Press).

For more discussion on organizational effectiveness topics, check out my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Transformational Outsourcing

2006-02-01T13:02:00.000-05:00

During the past few years, we have heard a lot of whining in the media about outsourcing and offshoring. Let’s look for the opportunities in these irreversible trends (and ignore the whiners!).

By fully leveraging offshore talent (a strategic view of global sourcing) we can improve productivity, increase quality, and create American jobs. Yes, I said “create America jobs.”

An aggressive outsourcer in Pasadena, California named IndyMac Bankcorp has risen from the twenty-second largest U.S. mortgage issuer to the number-nine position in only three years. According to IndyMac’s CEO, they are more productive, more cost efficient, more flexible, and provide better customer service than the competition because of IndyMac’s outsourcing and offshoring partners. India’s Exlservice Holdings (with a staff of 5,000) handles over 30 of IndyMac’s back-office processes, including bill collection and the “welcome calls” that assist American customers. IndyMac is also using New York-based Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation to develop next-generation software, which will increase productivity by as much as 20% by 2008. All of this outsourcing and offshoring has led to explosive growth. IndyMac has doubled its American workforce, in just four years, to almost 6,000 jobs.

Charlotte-based Wachovia Corporation has a $1.1 billion deal with India’s Genpact to handle finance and accounting jobs, and a separate deal with Illinois-based Hewitt Associates to handle administrative and HR programs. But, it is not just about cost savings, it’s about growth! Wachovia plans to invest up to 40% of the $600 million to $1 billion in savings in core business growth. Wachovia’s Director of Corporate Development believes this is what is necessary to become a “great customer-relationship company.”

Eli Lilly and other “big pharma” companies are facing unsustainable costs to develop new drugs. Lilly now does 20% of its chemistry work in China for one-quarter of the U.S. cost. Lilly plans to expand these efforts into Russia, China, India, and Brazil.

Many new companies are using outsourcing and offshoring from the start. California-based Crimson Consulting Group (with only 14 full-time employees) is able to compete with the world’s largest consulting firms (including McKensey and Bain) by offshoring research. Crimson uses India-based Evalueserve, as well as independent experts from around the world.

Wise leaders (and consultants) are now asking for articulate outsourcing/offshoring strategies. Are you familiar with the wide array of business services, software development, and call center resources that are currently available?

For more discussion on this and related topics, please see my book entitled “Strategic Organizational Learning.” And, for free articles and other resources visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Effective Performance Management

2006-01-18T13:08:00.000-05:00

Recently the Aberdeen Group completed a study on performance management. They found that companies with best-in-class employee performance management systems produce 50 to 70 percent more revenue than those that don’t have a good system. That finding gets my attention.

We also know, from earlier studies, that top performers are four times as productive as the weakest performer in an organization.

Bob Rogers, the president of Development Dimensions International (www.ddiworld.com), has said, “The majority of the workforce is randomly trying to achieve success without any real understanding of how success is measured for them in the organization.” The need for an effective employee performance management system is clear.

An effective employee performance management system establishes goals and measures results regularly.

A major performance management problem in organizations today is ignoring poor performance. Ignoring poor performance tells everybody that mediocrity is acceptable. In a hyper-competitive world this is deadly. The negative impact on even the top performers is only a matter of time.

Typically, managers can identify poor or mediocre performance, but they choose to ignore it. Very often these managers have past experiences when they did not receive positive support from higher management when they attempted to confront poor performers. A lack of high level support leads to a culture of “looking the other way.”

Senior leaders in the organization set the tone for performance expectations. Developing managers throughout the leadership pipeline requires training and rewards for effective performance management. Managers must be trained and evaluated on their ability to provide feedback to employees about performance. Developing employees is a critical task for all managers.

Organizations must make the role of every employee clear. At Dell Computer, the company’s “The Sole of Dell” program shows how every employee contributes to the success of the company. Michael Dell believes individual accountability begins with his role and the roles of senior management.

Every organization must make performance expectations and performance measurements clear. Only with clear expectations and measurements can we compete in any field.

For more discussion on this and related topics, please see my book entitled “Strategic Organizational Learning.” And, for free articles and other resources visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Retain Your Boomers

2006-01-04T13:10:00.000-05:00

My recent article, “America’s Talent Drain,” stirred up a lot of concern (and some panic) about America’s future competitiveness. Let me offer some non-traditional thinking and a non-traditional solution to the talent drain problem.

First, let me quote some Conference Group research that has been loudly trumpeted in the media. “By 2010, the number of 35-44 year olds will decline by 10 percent in the U.S., 19 percent in the U.K., and 27 percent in Germany.” Traditionally that is considered to be bad news because the average CEO is 45-years old. The concern: Where will our CEOs come from?

Now, let me quote some additional Conference Group research that you may not be aware of. “By 2010, the number of 45-54 year olds will grow by 21 percent in the U.S.” Add to that this bit of research: “By 2010, the number of 55-64 year olds will grow by 52 percent.”

Do you see what I am about to suggest? Obviously, one source to replace baby boomers is — baby boomers! Baby boomers are not near death. Most boomers don’t even want to retire. Thinking of 45-54 year olds, or even 55-64 year olds, as “old” is industrial-age thinking. This traditional way of thinking is the problem!

If we need to retain the tacit knowledge of the boomers, I suggest retaining the boomers. Boomers are healthier and more energetic than their parents at the same age only a generation ago.

Find out why the boomers want to keep working. Is it flextime? Is it new challenges? Would they like to become trainers or in-house consultants? Would they like to transfer to a new office in the Sun Belt?

American companies have spent decades destroying the psychological contract with employees. Now that loyalty in corporate America is at an all time low, I believe substantial gains can be made in the areas of employee- loyalty programs. Certainly nobody doubts the benefits of customer-loyalty programs.

On May 12, 2005, Eugene Steuerle, Senior Fellow with the Urban Institute, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, said “People in their late 50s, 60’s, and 70s have now become the largest under-utilized pool of human resources in the economy.” Steuerle is correct.

The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) reports that 59 percent of its members do not actively recruit older workers, and 65 percent of its members do nothing to target the learning needs of their older talent base.

Using industrial-age thinking is creating a large knowledge-age problem. Isn’t it time that we re-think our antiquated HR policies and practices?

For more discussion on this and related topics, please see my book entitled “Strategic Organizational Learning.” And, for free articles and other resources visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

America’s Talent Drain

2005-12-28T13:11:00.000-05:00

For hundreds of years America was seen as the land of opportunity. Anybody who was willing to work hard could come to America to make a fortune. This caused a “brain drain” throughout the world. While other countries lost their best and brightest, American gladly accepted the entrepreneurs and innovators of the world. These immigrants and their offspring built the most prosperous and powerful nation the world has ever known.

But, the twenty-first century will be different. America is seeing the beginnings of a “reverse brain drain.” This reversal will affect the lives of every American, as well as every person living anywhere on the planet.

Several factors are exacerbating the reverse brain drain: an international talent “shortage,” countries offering great opportunities to young professionals, anti-immigrant American policies, and the destruction of the American public school system.

Articles in leading magazines and journals talk about the international talent “shortage.” Actually, there is not a talent shortage, it’s a talent imbalance.

America, in fact, does have a severe talent shortage in the leading-edge professions, science, and technology. But, countries like China and India have a talent surplus. That is why you see so many talented Chinese and Indian professionals currently working in the U.S. But, as the Chinese and Indian economies continue to grow, so will the opportunities for these young professionals who want to work in their homelands.

Not only China and India, but many countries now see the advantages of bring their talented expatriates home. Vietnam is bringing home 300,000 expatriates per year. Brazil is luring home thousand of engineers and scientists. The Irish government has a special fund to help Irish entrepreneurs repatriate. Iceland has created a high-tech center to attract young professionals.

While foreign competitors are working to attract talent, the Americans are initiating policies to keep talent out. In post 9/11 America, anti-immigrant feelings are rapidly rising. American companies that were already losing their competitive positions to new capitalist companies in China and India have fueled the fire that has lead to anti-immigrant legislation. This legislation is not anti-terrorist, it’s anti-immigrant.

All of the above comes at a time when the American public school system has become a national disgrace. At a time when home-grown talent is critical, we have failed to educate our best and brightest. The American public school system now caters to the dumbest and laziest, while the best and brightest are bored and unchallenged. American students score at the bottom internationally in math and science; and their English language and writing skills are shameful. Perhaps we’ve lost an entire generation.

Where will America get the talent it needs?

For more discussion on this and related topics, please visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Future Organizational Structures

2005-12-21T13:00:00.000-05:00

For many years, we all heard predictions of intellectual assets becoming more important to organizations than tangible assets. We are now in the era of intellectual assets. In 1997, Stewart’s research found, "Capital spending on information technology, which in 1965 was only one-third of that of production technology, now exceeds it."

Information technology will allow organizations to maintain large databases of customer needs and preferences. The new customer-based operations will cause organizations to move away from traditional hierarchies toward inter-company collaborative ventures. These new structures will include suppliers, customers, and even old competitors.

In 1999, Dunning described three stages of market-based capitalism based on three key characteristics:

1) 17th and 18th Centuries:
primary source of wealth - land
spatial dimension - local
organizational form - feudal or entrepreneurial

2) 19th and 20th Centuries:
primary source of wealth - machines
spatial dimension - regional/national
organizational form - corporate hierarchy

3) 21st Century:
primary source of wealth - knowledge
spatial dimension - global
organizational form - alliances

These changes are the causes for the reconfiguration of value-added activities, the expansion of spatial dimensions, and the restructuring of organizational forms. These changes will result in "soft boundaries" for organizations.

While large corporations are downsizing the value-added activities they do in-house, "they are not replacing these with arm's length transactions, but rather with a series of on-going and hands-on technological and marketing relationships with their new suppliers, customers, and competitors" (Dunning, 1999, p.6).

Dunning offers the following comparisons of the old and new paradigms:

Old - an organizer of human and physical resources
New - an innovator and product improver
Old - gain competitive advantage with tangible assets
New - gain competitive advantage with core competencies
Old - "an island of conscious power"
New - a member of an alliance or network
Old - arm's length relationships with suppliers & customers
New - partnerships with suppliers and customers

The network structures of the 21st century will afford distinct advantages. Network structures will enable organizations "to gain many of the efficiencies traditionally reserved for large firms while remaining small and nimble" (Cummings & Worley, 2001, p.617). Network structures can quickly adapt to changing customer needs.

Is your organization, or your client’s organization, structured to compete successfully in the 21st century?

For more discussion about organizational structure, see chapter 8 of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.”

For free articles and resources on leadership and organizational effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Organizational Political Savvy

2005-12-14T13:00:00.000-05:00

It is a fact of organizational life: politics influence virtually everything that happens in an organization. Leaders, especially change leaders, must develop political savvy. I am not advocating unethical behavior, but I am recommending that leaders consciously fine tune their political awareness.

In organizations, individuals and groups are continually vying for scarce resources. Each one is attempting to maintain or enhance its self interests. Many leaders and consultants underestimate these powerful forces.

Any attempt to implement organizational change will invariably threaten one of these individuals or groups. Organizational change is frequently accompanied by conflicting interests, unethical behavior, and emotional turmoil. Change leaders must learn to navigate these dangerous waters.

Power and Change

The word "power" has positive and negative connotations. In this chapter, we will concentrate on the positive, ethical uses of power. Burke (1982) believes "for change to occur in an organization, power must be exercised" (p.127).

Let’s take a brief look at Richard Emerson's Power-Dependency Theory. Emerson's (1962) theory depicts a social relationship between two parties in which scarce resources (commodities and rewards) are controlled by one party and desired by another. Thus, power is inherent in any social relationship in which one person depends on another.

"Commodities" in power-dependency theory can include social commodities, such as respect, praise, influence, and information. French and Bell (1999) state, "We enter into and continue in exchange relationships when what we receive from others is equivalent to or in excess of what we must give to others" (p.284).

Bases of Power

Managers and consultants should be able to recognize the bases of power individuals, groups, and coalitions exert in organizations.

French and Raven (1959) suggest five bases of power:
1. reward power - based on the ability to reward another
2. coercive power - based on the ability to punish another
3. legitimate power - based on the holder's position
4. referent power - based on charisma (i.e. popularity)
5. expert power - based on knowledge or expertise

Mintzberg (1983) also speaks of five bases of power:
1. control of a critical resource
2. control of a critical technical skill
3. control of a critical body of knowledge
4. legal prerogatives (e.g., exclusive rights)
5. access to any of the other four bases

Additionally, Mintzberg believed the influencer must have both the "will and skill" to use his or her base(s) of power.

Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) also contribute some valuable insights into our understanding of power in organizational settings. They view power as a positive and necessary force for change and progress in organizations. They believe power bases can be created by the placement of allies in key positions.

Using Political/Power Skills

For change efforts to succeed, managers/change agents must develop and use power skills. The first skill required is the ability to analyze the current political situation. Failure in this assessment phase invariably leads to frustrated change efforts.

French and Bell (1999) believe, "one gains a quick understanding of the overall political climate of an organization by studying its methods of resource allocation, conflict resolution, and choosing among alternative means and goals" (p.286).

Greiner and Schein (1988) believe change agents must be able to assess their own power and to identify key stakeholders. Only after assessing their own power base(s) can they determine how to use it/them to influence others. This assessment will also reveal areas where enhancement of power is necessary. Some of these weak areas can be strengthened by developing allies in the organization.

For more discussion about organizational political savvy, see chapter 4 of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.”

For free articles and resources on leadership and organizational effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Leadership Formulas

2005-12-07T13:00:00.000-05:00

Do we really believe outstanding leadership is so simple that we can boil it down to a simple formula? Could any single formula explain the likes of Gandhi, Jack Welch, and Bill Gates? Of course not.

Individual human beings are amazingly complex. Interactions between individuals and groups are even more complex. Leadership represents one of the most complex forms of human interaction. In any given leader-follower relationship countless things are happening simultaneously: ego needs, security needs, needs for power, needs for approval, needs for affiliation, needs for achievement, etc., etc.

Nevertheless, many authors continue to offer simple formulas for leadership success. John Maxwell alone has written enough leadership books to fill your garage. Maxwell’s ideal leader would, no doubt, be effective in the church where he is the pastor. But, could you imagine a Maxwell-like leader being taken seriously in the business world or in the military?

Jim Collins, after writing his extraordinary book “Good to Great,” decided to simplify the leadership phenomenon to a few paradoxical combinations: humble and willful, or shy and fearless. He calls these paradoxical combinations Level Five Executive Leadership, “a necessary requirement for transforming an organization from good to great.”

Collins uses Abraham Lincoln as an example of a Level Five Executive Leader. While we all admire Abe Lincoln, could you imagine Lincoln as CEO of Microsoft or Amazon.com?

In my own articles and books, I offer a leadership model that is more complex than the “pop” models. It is more complex, but it also offers some practical guidance. My leadership model considers the characteristics of the leader, the characteristics of the followers, and the characteristics of the task.

In any leadership situation, of course, we want to look at the characteristics of the leader. My argument with the leadership characteristics described in the “pop” literature is against the tendency to be overly simplistic.

We must also consider the follower characteristics in a leader-follower relationship. An interesting body of literature about follower characteristics emerged several years ago. Unfortunately, this type of study has not been very popular because it does not appeal to the people who seek simplistic ideas about leadership success.

Finally, in my work, I have urged individuals and organizations to consider the characteristics of the task at hand. The highly effective tank commander in combat situations may not be the best choice to lead the new Sunday School at your church.

Leadership will continue to be a fascinating topic. Some of the best research on leadership is being conducted right here in Greensboro, North Carolina (where I live) at the Center for Creative leadership (CCL). The findings of CCL’s research may not be found at the top of the New York Times bestseller list, but reading CCL’s research is well worth the investment of your time.

For more discussion about leadership effectiveness, see chapter 11 of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.” I also recommend the work of Marcus Buckingham. Buckingham’s work is based on his interviews with numerous executives.

For free articles and resources on organizational and individual effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Flexibilization

2005-11-30T13:00:00.000-05:00

Professor Walter Oechsler of the University of Mannheim (Germany) believes the workplace and workforce in the 21st century will be characterized by "flexibilization." Oechsler sees the "flexibilization" of the workplace and workforce leading to "a core group with unlimited full employment, and an increasingly larger group of short-term limited and/or part-time employees who face severe employment risks, ultimately resulting in stress."

Unfortunately, I must agree with Oechsler's rather unpleasant prediction. Increasing global competition will lead to increasing pressure and stress on all employees. Employees who are unprepared for the new workplace will find themselves at great risk.

Oechsler goes on to describe a major change in corporate strategy. "Whereas the typical corporate strategy of the industrial society was uniform mass production with Tayloristic structures and stable employment, the dominant strategy for global competition is flexible specialization...The strategy of flexible specialization is directed toward customer needs.”

This shift in focus from fixed standardized production schedules to flexible customized customer services will dramatically affect the workplace and workforce. The 21st-century employee will have to bring a "flexible specialization" to the 21st-century organization.

Twenty-first century organizations will only be interested in hiring employees who bring a specialization that will serve the flexible needs of customer/clients. Staff positions to support these customer-driven processes will still be available, but these staff positions (non-core competencies) will constantly be re-evaluated in light of possible outsourcing.

Except for a small group of core professionals, employees will have to adopt a mindset of selling their special competencies to different employers. Oechsler envisions these employees as "entrepreneurs marketing their own human resources in order to make a living". Employability will be the key to employee survival, not the stability of the company.

Another powerful trend in the workplace will be the technologically possible "virtual company." Oechsler believes the virtual company can suppress social interaction and lead to new forms of alienation. What we know about group dynamics in face-to-face interactions will have to be re-examined in virtual interactions. How will employees react in the decentralized work structures of the virtual companies? We simply don't know.

Oechsler believes, "Information technologies will dissolve social entities". If Oechsler is correct, what new entities and relationships will be created? I assume the social aspect of our human nature hasn't changed.

Oechsler (2000) summarizes his predictions for the 21st century workforce by saying, "The employee will take on more and severe risks of being unemployed."

The work of organizational effectiveness (OE) consultants will be dramatically affected by these changes in employer-employee relations. The downsizing, outsourcing, and global alliances that began to grab headlines in the 1980s were not simply fads driven by a few greedy capitalists. These trends are indicators of the more powerful megatrends of increasing global competition and increasing technological sophistication. No doubt, numerous psychosocial problems will arise from these trends.

Are you and your organization (or clients) ready for flexibilization? To learn more read Chapter 15 of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.” And for free articles and resources on organizational and individual effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

What Do CEOs Want Now?

2005-11-23T13:00:00.000-05:00

At about this time every year Accenture releases the findings of its annual research with hundreds of CEOs from around the world. This year Accenture questioned more than 400 leaders of the largest corporations and public-sector organizations worldwide. The questions basically ask, “What are your biggest concerns?” These are the issues that keep CEOs awake at night.

As consultants and managers, we want to know these concerns and offer solutions. By offering solutions to these troublesome issues we enhance our value in our clients’ eyes, and thus build more successful careers.

For all of you who want to get behind the closed doors of the executive suite to find out what’s going on--listen up!

CEOs told Accenture that people issues are their greatest concerns. Attracting and retaining skilled staff ranked as their number one concern. Approximately 40% of these executives fear that their organization will not be able to compete for talent. If you expertise is in the field of talent management, you have valuable knowledge.

The number two concern of the CEOs was changing organizational culture and employee attitudes. The brutal cost cutting in recent years has taken a toll on employee loyalty.

So, how can you use these findings to further your career as a consultant or manager? Here are a few suggestions:

1. Schedule a meeting with senior organizational leaders to discuss the findings of the Accenture survey. Listen carefully and take a lot of notes.

2. Discuss the Accenture findings in your community of practice (see my July 13, 2005 newsletter in the Archives section of my website). Work with your colleagues to develop solutions for organizational leaders.

3. Be proactive. Write a report on these issues for your clients or your boss.

To learn more about improving organizational effectiveness read my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.” And for free articles and resources on organizational and individual effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Organizational Culture Change: Is It Really Worth the Effort?

2005-11-16T13:29:00.000-05:00

Much has been written about changing organizational culture. It’s an exciting topic because of the enormous potential benefits derived from changing an organization’s culture. While exciting because of its enormous potential, attempting to change organizational culture can lead to enormous frustration.

It is important to understand how deeply the roots of organizational culture go. Organizational culture is rooted in the shared tacit assumptions of the organization. These tacit beliefs drive behavior throughout the organization.

Edgar Schein believes organizational culture provides members of the organization “stability, consistency, and meaning.” The change agent who threatens those three things will surely meet strong resistance.

Schreyoegg, Oechsler, and Waechter (three German researchers) believe organizational culture provides members with a worldview: how to perceive, how to conceptualize, and how to make decisions.

In my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” I offered six reasons for organizational culture’s stubborn resistance to change:

1. it is implicit rather than explicit
2. it is woven into everyday practice
3. it leads to uniform thinking and behavior
4. it is historically rooted
5. it guides all decision making
6. it is used to socialize newcomers

The main reason changing organizational culture is so difficult is that it resides in the dark, unexamined recesses of the corporate mind. The unexamined assumptions that make up the organizational culture have not been questioned in years.

We know that most organizational culture change efforts fail. We know that organizational culture changes that succeed only do so after a frustrating uphill-battle against the status quo. We know that powerful organizational members have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

So, my question to you is this: Should an organization spend its limited resources (time, energy, and money) to change the organization’s culture? My answer is “yes.” Let me explain.

Organizational culture change is necessary to support almost all organizational change efforts (strategic, structural, or process). Organizational change efforts will fail if organizational culture remains fundamentally the same. The effectiveness of organizational change efforts requires embedding improvement strategies in the organizational culture.

Changes in procedures remain superficial and short-lived unless there are fundamental changes in values, ways of thinking, and approaches to problem solving. The resisting forces will simply renew their efforts to re-establish the old status quo.

Cameron and Quinn bluntly state, “The status quo will prevail. We repeat! Without culture change, there is little hope of enduring improvement in organizational performance.”

Cameron and Quinn offer the following hints for change agents:

1. Find something easy to change first.
2. Build coalitions of supporters.
3. Set targets for incremental completions.
4. Share information/reduce rumors.
5. Define how results will be measured.
6. Reward desired behaviors.

Organizational cultural change can be slow and frustrating, but the benefits can include dramatically improved organizational performance.

To learn more about how to successfully change organizational culture read Cameron and Quinn’s book, “Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture,” or my book “Strategic Organizational Change.”

And for more free articles and resources on organizational and individual effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

You're Effective, We're Effective

2005-11-09T13:00:00.000-05:00

Every leader wants his or her organization to be effective. Every leader realizes organizational effectiveness depends on the effectiveness of individuals. Therefore, it is critical to remember what is necessary to make an individual effective (not only for the subordinates, but the leader him/herself).

We have learned (or should have learned) that the unrelenting 24/7 drive toward a goal becomes counter-productive at some point. As early as 1908, the Yerkes-Dodson Curve demonstrated the relationship between performance and stress. Initially, increasing levels of stress increase performance (efficiency). But, further increases in stress levels cause a plateauing of effectiveness. And, if stress levels continue to increase, performance begins to decline rapidly. Extreme and/or consistently high levels of stress affect our performance and efficiency, and eventually our health.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) report some disturbing findings about workplace stress. NIOSH found that “40% of all workers feel overworked, pressured, and squeezed to the point of anxiety, depression, and disease” (Harvard Business Review, November 2005, page 53). Obviously, these workers are not going to be very effective.

So, what’s a frustrated, stressed-out manager to do? First, the manager must apply some basic effectiveness principles to his/her own work habits.

A lot can be learned by a brief review of Dr. Herbert Benson’s work. Professor Benson, of the Harvard Medical School, has spent 35 years conducting research in the fields of neuroscience and stress.

It was Benson’s bestselling 1975 book, “The Relaxation Response,” that first described the benefits of using techniques such as mediation to business managers. His descriptions of stress and relaxation on the physiological level were quite convincing.

Benson basically recommends a three-step process to maximize our effectiveness. First, struggle mightily with the problem. This step involves the hard work of data gathering and problem analysis. Eventually your stress level will reach the point where your effectiveness plateaus and begins to decline. Time for step two!

Step two involves “walking away” from the problem. It’s time to do something completely different. It’s time to relax in a manner that works best for you (go to the art gallery, get a massage, “sleep on it,” listen to calming music, share a meal with an old friend). You can do whatever you want to do. But, here is what you cannot do:

· continue analyzing the problem
· continue controlling the situation
· continue your attachment to the problem

During step two you must disengage!

Step three is the “breakout” step. After you have relaxed and rejuvenated, you return to the problem with renewed vigor, creativity, and insight.

To learn more about this “breakout” level of effectiveness, I recommend Benson’s latest book, The Breakout Principle (2003, with William Proctor), and Csikszentmihalyi’s classic bestseller, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (1990).

And for more free articles and resources on organizational and individual effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

A More Effective OE Consultant

2005-11-02T13:00:00.000-05:00

As organizational effectiveness (OE) consultants we make our livings by diagnosing our organizational clients’ effectiveness deficiencies and then recommending interventions for our clients’ greater effectiveness. But, we must also consider our own effectiveness.

As OE consultants, we must continuously engage in discussions about how to become more effective ourselves. It is extremely important for all of us to be involved with communities of practice with other OE consultants, and to attend the conferences with our peers.

I would like to share with you some of the comments expressed at a recent LearnShare event in Ohio. I was impressed by the emphasis on becoming strategic business partners with our clients. As OE consultants, either internal or independent, our job is to add value to our clients’ businesses.

Barry Melnkovic, Vice President of Talent Management & Organizational Effectiveness, said, “You can’t lose your focus on making money.” He went on to say, “If you really focus on business strategies, then I propose that you focus on the few that really matter and drive the business.” Do you know your client well enough to know what drives the business?

Donnee Ramelli, President of General Motors University, emphasized the importance of speaking senior management’s language. Ramelli said, “[During a downturn], training is one of the first things to get whacked. And the reason we get whacked is that we haven’t shown how we offer enterprise value. You pass that test by having the hard metrics that are commonly understood by any of the general managers.” You don’t necessarily need an MBA, but you do need a common language to talk with your client.

Rick McAnally (Director of Talent Management at Deere & Company) and Frank Persico (IBM’s Director of Learning Partnerships) spoke about how internal consultants can keep their services in-house and also about “in-sourcing.”

The concept of “in-sourcing” has received little attention in practitioner journals. Outsourcing, on the other hand, has received an overwhelming amount of press. Outsourcing, as we all know, is the process of finding outside vendors who can provide services more effectively than in-house staff can provide those same services.

Instead of living in fear of outsourcing, several internal consultants that I know now aggressively practice the strategy of “in-sourcing.” They actively look for services provided by outside vendors that they can do more effectively in-house. Bringing these services in-house improves their companies’ bottom lines. And, this strategy adds a lot of perceived value to these in-house professionals.

IBM’s Persico (an organizational learning consultant) concluded the session with a comment that applies to all of OE consultants who want to get to (and stay at) the top of the organization. He said, “Previously, you were a learning professional who knew something about business. What will propel you forward is becoming a business person who knows something about learning.” Substitute the word “learning” with “effectiveness” and the comment applies to all of us!

To learn more about how to become a more effective OE consultant visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

The Passive, Inwardly Focused Organization

2005-10-26T13:00:00.000-04:00

In a recent Harvard Business Review (HBR) article the three authors (Neilson, Pasternack, and Van Nuys) described what they called the “Passive-Aggressive Organization.” While we are all familiar with the concept of the passive-aggressive individual, what the authors described in the article does not qualify as passive-aggressive.

Even though I disagree with their passive-aggressive designation, the three authors point out a very serious organizational problem. They describe an organization where conflict is rare, consensus is easy to reach, and problems are graciously overlooked (a “happy” place).

What the authors describe is what I call a “Passive, Inwardly Focused” organization. It’s a serious diagnosis because this type of organization does not have long to live. This organization will soon lose any hope of responding quickly to market changes. They typically remain passive and inwardly focused until they are near death. But as you can imagine, they don’t die happy.

Of course, it is important for organizational members to treat each other in a respectful way, but professionalism also requires the “backbone” to take a stand. In fact, I have been called into several organizations that claimed to have a conflict problem. After data gathering and diagnosis, I told the senior executives that their problem was that they did not have enough conflict. They needed to stir up some debate!

Living in a “happy world” is appropriate for children and smurfs. But, a highly effective organization requires healthy disagreement. Passively accepting the status quo leads to complacency. Questioning the status quo leads to innovation.

Of course, concern for the preferences and work habits of employees has its place, but it must be balanced with the demands of the marketplace. Ultimately, satisfied customers are more important than satisfied employees. If customers are not satisfied, eventually employees will be very unsatisfied. They will be out of work!

In passive, inwardly focused organizations several things can be done. First, match incentives to performance. Second, recognize doers, not “good ole boys (or girls).” Third, establish quantifiable goals. Fourth, bring in outsiders who can shake up the status quo. Fifth, invite (or demand) debate in meetings. Sixth, actively solicit customer complaints and concerns.

It is only a matter of time before passive, inwardly focused organizations experience financial distress. Don’t wait, act now!

Is your organizations “happy” but not productive?

To learn more, read my special report “Overcoming Resistance to Change,” or my book “Strategic Organizational Change,” which are both available on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Also, you can always find free articles on organizational effectiveness topics at www.mikebeitler.com.

Talent Management

2005-10-19T13:00:00.000-04:00

When three leading magazines (Harvard Business Review, Business Week, and Training & Development) all have cover stories about talent management the same month, it is safe to say you are looking at a hot topic.

Talent management (the recruiting, training, and retaining of good workers) has had many names over the years, but it is certainly not new. While the topic is not new, how we think about it has evolved over time.

As early as the late 19th century, business organizations turned to universities for help developing their employees. In 1881, Joseph Wharton (co-founder of Bethlehem Steel) persuaded the University of Pennsylvania to create an undergraduate business education program. Soon after, Dartmouth and Harvard followed Wharton’s lead.

In the mid-twentieth century, universities shifted their focus from factory workers to executives. As the importance of manual labor declined, universities abandoned the “hard issues” for the theoretical.

As university programs became more irrelevant, business organizations responded with corporate universities (CUs). CUs (beginning with GE’s in Crotonville, NY) offered company-specific training that was relevant to their companies’ real-world practice.

Training of managers and executives outside of the university setting has become quite sophisticated. In addition to executive MBA programs, both executive coaching and action learning are now widely available. Executive coaching offers one-on-one guidance on many of the emotional intelligence or “soft” skills. Action learning is designed to allow managers and executives to work on real problems and to learn simultaneously.

So what’s the problem Mike? If organizational learning has become more sophisticated, aren’t companies more profitable? Not necessarily. These sophisticated training programs are expensive. Do we know the ROI (return on investment) for these massive investments of time and money?

Also, many companies neglect the fact that training is only part of effective talent management. Talent management also includes recruiting and retention.

Is your company training the right people? Training the wrong people is a waste of limited organizational resources. After you have trained the right people, can you retain them? If not, you are simply training good people for your competitors.

During my consulting work, I have often suspected that most companies are not handling talent management effectively. A recent Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) study confirmed my suspicions. SHRM found that only 49% of HR professionals believe their organizations effectively identify high-potential employees. That means 51% of companies are wasting a lot of time and money.

Is your organizations part of the 49%, or the 51%?

To learn more, read my special report “Identifying Candidates for Your Succession Plan,” or my book “Strategic Organizational Learning,” which are both available on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Also, you can always find free articles on organizational effectiveness topics at www.mikebeitler.com.

OE Consultants: Is There a Future for Them?

2005-10-12T13:00:00.000-04:00

Since my “Death of the OD Practitioner” article was published about a month ago, I have been asked whether Organizational Effectiveness (OE) consultants will experience the same fate. My answer is “no.” Of course, that assumes that OE consultants do not follow the same destructive path that Organization Development (OD) practitioners chose.

OD practitioners made the mistake of not partnering with their clients to produce business results. OD practitioners looked at business executives (their clients) with disdain.
They saw business men and women as bourgeois money-grabbers who didn’t care about their workers. Their anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-management rhetoric has led to their own demise. (You can’t look down your nose at your business client and expect to stay in business yourself.)

OE consultants, who share a different mindset, will share a different fate. OE consultants respect their clients and serve as business partners. Let me make the following predictions about the future of OE consulting:

1. OE consultants who serve as strategic business partners will rise in status and recognition in their organizations. Salaries will rise too as the value of their expertise becomes more widely recognized. (A value-added approach will be critical to fulfilling this prediction.)

2. The title of Chief Learning Officer (CLO) or Director of Organizational Effectiveness will become commonplace at leading corporations. These positions will be responsible for all organizational learning and change efforts.

3. The role of OD practitioners will continue to decline in importance for two reasons: (a) OD practitioners have not adopted a strategic business partner approach, and (b) many OD practices have already been adopted by mainstream American businesses.

4. OE consultants will become more responsive to the needs of senior management. OE consultants will become a valuable in-house (or independent) source of guidance on tough management issues such as succession planning, the creation and transfer of tacit knowledge, and the development of organizational talent.

5. OE consultants will develop higher levels of consulting skills to increase their value to their clients.

If you are an OE consultant, there are several things you should keep in mind:

Bob Pike has said, “Deliver what is needed, not just what is requested.”

David Ulrich predicts, “Business organizations in the future will compete aggressively for the best talent.”

I have predicted, “In the years ahead, senior executives will be looking for high-level tacit knowledge and experience that will add to their organizations’ core competencies and competitive advantage. These core competencies, in the form of highly developed human capital, will become the organization’s most important form of sustainable competitive advantage.”

How are you going to add value to your organization’s (or your clients’) core competencies and competitive advantage? You can’t stand still in a fast-moving world!

To read my complete article on the “Death of the OD Practitioner,” see the previous post in my blog. You can find my books and free articles on organizational effectiveness at www.mikebeitler.com.

Large-Scale Organizational Change: Look Before You Leap!

2005-10-05T13:00:00.000-04:00

I am often asked, “Should organizational change be done quickly or slowly over time?” and “Should management attempt large radical changes or small incremental changes?” The safe answer is, “It depends.”

The literature on organizational change identifies two general types of changes: first-order change and second-order change. First-order change gets less attention because it is less dramatic. It is incremental and evolutionary in nature. We see first-order change today in organizations in the form of quality improvement programs (e.g., TQM or Six Sigma). First-order incremental change is also important after large-scale, organization-wide, second-order change.

Second-order change is discussed more often in management literature because it is dramatic, radical, and revolutionary. The very survival of the organization may depend on these changes. Examples of second-order change include interventions to create and implement a new corporate mission (or strategy) or to completely restructure the organization’s hierarchy. Second-order changes occur rather infrequently, but they get the attention of many interested parties (customers, employees, suppliers, competitors, consultants, management authors, academics, investment analysts, the media, and communities of various kinds).

There is clearly a bias in the management literature toward big changes at high speed. John Kotter, the author of Leading Change, has stated, “To change an organization successfully, you have to make big moves. No matter who you are, there is a tendency to want to take the ball forward only a couple of yards. But that doesn’t work. You can’t coax people into change.”

Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, said, “Incremental nudges in a world that’s moving in nanoseconds is absolutely not acceptable. Strike boldly when you believe in something. Take action and live with the consequences. If it’s right, soar with it; if it’s wrong, cut your losses and do something else.”

While these comments, from two management-thought leaders, are inspiring, I would recommend that you look before you leap into these large-scale, second-order changes. Keep in mind that two out of three organizational transformation initiatives fail. Many organizations already have a poor track record with organizational change efforts. A poor track record will dampen organizational members’ hopes for success with current large-scale changes.

Also, remember that organizational change is a complex topic. A search on Amazon.com for books on management and change produces a list of over 6,000 titles. Each author has a distinct take on the subject.

I am not against large-scale changes, but they require an ongoing, visible commitment from senior management. Organizational leaders must devote considerable amounts of time to leading the initiative and encouraging “the troops.” Most senior leaders seriously underestimate the time required of them.

Before deciding on a large-scale organizational change, maybe you should look before you leap!

To read more about organizational change, I recommend Leading Change by John Kotter and my book, Strategic Organizational Change. You can find my book and free articles on this subject on my website at www.mikebeitler.com.

Know Thyself: MBTI and DiSC

2005-09-28T13:00:00.000-04:00

In my practice as an executive coach and consultant, I use both the MBTI® and the DiSC®. I am often asked, “Which one is better?”

The question reveals a common misunderstanding about psychological instruments. The fact is, there is no such thing as “the best” psychological instrument. As consultants who use psychological instruments our challenge is to choose the “appropriate” psychological instrument.

As long as a psychological instrument has been subjected to rigorous validity and reliability testing (the only type I will use in practice) it probably has an appropriate use.

The Oracle of Delphi, centuries ago, recommended “Know thyself.” I would add, “Know others too!” Psychological instruments have been designed to measure almost any psychological or behavioral dimension you can imagine. In addition to the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) and the DiSC Classic, here is a sample of other helpful instruments:

Kirton Adaption/Innovation Inventory (creativity and problem solving styles)

Change Style Indicator (change styles)

Strength Deployment Indicator (conflict styles)

Campbell Interest and Skill Survey (career choices)

FIRO Element B (need for inclusion, control, and openness)

All of these instruments have valuable appropriate uses.

Let’s go back to the comparison of the MBTI and the DiSC. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is based on the theory of Dr. Carl Jung. The DiSC (originally called the Personal Profile System®) is based on the theory of Dr. William Marston. Both of these gentlemen developed their theories during the early 1900s.

MBTI

Dr. Carl Jung, a psychiatrist, attempted to identify the basic personality traits that differentiate normal people. Jung described three bi-popular dimensions of personality in his work entitled “Psychological Types.” He discussed extraversion versus introversion (an individual preference to engage in the outer world versus a preference to focus on the inner world).

Jung believed individuals prefer one of two “functions” for gathering data: sensing or intuiting. Sensors prefer to use the five senses to gather “real” data. Intuitors look beyond the five senses for patterns and meaning. Sensors tend to be present-oriented, while intuitors tend to be future-oriented.

Jung also believed individuals also prefer one of two “functions” for processing data and coming to conclusions: thinking or feeling. Thinkers prefer logic and objectivity, while feelings prefer personal values and subjectivity. Thinkers and feelers arrive at very different conclusions because of the criteria they use to evaluate information.

Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers, a mother-daughter team, worked to operationalize Jung’s theory of three personality dimensions. Briggs and Myers also added a fourth dimension based on Jung’s ideas. This fourth dimension considers an individual’s preference for managing the “outer world.”

An MBTI practicing (after training and passing a certification exam) can help an individuals and team become aware of their own preferences and the preferences of others. With additional training, an MBTI consultant can help an individual understand and manage his or her “dark side.” The dark side of the personality, the least preferred of Jung’s functions, comes out when the individual is tried, stressed, or under pressure. These are valuable insights for anybody who desires to be effective.

DiSC

It is difficult to compare the DiSC to the MBTI because the instruments measure different things. While the MBTI measures personality types, the DiSC measures behaviors in various situations.

Dr. William Marston, a physiological psychologist, studied how an individual perceived him or herself in a situation, the resulting emotions of the perception, and the likely subsequent behavior. Marston’s model has two critical dimensions:

· the situation is perceived as either favorable or unfavorable
· the individual perceives him or herself as more or less powerful than the situation

Marston tried to explain how people adapted to varying situations by understanding their emotional responses and subsequent behavior. Thus, the DiSC instrument helps people understand behavior (their own and others) in various situations.

The electronic version of the DiSC can be taken on-line without a coach or consultant.

Click here to take the DiSC online at my website.

To learn more about using psychological instruments read chapter six of my book “Strategic Organizational Learning.” There are always free articles available about this and other related topics on my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Strategic Organizational Learning

2005-09-21T13:00:00.000-04:00

The cost of training in North American companies exceeds $60 billion per year. Try to visualize that. Picture a stack of 1,000,000 $1 bills. Now try to picture 60,000 of those stacks. Amazed? Then consider this fact: estimates of training costs worldwide approach a quarter of a trillion dollars ($250,000,000,000) when indirect costs and opportunity costs are included. Do you find those numbers as difficult to comprehend as I do?

Understandably, senior executives are concerned about the ROI (return on investment) on these massive investments. Many executives are not convinced that the benefits of training exceed the costs.

Corporations are now looking for organizational learning (OL) consultants who can serve as partners in the strategic decision making about these large investments of resources. These OL consultants will be expected to help improve not only learning, but ultimately performance.

To serve as strategic business partners, OL consultants must have expertise in adult learning theory, methods to promote self-directed learning, usage of learning and development agreements, knowledge capture, knowledge transfer, management and professional development, expatriate training and support, corporate universities, and what I call “strategic learning.”

The first step for the OL consultant is to be sure the organization has a well-crafted strategic plan that clearly communicates how senior management intends to fulfill the organization’s mission. Frequently, the organization has a vague mission and/or unrealistic strategic plan. There is no way to develop strategic learning and development systems until senior management has completed the strategic planning process.

Only after the organization has a well-crafted, well-communicated strategic plan can the OL consultant recommend learning and development systems that will help implement the plan. “Strategic learning” is learning that is focused on helping the organization fulfill its strategic plan.

Senior management must be able to depend on OL consultants to maximize the organization’s investment of money, time, and other resources to build its human capital into a sustainable competitive advantage. In an era when human capital is far more important than physical assets, the role of the OL consultant is critical.

Raymond Noe has made the following predictions:

* the focus of learning will become business needs and performance

* there will be increased emphasis on the capture and storage of intellectual capital

* new training technologies will be developed

* the demand for training for virtual work will increase

* the use of learning management systems will be widespread

*HRD departments will develop partnerships with outside vendors (e.g., traditional universities)

*the practice of outsourcing training activities will continue

Senior management will be seeking the OL consultant’s advice on all of these issues. Are you and your organization prepared to address these issues?

To learn more about becoming a strategic OL consultant read my book “Strategic Organizational Learning,” which is currently available on my website. Additionally, there are always free articles available about organizational and individual effectiveness on my website www.mikebeitler.com.

The Death of the OD Practitioner

2005-09-14T13:00:00.000-04:00

In my recent book, “Strategic Organizational Learning,” I made some controversial remarks about the continuing decline in the field of OD. Let me be blunt here: “OD is dead.”

My comments and the comments of others, such as those of Jerry Harvey, have enflamed the passions of the few remaining adherents to the faith known as OD. David Bradford and Warner Burke have published a new book, entitled “Reinventing Organization Development,” which appears to be a last stand to defend the faith. (I received a complimentary copy of the book this week. Considering my views of OD, it is quite a compliment indeed.)

For the uninitiated, let me briefly discuss what OD practitioners believe and why OD practitioners have failed to convert others to their beliefs.

Organization Development (OD) practitioners (note, if you use the word “organizational” instead of “organization” you will not be accepted as one of them), claim to represent the applied behavioral sciences approach to the fields of organizational change and change management.

While various approaches in any professional practice are welcomed and healthy, OD practitioners have never been completely forthright and honest about their beliefs. OD practitioners are staunch believers in humanistic philosophy, and they practice their faith with cult-like devotion. OD practitioners stand together against “strategic” approaches, “economic” approaches, and “capitalistic” approaches to organizational change, change management, or doing business.

While other organizational consultants, such as trainers, organizational learning consultants, HR consultants, and management consultants in general are seeking to become strategic business partners, OD practitioners still refuse to “partner” with their clients to produce business results.

Christopher Worley, one of the defenders of OD, has said OD is “concerned with learning and growth… [not] performance.” Clearly, management is, and should be, concerned with performance. Management is responsible to multiple stakeholder groups. Businesses are not founded to make employees happy; businesses are founded to serve the needs of all their stakeholders (customers, stockholders, and the community in general, not just employees).

OD practitioners look at business executives (their clients) with disdain. They see business people as bourgeois money-seekers who don’t care about the worker. They look down their noses at the “capitalists,” who incidentally happen to be their clients. Bradford and Burke complain about “OD and its marginal position.” Is there any wonder why? Why should anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-management rhetoric be appreciated in the boardroom? OD practitioners do not want the responsibility for “performance,” but they do want the right to criticize the hard decisions management must make.

I believe there are two reasons why the OD practitioner has declined in importance and is now dead: 1) OD practitioners have not adopted a strategic partnering approach with management, and 2) many OD practices have already been adopted by mainstream corporations. Let me comment briefing about how OD has marginalized itself by not partnering with its client, and then I want to comment about the positive contributions of OD practitioners.

First, OD practitioners have marginalized themselves with cult-like vocabulary designed to separate themselves from the clients they serve. In his article, entitled “The Future of OD: Or, Why Don’t They Take the Tubes Out of Grandma?” Jerry Harvey included a list of this off-putting verbiage: “deconflicting, leadershiping, gridding, sensitizing, feedbacking, spiritualizing, T-grouping, rolfing, deep sensing, cheese chasing, renewing, life balancing, energizing, story telling, holistic knowing, mind mapping, Enneagramming,…”

So am I saying OD has been worthless? Not at all. OD practitioners have contributed many ideas that are now common practice in corporate America. Even some of OD most hated “enemies” (such as Jack Welsh) adopted many OD practices.

The second reason I believe OD is dead is the fact that the OD movement succeeded! Many OD practices, such as empowerment and participative management, are now part of organizational culture and practice in mainstream American business. Even if the initial intentions of OD were anti-business, anti-capitalism, and anti-management, the result of adopting OD practices has been higher productivity of profits. But, in addition to higher productivity and profits, I believe we also have “happier” empowered workers.

Yes, I believe OD is dead. But, I believe OD should be buried with honor. OD’s contributions were ultimately significant for all stakeholders in American business.

What’s next? OD practitioners should drop the anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-management rhetoric and the OD practitioner banner that it represents. It’s time to become consultants who serve clients as strategic partners.

To learn more about becoming a strategic business partner read my books “Strategic Organizational Change” and “Strategic Organizational Learning,” which are both currently available on my website. Additionally, there are always free articles about organizational and individual effectiveness available on my website www.mikebeitler.com

Seven Essential Elements of Leading Change

2005-09-07T13:00:00.000-04:00

In my practice as an organizational effectiveness consultant, the most frequent phone call I receive involves clients and prospective clients asking how to overcome resistance to change in their organizations.

Throughout my book, Strategic Organizational Change, I recommend a strategy-driven approach to planning and implementing change. Unfortunately, many organizations do not follow a systematic approach (my approach or anybody else’s) for planning and implementing change.

An Unworkable “Plan”

Most organizations still attempt the following “plan” for organizational change:

1. senior management determines that a change is needed
2. the CEO announces the change to “the troops”

Needless to say, this “plan” is inviting resistance.

Seven Essential Change Elements

In the unworkable plan above, senior management has failed to consider the following seven essential elements for successful organizational change:

1. Involve the people who will be affecting (and affected by) the change. Get their input. Workers are a valuable source of information for management decision making. Today’s workers want to be part of what’s happening. (No buy-in from these folks guarantees resistance.)

2. Communicate a good reason for the change. Human beings can change quickly when they see a way to maximize benefits and/or minimize threats. Make sure the change is seen as relevant and strategy-driven. (Busy people will resist changes that they see as irrelevant.)

3. Designate a champion for the change. A senior executive does not have to take the champion role. In fact, it might be better to find someone the workers can relate to. (Natural leaders, many times in unofficial roles, exist throughout every organization. Take advantage of their leadership ability.)

4. Create a transition management team. This cross-functional team can provide emotional support as well as practical ideas for change leaders. (Remember, no one individual is charismatic or talented enough to effectively implement an organizational change single-handedly.)

5. Provide training in new skills, behaviors, and values. If workers fear a loss of competency, they will resist change. They will revert back to the old skills, behaviors, and values when they feel threatened. (Change invariably involves a threat to one’s current sense of competency.)

6. Bring in outside help. This sounds like a self-serving comment since I am an independent consultant, but the external consultant can play a critical role. An outsider brings a fresh perspective. An outside
consultant doesn’t have an “axe to grind.” (And realistically, most senior managers are not trained in
leading or facilitating organizational change.)

7. Reward people. Remember, whatever behaviors you reward, you get more of. Rewards do not have to be in the form of cash. Acknowledgement, praise, new job assignments, or additional decision-making authority can be more powerful motivators than cash. (In every successful organizational change, people are the essential factor.)

To learn more about effectively leading or facilitating organizational change read my special report entitled “Overcoming Resistance to Change.”

Identifying Candidates for Leadership

2005-08-31T13:05:00.000-04:00

A critical task in the succession planning process of any organization is identifying candidates. Traditionally, candidates have been identified based on past performance. While this seems logical, it is problematic in practice.

Past performance always measures success in a current lower-level position. What is needed in succession planning is a system to identify potential for success in a future higher-level position. The best predictive model I have found is the Leadership Pipeline Model by Charan, Drotter, and Noel.

The Leadership Pipeline provides a model that describes the skills, time applications, and values required to succeed at different levels in the organization. While most leadership models and theories describe characteristics of leaders in general, the Leadership Pipeline describes specific criteria for success in transitioning from one level to the next.

The Leadership Pipeline Model helps us to see the importance of identifying candidates for positions throughout the entire organization. The pipeline must be continuously filled with leaders who have been identified for development for the next higher level. A pipeline clog at one level will clearly harm leadership development and succession throughout the entire organization. What is needed is a carefully monitored system for developing in-house talent from front-line supervisors to CEOs.

At GE and Citicorp, two companies using the Leadership Pipeline Model, leadership passages from one level to the next are seen as “turns” in the leadership pipeline. These turns (or passages) provide significant developmental experiences. If these turns are skipped the individual may not be prepared for higher levels of leadership. The focus for development should be the lack of critical skills and values for the next higher level, not past performance.

I am often asked “Is it better to recruit from outside the organization or to develop leaders from within?” The safe, but rather uninsightful answer is, “It depends.”

Recruiting from outside the organization makes sense when a major change in corporate culture or direction is needed. But, I would caution against the over-dependence on the outside recruitment of leaders. Desperate attempts to recruit leaders from outside the organization suggest an inadequate leadership pipeline.

Recruiting leaders from the outside of the organization can be very expensive. As we all know, there is a talent shortage in the marketplace. This can lead to paying high premiums (or even outright price wars) for promising talent.

The Leadership Pipeline Model offers a common language (terminology) and specific criteria for what to look for in leaders at the next higher level. The Model provides a description of the skills, time applications, and values required of leaders at each successive level. This criteria is critical in not only identifying candidates but also in their subsequent development.

The key to identifying candidates for higher levels of responsibility is to predict their potential to succeed in attaining and using the skills, time applications, and values of the next higher level. Past performance is often a poor predictor of future success. Remember the skills, time applications, and values of each successive level of leadership are dramatically different.

The challenge in succession planning and identifying candidates is making sure people are assigned to a level that is appropriate for them. The challenge is complicated by the fact that people change (hopefully for the better) over time. An appropriate position for someone today may not be appropriate three years from now.

Identifying candidates for the organization’s future leadership positions is a critical task. Do you have a system for identifying candidates that considers not only their current skills, but also their willingness to adopt new work values and time applications?

To learn more about identifying candidates read “The Leadership Pipeline” by Charan, Drotter, and Noel or look for my upcoming special report entitled “Identifying Candidates for Leadership Positions.” There are also always free articles on my website at www.mikebeitler.com.

Employee Retention: It’s a Changing Game

2005-08-24T13:07:00.000-04:00

As a management consultant, I have seen some poorly conceived retention policies at otherwise well-run companies. The philosophies underlying these policies lack some basic knowledge of two things:

1. human nature, and
2. the changing world around us

Human Nature

Let’s start with human nature. The practice of management requires an understanding of how people work. Successful managers can be forgiven if they do not know how a particular machine works, or how to debit and credit the general ledger, or how to write HTML code. But, managers must know how people work. Specifically, they need to know how people work well.

People are motivated by goals… their own! Organizations that help individuals achieve their goals and career aspirations have less trouble with retention. Are you helping your best employees achieve their goals?

I recently read some research findings that were just plain silly. The findings you ask: Workers leave organizations for two reasons:

1. they feel mistreated or unappreciated
2. they can get more money/compensation from another organization

The researchers went on to say, most workers are unaware of more money at other organizations until they feel mistreated or unappreciated. Did you catch that? If not, re-read the “two” findings.

Here’s my interpretation: If you treat your workers well and make them feel appreciated they will stay with your organization; money is not the primary driver for workers leaving. Help you workers achieve their goals. I believe “appreciative” workers are more motivated than “happy” workers.

Before you think this is more “soft” management talk, let’s look at some “hard” facts. The average cost of hiring a new worker is one-and-a-half times the worker’s annual salary. And, the average worker will need a year to master his/her job skills.

The Changing World Around Us

As the world changes around us, we must change the way we think about retention (and everything else). Gone are the days of the homogeneous workforce. The world is being changed by unstoppable trends: globalization and an aging workforce.

Future work teams will include three generations of workers (a 23-year-old worker, a 48-year-old worker, and a 73-year-old worker), workers with different religions and nationalities, and workers with dramatically different life experiences.

The brain drain in developed countries can be slowed by retaining older, highly skilled workers. But, that is not nearly enough. Companies must compete globally for talent. (And remember what is necessary to retain these individuals. We must understand their individual goals and career aspirations.)

American companies that hope to depend on American talent exclusively will fail miserably. American knowledge workers are losing their competitive edge. Let’s look at some more “hard” facts:

1. In China, 42% of students earn undergraduate degrees in science or engineering. In the U.S., the figure is less than 5%.
2. Only 70% of U.S. high school students graduate. The U.S. public education system was recently ridiculed by a British news journal. When you consider that the British public school system is arguably the worst in Europe, Americans should hear this as a wake-up call.
3. Only 32% of U.S. students leaving high school qualify to attend a four-year college or university.

Add to this some alarming facts about off-shoring. One organization recently said it was off-shoring jobs to India not simply because the cost was lower, but because the quality of work was better. The off-shoring of high-level professional jobs (such as engineering and IT) is now a common practice.

Conclusion

Organizations must do two critical things:

1. develop retention policies that recognize the need to understand the individual workers’ goals and career aspirations, and
2. learn how to recruit and develop talent from around the world.

These are big changes for most organizations. Is your organization ready for these changes?

To read more about how to plan and implement organizational change see my book, Strategic Organizational Change.

Action Learning: It’s More Than OJT

2005-08-17T13:09:00.000-04:00

For centuries companies have used on-the-job training (OJT). OJT works because it follows much of what we know about adult learning theory. For example, we know:

1. Adults learn best when new learning can be applied immediately.
2. Much of classroom “learning” is lost because it does not transfer back to the job.

Action learning is a two-part method to maximize learning and productivity by maximizing OJT. Action learning involves teams of organizational members working on real organizational projects and problems. The team members’ work is also accompanied by regular (and spontaneous) facilitator-led reflection and discussion meetings.

Action learning projects have led to new product launches, acquisitions and divestitures, and large-scale organizational changes. In addition to extensive and measurable productivity, there are significant learning benefits from these action learning projects. The benefits include:

• exposure to other parts of the organization,
• development of emotional intelligence (EI),
• learning the political realities of the organization, and
• being able to showcase skills to senior management.

Obviously, action learning projects require serious senior management commitment. Senior management buy-in includes not only contribution to choosing projects and participants, but also a commitment to evaluating and implementing projects.

Not every organizational project is an appropriate action learning project. Many projects have severe time constraints that would not allow sufficient time for reflection and discussion for the project team. Some projects are not strategically important enough to justify the investment of organizational resources (time, people, and money).

The facilitator for the action learning project must be a trained facilitator. To maximize the learning in an action learning project, the coach or facilitator must know how to extract learning from the team’s work. Learning goals must be identified early in the project. Provoking critical thinking, reflection, creative thinking, and self-awareness is the job of the facilitator.

Action learning is one of many organizational learning strategies. Action learning must be used in alignment with the other organizational learning programs, such as individual coaching. For example, many coaching discussion topics can be based on the real-time learning that takes place in an action learning project.

Obviously, action learning projects (like any other organizational learning methods) are not a cure-all for every learning need. But, the productivity and learning benefits of action learning should be considered by every organization.

For more information of action learning projects read Dierck and Saslow’s May 2005 Chief Learning Officer article entitled “Action Learning in Management Development Programs.”

For more information on organizational learning see my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning.”

Outsourced Learning: Are You Ready for Learning BPO?

2005-08-10T13:10:00.000-04:00

As the business world enters a period of hyper-competitiveness, every business process will be subjected to examination and possible restructuring. We have already seen outsourcing and offshoring used to an extent what nobody would have dreamed of a few years ago. McDonald’s is testing the offshoring of its drive-thru process to India. How about, “Do you want fries with that?” with a New Delhi accent?

Even though McDonald’s testing of business process outsourcing (BPO) has caused quite a stir, it’s only the beginning. What started as the outsourcing of a few basic business processes, such as payroll or accounts receivable, has grown into a “movement.” No internally performed business process is “safe.”

IT, finance, supply chain management, and customer relationship management have been outsourced. Why not the learning process?

Labor costs in Western countries are out of control. American, German, and French workers are overpaid. To compete with the Asian countries, Western companies must become more efficient. Controlling costs (and remaining competitive) will require the outsourcing of inefficient business processes.

So, what is “Learning BPO?” The best definition is Hap Brakeley’s of Accenture Learning. In Chief Learning Officer (April 2005, p.4), Brakeley defined Learning BPO as:

“a broad range of relationships that organizations establish with an external service company to transfer and/or share responsibilities for the successful operation of the learning function: design, development, delivery, administration, measurement, and reporting.”

Brakeley went on to talk about the range of possibilities for Learning BPO:

“The outsourcing relationship may be as simple as outsourcing the learning management system and the learning administration responsibilities (sometimes called out-tasking) or as complex as arranging for an external company to plan and deliver the entire enterprise learning function, encompassing an organization’s complete value chain, from employees to customers to channel partners.”

How much of the learning process should your organization outsource? Are you fully aware of what outsourcing possibilities are available to your organization? Obviously, you cannot ask your internal providers for an objective evaluation of external resources. Be prepared for strong resistance to change when considering Learning BPO.

To read Brakeley’s entire article on Learning BPO see the April 2005 issue of Chief Learning Officer.

To read more see my special report called Overcoming Resistance to Change.

Leadership and Professional Development

2005-08-03T13:12:00.000-04:00

Even though I am known for my organizational effectiveness work, I spend a considerable amount of time doing leadership and professional development work.

Organizational effectiveness entails strategic planning, planning for change, planning new learning and knowledge management systems, and a host of other large-scale efforts. All of these grand plans must be implemented by people. A plan is worthless unless it is successfully implemented.

Thus, leadership and professional development are critical to organizational effectiveness. In organizational design theory we use the terms "line" and "staff." The line makes the products or provides the services. The staff supports the line workers. Don't confuse the term "line workers" with an assembly line. Every organization has a line. The organization’s core competencies are found in the line workers. The staff positions, which can be more easily outsourced, have only one purpose: to support the line workers.

Leadership development is focused on those executives and managers who are responsible for overseeing the work of the line. The executives and managers in the organization are responsible for leading the work of the line workers. This requires a set of skills that should be systematically assessed and developed.

Professional development is focused on those highly trained professionals who are responsible for supporting the line workers. These staff workers are in-house professionals. At some point in time, the organization's leaders decided to have these functions performed in-house. These staff professional positions (which can be outsourced, if a better source becomes available) include attorneys, accountants, financial analysts, IT professionals, HR professionals, trainers, etc.

As an independent consultant, I have helped many organizations with their leadership and professional assessment and development functions. This is no doubt a valuable service. But, organizational leaders themselves must take the responsibility for the performance management function.

Performance management (PM) involves more than performance appraisal. PM requires managers who can help subordinates with goal setting, individual development plan writing, and guidance counseling.

Does your organization have a leadership and professional development system that effectively handles assessment, development, and performance management?

For more information about leadership and professional development read Chapter 6 of my book, "Strategic Organizational Learning."

Corporate Universities and Traditional Universities: Partners or Competitors?

2005-07-27T13:00:00.000-04:00

I have been asked if corporate universities (CUs) will replace traditional universities (TUs). The answer is clearly "no." In fact, a better strategy is to partner with one or more TUs.

TUs teach a wide range of subjects from the sciences to the humanities. There is no need for a CU to teach any of these subjects (unless, of course, the company's core competences are in the sciences or the humanities). Generally, these subjects are best taught by the TU.

TUs also have business schools. Will corporate universities replace TU business schools? The answer again is "no." And again, I would suggest a better strategy is to partner, not to compete.

Why would a company with a CU send managers to a TU's MBA program? Actually, it's a good idea. I am a faculty member of the University of North Carolina's MBA program in Greensboro, NC. In every class I have students from a wide range of companies and industries in North Carolina. These diverse students bring ideas to the classroom that may be unheard of in other companies and industries. The subjects we cover in the classes are applicable to managers in every organization. A TU's MBA program is an excellent way to obtain general business and management knowledge.

So, what is the value of the CU? The CU adds value by teaching (or facilitating the learning of) company-specific and industry-specific knowledge and skills. This cannot be overemphasized. In an era of knowledge-driven companies, core competencies include knowledge and skills of the organizational members. No longer are physical property and equipment the sources of sustainable competitive advantage.

Let me return to TUs for a moment. TUs conduct research in addition to teaching. Should CUs become research centers? The same strategy again: partner, don't compete. Keep in mind what TUs are designed for.

TUs receive funding to conduct research in a wide range of subjects: everything from the sciences (social and physical) to the humanities. TUs conduct "pure" research. A TU's research adds to our general knowledge. But, it may provide little or no "applied" knowledge for the business community.

Should a CU conduct research? Again, generally speaking, "no." I have academic friends (tenured professors) who are masters at designing and conducting research. Here is my suggestion to corporate clients: If you need applied research (research with specific business applications), consider partnering with a local university. The corporation funds the research; the university conducts the research. A win/win for everybody.

Can you see a consistent strategy here? TUs provide general knowledge and skills required of all managers and professionals. CUs can offer company-specific and industry-specific knowledge and skills. TU's have research designing and conducting expertise. Partner, don't compete!

For more information on CUs read Corporate Universities by Jeanne Meister, or see Chapter 8 of my book, Strategic Organizational Learning.

Succession Planning - A Hot Topic

2005-07-20T13:00:00.000-04:00

Succession planning has become a hot topic for several reasons. Times have changed and the workforce has changed. The most comprehensive work on succession planning (SP) has been done by Professor William Rothwell of Penn State University.

In the second edition of Rothwell's (2001) "Effective Succession Planning" he states, "Strategic success is, in large measure, a function of having the right leadership (p. 8)." Rothwell correctly links organizational success and individual success. Many authors have attempted to separate organizational development and individual development. In reality, we cannot separate organizational effectiveness and individual effectiveness.

Organizational effectiveness consultants (like me) and executives (my clients) must never lose sight of the effectiveness of a company's SP. The organization's SP, along with management development and professional development (for attorneys, CPAs, engineers, etc.) programs, must constantly be monitored for relevance and contribution to the implementation of the strategic plan.

Rothwell goes on to comment about how the changing times have changed the importance of SPs. He says, "leaving the development of leadership to chance, and hoping for the best, may have worked at one time (p. 8)." Obviously, leaving leadership development to chance is a mistake. Depending on headhunters to find replacements for key positions is a mistake. Rothwell concludes that we must "ensure that the organization is systematically identifying and preparing high-potential candidates for key positions (p. 8)."

It is important to consider the effects of the wave of downsizing that washed over the corporate world in the 90s. The psychological contract that once implied a secure job in exchange for good work no longer exists. Neither side of the employer-employee relationship can assume any devout degree of loyalty.

The traditional SP was built upon drawing talent from in-house middle-management. But, with fewer people in the middle ranks after the downsizing wave, traditional SP strategies are no longer viable.

Rothwell (2001) believes, "great care must be taken to identify promising candidates early and actively cultivate their development... especially in a seller's market where talented workers can barter their abilities with other companies." (p. 8)

I don't want to give the impression that all companies do SP poorly. One very good example is the SP at BB&T Bank Corporation. BB&T's well-designed and well-implemented SP provided several years of development for its new CFO. I was at BB&T's headquarters the day that its CFO of many years retired. I asked one of the executives if he was concerned. He replied, "No, I am very comfortable. Our new CFO has been well-prepared over the past few years." This speaks very highly of the caliber of BB&T senior management.

For more information on succession planning read Rothwell's (2001) "Effective Succession Planning," or read chapter 6 of my book, "Strategic Organizational Learning."

Join a Community of Practice

2005-07-13T13:00:00.000-04:00

Do you belong to a community? I don't mean the community where you "live." I don't mean your home where you spend a few short hours with your family and sleep. As professionals we "live" in our professions. Are you part of the professional community?

All of us professionals need to be part of a community of practice. Yes, all of us. I'm an introvert, so I have never been much of a joiner, but I need a professional community too.

Over the past few years, my professional life has been dramatically improved by the community of practice (CP) that I belong to. A CP as a group of practitioners who meet with peers to share their knowledge and experience.

The CP I belong to is made up of members of National Speakers Association. We do not talk about speaking techniques or platform skills. What we do talk about are practice issues we face: problems, frustrations, new ideas, old procedures that need to be modified, business models, client relations, books we have read, workshops we have attended, technology we use, etc., etc.

Our CP has a core group of members. Bob, Laura, Marcia, Paul, Cam and I rarely miss a meeting. Why? Because we are able to give and take as CP members. We're all basically on the same level professionally so almost everything we discussed is relevant to all of us.

For the guest who visits, three possible things happen:

1. The guest is able to give and take as a peer
2. The guest realizes we are too far advanced for him or her
3. The guest realizes we are at a lower level than he or she is.

If the second or third thing happens the guest simply does not come back. If the first thing happens the guest will see the value of the group and join (no sales pitches necessary). Self-selection is the basis of membership.

CPs are free-flowing, relatively unstructured, voluntary groups. Organizations cannot mandate CPs, but they can provide resources (such as time) for their support. CPs typically have a coordinator, but not a formal leader.

Members join and remain in CP's because the members have a common interest. The members of the CP I belong to share interests in keynote speaking, workshops, and consulting.

Tacit knowledge is the key to CP success. What is shared in a CP is beyond book knowledge. The tacit knowledge that a shared in CP's is the result of many years of professional experience. You can’t get that kind of knowledge from a book.

Find a CP where you can give and take. It will take your career to the next level!

To learn more about communities of practice read "Cultivating Communities of Practice" by Etienne Wenger or Chapter 5 of my book, "Strategic Organizational Learning".

The Talking-Doing Gap

2005-07-06T13:00:00.000-04:00

In most organizations I encounter there's a wide talking-doing gap. This gap acts as a black hole where enormous amounts of organizational resources are lost.

In their four-year study of nearly 100 companies, Pfeffer and Sutton (Harvard Business Review, May -- June 1999) found no shortage of know-how. What they did find is disturbing. They found "smart talk" substituting for action. Smart talk is engaged in by knowledge workers who are confident and articulate. Complex or abstract language, and criticism for the sake of criticism, are passed off as work.

I'm not against discussion. Discussion is absolutely necessary to transfer of high-level tacit knowledge.

How did the talking-doing gap gets so wide and what can we do about it?

There are several contributors to the current talking doing gap in today's organization:

1. Business schools reward those who "talk smart" and "write smart." Business school students don't have to do anything.

2. In organizations, people who talk more often and longer are more likely to become leaders (we have researched to support this).

As Pfeffer and Sutton said, "management today revolves around meetings, teams, and consensus building, the more a person says, the more valuable he or she appears." Can you see the pitfalls here? This supports Bernard Bass' "babel and babbler mouth" theory of leadership.

What to do? Focus on execution. Performance evaluation should focus on performance. Reward performance, not talk.

What are your leaders doing? They are role models. Do they hold themselves and others accountable for action?

If you want to develop a "doing" culture in your organization, I recommend a book entitled "Execution" by Bossidy and Charan.

Strategy-Driven Knowledge Management

2005-06-29T13:27:00.000-04:00

In a Harvard business review article (March - April 1999), Hanson, Nohria, and Tierney asked, "What's your strategy for managing knowledge?" That question is still critical today.

In that article, Hanson et al. described two types of knowledge management (KM) systems: codification and personalization. Which one is best? It depends. What your decision depends on is your strategic plan.

Does your strategic plan focus on customers who pay for very expensive solutions that are highly customized? If so, you should consider a personalization KM system. A personalization KM system invest large amounts of resources (time and money) into getting your professional staff members together face-to-face. In these meetings high-level tacit knowledge is exchanged for the customer’s benefit. Tacit knowledge (gained through years of experience) is difficult to capture in computerized databases. It is difficult to separate tacit knowledge from professional who has the knowledge.

Does your strategic plan focus on customers who only pay for low-cost "canned" solutions? If so, you should consider a codification KM system. A codification KM system invests large amounts of resources (time and money) into capturing codifiable knowledge in electronic databases. The key to this strategy is re-use. What works for one customer must be separated from the creator of the knowledge, codified, and placed in an electronic database that organizational members can access.

For more information on knowledge management systems read the entire Hanson, Nohria, and Tierney article, or refer to Chapter 5 of my book "Strategic Organizational Learning."