All Posts in Organizational Effectiveness

|In: Organizational Effectiveness|Last Updated:

In E. E. “Doc” Smith’s science fiction the hero used to say, “Not everyone can play first chair violin. Some of us have to push air through the tuba.”

Being involved in strategy is a lot like playing first-chair violin. It’s no more important than the tuba, but it’s certainly higher profile.

Last week we began looking at the elements of an integrated IS plan – integrated because it deals with all important issues, not just the strategic ones – and saw that an integrated plan has three main sections: Company Goals, Technical Architecture, and Human Factors. We also saw that companies have strategic, tactical, and operational goals. This week we continue, homing in on company strategy and what to do about it.

The specifics depend on how well your company has developed its strategy. If its strategy is well-articulated, clearly stated and has been turned into coordinated, enterprise-wide action, this section of your integrated plan is complete. It has to be.

Some companies don’t think strategically, planning only at the tactical level. What distinguishes the two? As I’m using the terms, strategy changes how you think about something; tactics change how you do something. If you aren’t sure, this may help: Tactically focused companies usually view expenditures as costs; strategically focused ones view them as investments.

If your company’s business executives don’t think strategically, focus your IS plan at the tactical level. You can’t pull the company where it doesn’t want to go. Don’t waste energy trying.

Most companies are somewhere in the middle. They have a strategic direction and a sincere commitment to it. They haven’t, however, translated strategy into concrete action. Your integrated planning process can make this happen. “We need to make sure we’re working on the right things,” you might say persuasively to the CEO. “We just need to work with the executive team to turn the strategy into a list of business projects.”

Then, of course, you have to actually do it. How? Here’s one approach you and the executive team can use, based on the familiar idea of top-down design.

Start by creating a list of the no more than seven goals and capabilities that, when achieved, accomplish your company’s strategy. If your strategy is to dominate industry mind share, for example, you may decide you need advanced design, industry-leading manufacturing quality, strong customer satisfaction, competitive pricing, improved relations with the distribution channel, and great marketing. This may sound like Mom-and-apple-pie stuff, but each requires a decision — advanced design could have been “mainstream” instead, competitive pricing could have been “lowest-cost products”, and so on.

Next, look for high-leverage programs that will move you forward on several fronts at once. In this example, TQM looks like a promising candidate because a good TQM program will help achieve several of these goals. It will improve manufacturing quality. It also will reduce unit costs and lower the defect rate, keeping prices competitive and improving customer satisfaction respectively.

You’re best off with a very short list — three is a good number — of key programs because there just isn’t an organization with the resources to pull off more than three strategic programs at one time. As a result, each program must be crafted to have maximum impact.

Now you’re ready to develop a list of strategic projects. Again you’re looking for maximum impact because there are limits to what any one organization can achieve.

At the end, you’ll have an achievable list of strategic projects, and everyone in the organization can understand how achieving these projects moves the company toward its strategic goals.

That’s something to be proud of, because while strategic intent is easy, translating intent into action is rare.

Comments

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

A few columns ago I mentioned a science fiction story titled “The Political Engineer” and asked if anyone remembered the authors. Patrick Berry remembered reading it in an anthology of stories by Cyril Kornbluth and Frederik Pohl titled Critical Mass.

Thanks, Patrick.

Lots of IS Survivalists expressed their appreciation for that column. Many see themselves as apolitical engineers treated poorly by politicized corporate cultures. So here’s a question: What are you going to do about it?

You have three choices: leave, learn enough about corporate politics to avoid being victimized, or suffer. Pick one.

The problem my correspondents described — nontechnical managers making technical decisions without involving the engineers — has nothing to do with politics, though. Not the good kind (figuring out how to move forward when legitimately different points of view collide) nor the bad (back-stabbing and hidden agendas).

While it may seem to be politics, the problem is our natural tendency, as human beings, to trust and associate with those most like us. It’s a lack of appreciation for diversity.

Think of the executive ranks of your company. Can you think of anyone who’s there without any visible achievements that seem to warrant it? Think about the fast-trackers who aren’t executives, but who obviously will be. What is it about them that makes them fast-trackers? Ability? Maybe.

In many businesses there’s a sort of executive club. Some people belong to it. Others don’t. Its members can spot each other from a distance and say, “Yes, he’s one of us.” Nonmembers mistakenly call it the old boys’ network, but it’s nothing of the kind. It’s a club and you’re either a member or you’re not.

It’s depressingly like a high school clique, where you know who’s in it and you know you’re not. I suspect sociologists have written oodles of research papers on this subject (if not, it’s fertile soil for some Ph.D. candidate) but we don’t need research papers. We need a manual. Nobody has ever written a step-by-step instruction manual for joining the clique. (Memo to IDG Books: Publish Joining Cliques for Dummies.)

That’s why so much of today’s diversity training is completely ineffectual. While discrimination based on race and ethnicity still happens (and is inexcusable) far more comes from distrusting people with different thought patterns than skin color. As a friend put it, lots of companies hire and promote people of all races, creeds and backgrounds, as long as they think alike. Real diversity comes from differing points of view, perspectives, priorities, and values. Valuing real diversity is the antithesis of being part of the clique.

Did I say “the clique”? I meant “a clique,” because there’s more than one. Techies have cliques, too. So do most other identifiable groups. If you’re part of a clique, you probably don’t even recognize it. That changes nothing.

How well do you look at the world from the other person’s perspective when the other person doesn’t think the way you do? Do you try to see the world through her eyes, or do you take the easy way out, applying a convenient label that trivializes or demonizes a perspective that makes you uncomfortable?

“Aw, that’s just politics!” means, “You didn’t make this decision the way I would have,” just as much as “They’re just techies — they don’t think the way we do” does.

It’s time for all of us to appreciate real diversity — and that means listening to those least like ourselves, discovering how it is they perceive the world.

After all, listening to members of your own groups is a whole lot like listening to yourself.

How much will you learn doing that?

Comments