Management 101
Multiply or Die!
This title sounds like the law of the jungle. It could also have been read as survival of the fittest.
Let me explain what I mean.
I had the opportunity to attend a morning seminar on specific issues in the SA wine industry presented by PwC. Other than meeting some old friends, as well as making new ones, I also like these opportunities as it gives me the chance to pick up new knowledge, and reflect on older pieces of knowledge.
Crispin Swart, one of the speakers and an old acquaintance dating back a few years, spoke about the importance of having engaged employees. He identified the following three levels of engagement:
- Engaged employees: These people work with passion and feel a profound connection to their company. They drive innovation and move the organization forward.
- Not-Engaged employees: These people are essentially “checked out.” They’re sleepwalking through their workday, putting time – but not energy or passion – into their work.
- Actively Disengaged employees: These people are not just unhappy at work; they are busy acting out their unhappiness. Every day, these workers undermine what their engaged co-workers accomplish.
Crispin also showed research from Gallup that up to 79% of employees are not-engaged or actively disengaged. In addition, it takes up to 5 fully engaged workers to cancel out the impact of one actively disengaged employee.
I would like to change Crispin’s levels to differentiate between the engaged and the actively engaged. The actively engaged would be those few people that make a real difference in the lives of the other people and as such are the level 5 leaders that Jim Collins refers to, or the clock builders that Collins and Porras refer to.
The reason why I would like to differentiate between the actively engaged and the “merely” engaged is that I do think some people are so much more engaged to the extent that we can actually refer to a higher order level.
About 5 years ago I came across the following typology of people. I tried to find the source, but have not been successful yet. The explanation of the types are my understanding thereof.
- Multipliers: These are people who tap into and create synergies within the organization, as well as with external stakeholders. They have taken ownership of the organization, and can be referred to as the stars. A 100 multiplied by 10 equals 1000. Clearly someone to have on board.
- Adders: These are people who do add value by doing what is expected of them. They are loyal and can be referred to as solid citizens. A 100 plus 10 equals 110. Again, people who you would like to have on board.
- Subtractors: These are people who destroy value by doing the minimum to get by. They are at work because you pay them to be there, and not necessarily to do something. A 100 minus 10 equals 90. These are people you could do without.
- Dividers: These are people who actively destroy value as they consciously choose to “sabotage” the organization. They are the “dogs” in the organization. These are people you need to identify and do your best to get rid of. Hopefully your recruitment practices are in place to identify such people and prevent them from being appointed in the first place. A 100 divided by 10 equals 10!
For me there is a very strong link between the typology of engagement and the typology of value dividers:
- The multipliers and the actively engaged employees are birds of a feather.
- The adders and the engaged employees belong together.
- The subtractors and the non-engaged employees are both to be dealt with in the same manner.
- The dividers and the actively disengaged employees are in the same group and need to be avoided at all costs.
Organizations need to have systems in place to identify and deal with the various levels of people as identified above. Smaller organizations and start-ups can actually be destroyed should they appoint some of the lower level of people. Organizations should also bear in mind that these people need to be managed continuously. Even were they to fall in the positive categories when they were appointed, to keep them in those categories require a higher order of leadership than what one tends to think. If you do not motivate, mentor and coach your employees, they do not stand still, but actually regress.
It also requires systems in the organization that are thorough enough to identify these employees on their way down to the divider category, and then to rebuild them back to at least the engaged level. At always, prevention here is definitely better than cure! Remember the point that it takes up to 5 fully engaged workers to cancel the negative impact of one actively disengaged employee.
And the ideal situation is to have a leadership cadre that “owns” the organization, that mentors and coaches the employees, and to have a philosophy that is driven by the maxim that people are the most important asset of the organization. I have had the privilege to read “A Company of Leaders” by Robert E Quinn and Gretchen Spreitzer, who propagate a company where all of the employees have taken ownership of the company, and where empowerment is a condition that is actively managed.
I want to get back to the point where it takes up to 5 fully engaged workers to cancel the negative impact of one actively disengaged employee. It is even possible, my view, that if you are not a multiplier, that an actively disengaged employee would draw you down to first the not-engaged level, and worst case, even down to the actively disengaged level. Danah Zohar and Ian Marshall did some interesting research on what drives people in their book, “Spiritual Capital.” In this they found that people who were at lower levels would pull down the higher levels, unless the higher level people were sufficiently higher than the lower level person. A very scary thought!
This is where my students tend to tell me, Johan, all this is great, but how do you deal with this. The reality is that when you interview people for a position in your organization, they will tell you exactly what you want to hear. You ask them about their views on the values of the organization, they will tell you that that is exactly what they are about – down to the t! And you can’t blame them – they want the job. The onus is on you to ensure that you are not misled by the nice words of the prospective employee.
I have discussed this issue with a mentor of mine, Christo Nel. He makes the point that it only takes one divider in an executive team to draw down the whole team. The analogy he used was that of a rugby or soccer team. Have a look at what happens when a player is red-carded. The question still stands as to how does a divider become an executive within an organization? These are people who are successful because they make the necessary noise and they deliver on the numbers. It is only when you analyze their values that you realize that they are actually dividers. Jack Welsch spoke about the difference between delivering performance and being aligned with the values of the organization. The dividers in the executive team are typically those that deliver on performance but are not values-aligned. Unfortunately, at that level it normally is far too late to transform such a person, and more likely than not they will need to be axed from the organization.
The bottom line? How do you define the multipliers in your organization? Have you identified them? What are you doing to keep them in your organization, and to keep them at the level of a multiplier? What are you doing to grow the adders, subtractors, and dividers to the positive levels? Do you have a performance management system in your organization that will facilitate this process, and do you have an honest enough culture where such feedback to the employees will be possible? Do you have the courage to act on that feedback?
It is one thing understanding the principle of striving to have multipliers and adders. It is quite a different thing to have the systems and processes in place, as well as culture and values, to implement a system where you end up in a practical way with such an environment.
I don’t think you have a choice. Now is the time to multiply or die!
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )How Entrepreneurial is Your Training?
Entrepreneurship training sucks. Most of them in any case!
Way back in 1993 I started with my MBA. One of the first articles I stumbled upon was “Teaching Entrepreneurship through the Classics.” The author used Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the American author, Ralph Waldo Emerson, to highlight the need to think, to think independently, and to think freely. Because that is what entrepreneurs are supposed to be able to do, amongst others.
Yet, what do we find? Most business schools teach entrepreneurship on their MBA programmes and as part of their executive education programmes as a short course. On this course, they teach you to draw up a business plan, which deals with issues such as analysing the environment, drawing up a management plan, drawing up a marketing plan, and even developing a budget. They also teach you a few things about Human Resource management. And then they call it “entrepreneurship.”
If this is how you are going to help yourself to become an entrepreneur, commit suicide today and avoid the December rush! Said in all seriousness and fully understanding the tragedy of suicide. But that is what you would be doing in a business sense if that were to be your approach.
I am by no means stating that providing the above skills are not important. What I am saying is that although they might (probably are) required, they are insufficient in themselves to develop a person into an entrepreneur.
When listening to well-meaning business guru’s(?) talking about the need to teach entrepreneurship, I always asked if addressing the issues mentioned above would truly result in entrepreneurs. I mostly get a quizzical look. So as to ask whether I was trying to be obnoxious, difficult, or just did not understand what was being spoken about.
Today, I think I am somewhat closer to the truth. Shakespeare understood the need for independent thought. So did Ralph Waldo Emerson. And that is a skill we need to develop – amongst others.
About two months ago my daughter brought home a book her new boss had provided her, “The E-myth Revisited” by Michael Gerber. Gerber showed some very interesting statistics. About 40% of new start-ups died within Year 1. In fact, about 80% of new start-ups did not last past Year 5. Of the remaining 20%, a further 80% did not last past Year 10! That leaves 4% of new start-ups being around after Year 10! Amazing statistics – and forget about the saying that you get lies, bloody lies, and then statistics!
Gerber identified three very important personas we need to be in touch with, within ourselves preferably. I must confess that when looking at the more successful entrepreneurs amongst us, I always thought some of them were a few sandwiches short of a picnic! Gerber’s views support this!
The first persona within us that needs to be present is the Technocrat, or Technician. This is that part of you that is good at doing something functional, like baking cakes, teaching finance, or whatever. This is the person that has a bias for action – doing something, something they love doing and have a passion for. And we normally think that because we are good at it, that we can do it for our own account. This is the person that likes dealing with short-term and structured issues, which tend to be externally oriented.
The second persona is the Manager. This is the person that puts the systems and structures into place, making sure the resources are available and being used efficiently. Control is important, and having satisfied customers as well. This is the person that likes dealing with short-term and structured issues, which tend to be internally oriented
The third persona is the Visionary, or Entrepreneur as Gerber calls him. This is the persona that sees the big picture, that looks at a bunch of hills and then builds a gambling and vacation resort in the middle of nowhere, with fantastic results! Just think about Sol Kersner building the Sun City complex outside of Rustenburg in South Africa. This is the person that creates the dream, and gets the people on board. This is the person that is able to work with long-term unstructured issues, both external and internal.
The reality is that most of the stuff that conventional business schools teach us on entrepreneurship courses, tend to help with the Manager. Yes they are required, but definitely not sufficient. Without the Technician, and definitely without the Visionary, you are going nowhere in a hurry. It is probably true to say that we need all three personas. In an ideal world, we would be in touch with all three within ourselves. The practical reality is that most of us probably have a bias towards one, and maximum two, of these personas.
A mentor of mine has developed a cassava plant in Nigeria, with a stable supply of raw material, and a factory to produce the refined product. This not only required the Visionary to see the opportunity, but also the Manager to run the setup. Without the Technician, everything would have been to no avail. The truth is that all three are not needed in the same person. The Visionary could, and did, hire someone else’s Technician. At some stage, and probably already now, the Manager is being placed under time pressure, and in some fields someone else’s Manager has already been hired, such as in finance and operations. The Visionary persona is crucial for the entrepreneur in this example. It is six years later and the project is starting to deliver. The ability to see the end result six years down the line, to understand what was going to be necessary, and to take the right business decisions as well as understand the technical functionalities, was crucial for this business!
Another friend was involved as International Sales Director of Psitek, a company punting mobile pay phones in emerging countries in the world. They developed a distribution channel where they gave small operators the opportunity to develop a business of their own by selling on the air time with the payphones provided to them by Psitek. Psitek was the Visionary here, creating a link with the individual that would create some form of “customer lock-in and competitor lock-out.” Again, all three personas are required, but not in the same person, and not even in the same business.
A company doing the same is SABMiller. They looked at the total supply chain of the beer industry and realized that the distribution of beer was not necessarily something they wanted to be involved in. As a matter of fact, given current legislation in the USA that precluded them from being in all the elements of the supply chain, they had already been forced to get out of distribution of beer in the USA. In South Africa they developed a programme of owner-drivers, which made business owners of their employees. This decision was probably helped on with the knowledge of the USA situation. Again we have the three personas present, and again not necessarily in the same person or same business.
We have all read about Richard Branson ad nauseum, so you will excuse me if I do not use him as an example as well.
The bottom line? We need to rethink how we develop our entrepreneurs. Giving them managerial training and thinking that will make entrepreneurs of them, is like planting a feather and thinking a chicken will grow from that! We need to look at the person in a holistic manner, and then develop his visionary, managerial, and technical skills, where applicable. My feeling is that any development that ignores the visionary persona is doomed to failure.
This will require interventions that addresses his/her spiritual and emotional intelligence, their leadership skills and competencies, the ability to think systemically, the ability to transcend the here and now and to deliberate, at a philosophical level, the idealised future we might strive towards. It also requires interventions to give insight to people about their personality profile, their propensity to stay the course, and to deal with inherent contradictions or paradoxes if you will. You need to be a philosopher of sorts.
And then of course you need the managerial skills referred to as being standard in entrepreneurship training – the marketing and HR and financial management. After all, you need to work with a budget and a business plan!
Another source of what is needed is Guy Kawasaki’s “The Art of the Start.” He condensed the process into five steps:
- Make meaning – what higher order meaning are you creating/addressing? The point is that if you fail, at least you fail doing something worthwhile. This is what keeps you going in difficult times. It helps you stay the course. This is what the Visionary should be good at.
- Make mantra. Forgot about missions and visions, he says. Get something that will get your people to work with a glint in their eyes, drooling to add value! I love the example of Starbucks: “Rewarding everyday moments.” We all have them. At Starbucks the employees help you with them!
- Get going. Don’t build a business plan. Don’t develop a budget or marketing pan, but start with your business! Start selling. Start getting your show on the road. A good friend of mine in the pharmaceutical industry is doing exactly this! And succeeding because of it.
- Build a business model. Now you look at exactly how you will be creating value for your selected customers and make money in the process.
- Weave a MAT by compiling three lists: (a) major milestones you need to meet; (b) assumptions that are built into your business model; and (c) tasks you need to accomplish to create an organization. This will enforce discipline and keep your organization on track when all hell breaks loose—as it will at some or other time!
When looking at Guy’s five tasks, it again brings us back to the three personas, and highlights for me the importance of the visionary! And this persona is not developed by teaching management stuff!
Next time you want to do a course on entrepreneurship, or help somebody with it, be sure to think about the above. It’s just too bloody expensive to ignore!
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )Having God Moments
I had a nice long chat a week or so ago with someone I respect a lot. He has been a mentor, coach, friend, brother, for as long as I can remember. He told me two very interesting stories about experiences he has had in the country in which he stays and runs a business in.
One of his drivers drove a truck of his business in town. At one stage he had to reverse, and instead of having his co-driver get out to check the traffic, or to stop the traffic, he just put the truck into reverse and drove backwards. The end result? He drove into a car whose driver obviously was not expecting this to happen.
What then happened was that the owner of the car had the police take the truck into “custody,” as a sort of guarantee that the damages to the car would be fixed. Louw first went to the panel beater and learnt that the damage to the car was in the vicinity of US$3000, of which he had to pay 60% upfront. Having done that, he went back to the police to get his truck as he needed it for deliveries and logistics. There he got told that he had to pay the whole amount before he could get his truck back. He subsequently went back and paid the full amount.
All of this did not take place in one morning. Also, it happened the Monday. The truck was effectively out of circulation on the Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday! It was the busiest time of the week. Both his production processes and his clients were furious as they were waiting either for raw materials or for products!
By Thursday afternoon he was livid! Can you imagine the rigmarole he had to go through to learn all of this the hard way! This in a city like Lagos!
So he did what we all would do. He got all the drivers and their supervisor together for a talk. And we all know what that talk was going to be about and what it was going to be like! Especially after the actual direct cost and the waste of time and waste of production and the irate customers! He was relishing the idea of venting his pent-up frustration and irritation on the employees who had caused all of this. It was not as if there were not policies and instructions to this regard. To the contrary!
Looking at the assembled people, he noticed something he had never bothered to notice before. He could see them dumbing down, developing shutters over their eyes. The more he looked, the more he saw people leaving their bodies. Empty eyes were staring back at him – there was nobody home! Any ranting and raving from his part would only satisfy his rage and frustration – it would have no effect on the people in front of him. They had long learned to protect themselves against this kind of abuse.
As he told me, “Johan, I had what I call a God moment. I realised that I had to change myself before I could change them. I realised that here was a teaching moment. I also realised that the bigger the stuff-up you are presented with, the bigger the teaching opportunity!” So instead of ranting and raving, being a boss, Louw became a teacher, a mentor, and a coach. He asked them “what can we learn from this? What can we do to prevent similar accidents from happening?”
This totally took them by surprise. They had been used to experiences of ranting and raving their whole life. They were conditioned to this by their teachers, their supervisors, their managers. They were conditioned to this by even their parents and their governments. And they responded to this conditioning by dumbing down, by developing a worldview that they actually do not matter, what they do and think do not matter. The end result of this is that when you hire one of these people, you get their body. Not their mind, not their soul. You get short-changed! In a really big way.
He saw them slowly returning to their bodies. The shock of a change in action made them sit up and take notice. Here was someone who was acting out of sync with what they had been used to their whole lives! They actually started listening and made suggestions. They were realising that what they do and say and do not do or do not say, matters!
The end result of this change of response on his side was that the offending driver sent him an sms to apologise for his actions, the first time that had ever happened!
The second story was about something similar. The company has a policy that motorcycle drivers were compelled to carry helmets, something which was frequently ignored in the city at large. One of his young drivers took a company motorcycle, and being conditioned to wear a helmet, he took one as well. Driving with his friends, none of whom wore their helmets, they were involved in an accident. Except for his driver, all the rest were killed in the accident.
When Louw spoke to the driver, he could see him go through the dumbing down to protect him from the anticipated ranting and raving. He pre-empted this by asking the young man, “Why do you think God saved you and took the others?” The young man stopped his usual protection activities and started listening, startled by the change in response. Another God moment.
I am by no means propagating that we all start ignoring the wrongful actions of our employees. There are always consequences. What I am propagating is that we deal with these moments in a way that our employees and our companies benefit from this. To ignore the action would be wrong. It would teach them that one can get away with wrong actions, which would be detrimental to them and to the company. And as everything we do and say matters, we need to be focused on what it is we deal with, and how we deal with it.
We learn from Chris Argyris and Peter Senge about learning organizations. An organization where we learn formally and informally. Where we learn from others and from ourselves. Where we learn from our mistakes and our successes. Where we are allowed to make mistakes, without fear of severe retribution. Without fear of ranting and raving. But with the knowledge and understanding that we need to learn from our mistakes, less we repeat them. That would be the true crime in this story!
This is the journey that Louw had put his organization on, knowingly or unknowingly. This is where he started teaching them that what they do and say, or do not do and say, matters! This is where he started growing and developing himself that his people matter, and that he had to help them realise it. He had to become the change he wanted to see. Ghandi told us this decades ago.
However, most of us never actually make this part of our lives. In such cases, we are to blame for the stuff-ups of our employees. We are hiring their bodies and forgetting they actually have minds as well. We forget that if we can get their minds and their souls, we can get their bodies far more effectively! We forget that we want our people to think for themselves, and that we need to treat them in a specific way to bring this about. Treating them as cannon fodder, makes them act as cannon fodder.
What a waste!
Bottom line? Your people matters. You need to constantly look for God moments, moments to teach, coach, and mentor. In your life and in your business. That’s what you are really getting paid to do as a manager of people! Are you earning your pay! If not, it is high time you start. As the saying goes, the best time to have planted a tree is 50 years ago. In the absence of that, the next best time is now!
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Can You Bounce Back?
A good friend of mine and I had a long chat a while ago on a Saturday evening. In the course of the conservation, he dropped the bombshell that he was not that certain that his position in his company was all that secure. Given that he was in the last part of his career, and that he was very senior, it would be understandable if he were worried about this development. On my question as to how he felt about this, he told me that it did not bother him too much. There was nothing he could do to prevent it from happening, other than doing his best at what he does.
I found this an incredible approach. Although he was at the later stages of his career, he was still healthy and would be expected to reach 80, at the very least. What would happen to his life if he were to lose his job now? It was not as if he would be able to walk into another job at a similar level of seniority, as he was past 60!
I then started to think about people who dealt with adversities in a number of different ways. I thought about close family who had lost a son. And how they dealt with it. I thought about another close relative who had divorced his wife, or rather his wife had divorced him. And how that had affected him, and still does.
A close friend had been accused of irregularities in his job and was branded in the newspaper as a criminal. Two years later his name was cleared. The accusations were front page. The verdict of not guilty, actually the withdrawal of the case due to an utter lack of actual evidence, was hidden on some or other middle page. I thought about how that had affected his life and that of this wife and his children.
I thought back to a period when I would wake up in the morning at about 03h30, and start worrying about the issues at my work that were disrupting my tranquility. And how I dealt with it.
Two or 3 years ago I came across a book written by Karen Reivich and Andrew Shatte, i.e. “The Resilience Factor.” In this book the authors explain the concept of resilience and what it is. Loosely translated I see it as the ability to bounce back and deal with challenges in a productive manner. They actually identified 7 keys to find the inner strength and overcome life’s hurdles. These 7 keys are as follows:
• Learning your ABC’s: “Listen” to your thoughts to identify what you say to yourself when faced with a challenge, and to how your thoughts affect your feelings and behaviour.
• Avoiding Thinking Traps: When things go “wrong,” do you blame yourself or others? Do you jump to conclusions? Do you assume that you know what another person is thinking? Identify the mistakes you make and learn how to correct them.
• Detecting Icebergs: Everyone has deeply held beliefs about how people and the world should operate and who they are and want to be. Identify these deep beliefs and determine when they are working for you and when they are working against you.
• Challenging Believes: How effective are you at solving the problems that you encounter day to day? Do you waste time pursuing solutions that don’t work? Do you feel helpless to change situations? Test the accuracy of your beliefs that lead you to pursue the wrong solutions, and find solutions that work.
• Putting it in Perspective: Stop the what-ifs so that you can better deal with actual problems that do exist.
• Calming and Focusing: Stay calm and focused when you are overwhelmed by emotion or stress so that you can concentrate on the task at hand.
• Real-time Resilience: Change your counter-productive thoughts to stay engaged and in the moment.
These skills are quite important, but as I have come to realize, if you do not practice them regularly, you lose them. At times I have been waking up very early (at times at 03h30) in the past few weeks, stressing about issues that I shouldn’t be. Looking at the issues, one would be forgiven for doing that, but it is not the most productive thing to do.
I define resilience as the ability to bounce back and to remain focused. To not be consumed by what had happened in the past, or to not be consumed by something what could happen in the future. Again this is easier said than done. In order to help me, I looked at typically the drivers of purpose in people’s lives.
Rick Warren identified a few drivers of purpose in his work, “The Purpose-Driven Life.” Here he identified the following issues:
• Guilt: This deals with running from regrets and hiding your shame. You tend to be manipulated by memories, and allow the past to control your future.
• Resentment and anger: You hold on to hurts and never get over them. Some “clam up” – others “blow up.” This hurts the individual more than the target.
• Fear: This may be as result of a traumatic experience, unrealistic expectations, growing up in a high-control home, a genetic predisposition, etc. You miss great expectations due to a fear to venture out
• Materialism: Here the desire to acquire becomes the goal of your life. The idea is more possessions will bring happiness.
• Need for approval: Here you allow expectations of your parents or spouse, etc. to control your life. The irony is that many adults still try to earn approval of unpleasable parents. Others are driven by peer pressure.
These tend to all be negative. Rick doesn’t say that these are what should be what drives the purpose of people, but rather what does. I subsequently looked at the research of Danah Zohar and her husband, Ian Marshall, in the book, “Spiritual Capital.” Here they identified 16 levels of drivers of motivation, ranging from a +8, Enlightenment, to a -8, Depersonalization. They found that 85% of the people in the sample ranged from a +4 to a -4, more or less spanning the middle range. What was shocking was that 90% of that 85% were motivated by issues ranging from a 0 to -4. This tells us that by far the majority of people (more that 80%) are motivated by issues that have negative power. This ties in closely to the point of view of Rick Warren.
What I have said above does not mean that we just ignore what had happened in the past or what could happen in the future. We need to address the effects and implications of events in the past. To ignore them could lead to disastrous results. We also should not ignore the psychological implications of past events. That would lead to the suppression or repression of issues, which could lead to inappropriate actions at some time in the future as well. We need to deal with the past and the future, but we need to do it in a productive manner. Not be sitting and anguishing about past events or future possibilities!
Eckardt Tolle in his work, “The Power of Now,” talks about the need to put yourself outside of your mind, and then to look inside at this mind taking decisions and developing thought patterns. He also states that the past is the now of yesterday, and as such not reachable. The future is the now of tomorrow, and as such also not reachable. The now of today is the only place where you can reach and act. Resilient people live in the now of today. This refers to the point that Karen and Andrew makes, about staying in the moment: real-time resilience!
At a business level, I find that the work of people such as Manfred Kets de Vries, Lynda Gratton, Ken Wilber, Seth Godin, Guy Kawasaki, Jim Collins, Jeff Porras and others tell us what is required to develop organizations that are resilient and bounce back. Jim Collins’ work, Good to Great, and the work he did with Porras, Built to Last, spell out the importance of getting the right people in the right positions and to get the wrong people off the bus. They tell us to appoint clock builders and not time tellers. They tell us about the importance of having visionary leaders. They also tell us to develop an organizational culture that helps to get our people engaged. And they actually tell us to grow and develop resilient people!
Companies can help a lot by developing visions and mission statements that help to anchor people and give them a sense of direction. I am a fan of the mission of Pick ‘n Pay, a local South African food retailer: “We Serve. With our hearts we create a great place to be. With our minds we create an excellent place to shop.” Another mission statement I am a fan of, is that of Starbucks: “Our mission: to inspire and nurture the human spirit: one person, one cup, one neighbourhood at a time!” Adidas in South Africa also has a slogan that is great: “Impossible is Nothing!”
As a mentor, a senior manager, a father or mother, what are you doing to develop the resilience of the people who report or look up to you. Successful people are resilient! Successful companies are filed with resilient people! Successful marriages consist of resilient people!
Put Up …or Shut Up!
My brother phoned me a while ago and asked me about the progress of my PhD. When I answered him that I was exactly where I was in March 2008, he told me that I had to persevere with my procrastination for only a few more years as it would then be unnecessary to do a PhD for career purposes! The reality is that up to now when people asked me about my PhD, I always respond with an explanation. It starts always with the first topic which was in the field of finance. Then the topic progressed into the field of leadership and societal culture, with South Africa as a field of application. Then the reading was so fascinating that I only started writing towards the end of 2007. Then in March 2008 my diary became just too full!
It set me thinking about me advising other people over the years.
In 1992 a young 19-year-old lady asked me for some advice about her studies. When I asked her as to why she wanted to do a degree, she answered that she needed a degree. I then told her that she had to find another reason as she would quickly find a good reason why she didn’t need a degree when times got tough!
In January 1993 I was studying for the final exams for my honours degree at Unisa as well as preparing for my first study school for my MBA at the USB. Times were tough as I also was busy with putting together a new course in military strategy. I came to a point where I decided that the pressure I was putting myself under was totally unnecessary. I went to the Head of the Division at the Faculty of Military Science and told him I was stopping my MBA studies and would rather do a Master’s degree in Strategic Studies. His response? He held me accountable to my initial decision. He told me I owed it to the people of the Military Academy and the SANDF to give them peace of mind that should I have to leave the military, I would be able to fend for myself!
Last year one of the marketing ladies at the USB asked me to chat to a prospective MBA student who had questions about doing an MBA. I told him it depended on why he wanted to do the MBA. Too many people do the MBA because they wanted to help their careers. Subsequently, a whole number of them have a degree certificate, without necessarily having the skills and internalised knowledge to go with it. From there the question: “How do you know a person has an MBA? He tells you!” It is the only way you can ascertain whether he or she has an MBA as you cannot see it in their behaviour. I regularly convey this message to my students!
What has this to do with my brother’s question to me, and to management in general? Everything! I was preaching a message to my students and was not applying it to myself. I have a number of very good excuses as to why I am not finishing my PhD, even though I call them reasons. Whether they are reasons or excuses is irrelevant. The main issue is that I am not shipping! I am not doing what I am expecting of others, and that is holding myself accountable to myself!
Sam Silverstein recently published a book, “No more excuses: The Five Accountabilities.” The first accountability is about holding myself accountable. As Sam says, “Accountability to ourselves is what happens when we decide we won’t violate our own values, and we resolve to hold ourselves accountable to those values.”
This means that we not only have to hold our employees accountable, but ourselves as well. In addition, it is easy to hold ourselves accountable with things such as setting the example at work in terms of honesty, integrity, and performance as far as formal work objectives are concerned. It becomes far more difficult with subtle things such as doing and completing your PhD and earning a living at the same time. It then becomes important to recognise those areas where we are ducking our accountability to ourselves in very subtle ways.
It also becomes very important to hold ourselves accountable to support and help the people that we are holding accountable. This is exactly what Prof Kobus Kotze did with me in 1993! It is easier to help and support your A-team. You need to do it with your other employees as well.
Sam Silverstein also makes the point that we should also be accountable to other people. When we make commitments to other people, we have to honour those commitments. However, if we are not true to ourselves as well, we will find it impossible to be true to others as well. The experts say that is when we develop cognitive dissonance. You need your expected behaviour to be aligned to your internal values, which in turn need to be aligned with the culture of the organization or society you are a member of.
We also need to understand the commitments others have made to us. When you hear a suspect story and accept it, you are not being honest to yourself and you are not holding your employees and yourself accountable. If we tolerate excuses from others, we are creating a culture of excuses! It then becomes very difficult to develop a culture of “No More Excuses!” Without such a culture, we tend to be mediocre at best!
The bottom line? I for one need to stop bullshitting myself. I am not holding myself accountable to myself. I have made up such a number of excuses as to the progress of my PhD that I am starting to believe them. Reading Silverstein and thinking about the questions and responses from people such as Louw Burger and Kobus Kotze, I have come to the only conclusion I can: It is time to put up or shut up! So now I am telling the world, I am busy with my PhD and hope to finish within the next two years. Please help me to hold myself accountable by asking me regularly about my progress.
Also, what are you doing to hold yourself and others accountable in the ways Silverstein explains? Or do you like the way you feel when you bullshit yourself, and let others get away with stories that are clearly not 100% true? It’s bad when you lie to others. It is pathetic when you lie to yourself. Don’t do it! Learn from the expert!
People Cannot be Empowered!
In a previous posting, “Can your people act independently?”, I spoke about the need to appoint the right kind of people and to develop their ability to act in the absence of authority. In this posting I would like to take the concept a bit further and address the extremely important issue of empowerment.
I have come to the conclusion that people cannot be empowered. That is, I cannot empower another person. I frequently hear and read that people were empowered by their managers. My point of view? Hogwash! It cannot be done. Does this contradict what I had said about developing your people in the mentioned posting? Not at all. Please hear me out.
Way back, I told one of my managers that she could forthwith make certain decisions. I gave her the authority to make the decisions herself. As it worked out, I still had to make the final decisions. When I asked her why she was still coming to me for the final decision, she made 2 points:
• She didn’t think she had the knowledge and experience to make the correct decision.
• She was afraid of my reaction should she indeed make a mistake.
My reaction to this revelation? I bought in a witness we both trusted and made a commitment that I would not be vindictive should she make a decision that was detrimental to the company. Shortly thereafter I had to go away for a week. When I returned, she asked me whether I remembered a certain decision I had taken before I left. I said yes. She then told me she had overturned my decision. The result? A loss of R20 000. My reaction while she was waiting with bated breath? I asked her what she had learnt from the process.
Not long after that, I had to leave office again for about a week. On my return, she asked again whether I remembered a certain decision. This time I wondered how much money she would cost me now. But I kept my cool and just said yes. She then informed me that she had overturned that decision as well and that it had a positive spin-off to the tune of R40 000. A bargain!
I realized I did not have the power to empower her. She was the only one that could do that. I could only create an environment within which she would feel it was safe to avail herself of the opportunity to empower herself. She had to feel it was safe to do so. She had to trust me!
In addition, she had to feel she had the ability to make the decisions herself. If she didn’t feel she could, she wouldn’t have been able to take those decisions. The gurus speak of “learned helplessness” or even “internalized oppression.” As the saying goes, whether you think you can or cannot, you will be right!
The long and the short of it is that we need to become learning organizations for our people to become empowered people. We need to encourage them and motivate them, and we need to create a culture of trust and mutual support. To think we can do the empowering of others by giving them authority, is to show a lack of understanding of the true nature of empowerment, and probably a tad bit of arrogance.
I read the work by Robert E. Quinn and Gretchen Spreitzer, “A Company of Leaders,” a number of years ago. In this book, the authors make the point that true empowerment is a psychological phenomenon as much as a cognitive one. They identified the following 4 dimensions of an empowered mindset:
• Meaning: I have a personal connection to my work, in as much as I care about my work. It is important to me.
• Self-Determination: I have freedom and discretion about how to do my work.
• Competence: I am confident about my abilities to do my work well.
• Impact: I make a difference. I can influence my surroundings and the work units and the organization itself listens to my ideas.
From an understanding of these dimensions, we can deduce that the traditional sense of empowerment, where I empower you, is very inadequate. I can create an environment where you can develop and grow personally to the point where you exhibit the above dimensions. I can expose you to training and development to help you develop the cognitive competencies you need. I can mentor and coach you to develop both your cognitive and emotional and spiritual knowledge. However, I cannot make the decision for you to empower yourself. That is ultimately your decision.
From this I have also learnt that I cannot expect people to commit to actions which are way above their potential. This would be unfair to both the individual and the organization. The person would be set up for failure, and the organization would ultimately pay the price. We need to help people to empower themselves to the level of their potential, whatever it is.
Elliotte Jaques developed the Stratified Systems Theory, where he made the point that people have natural levels of cognitive potential, as measured by their ability to deal with the uncertainty associated with future periods. The longer the period into the future you have the cognitive ability to deal with, the higher the level of your cognitive potential. For example, if you can deal with the cognitive complexity of about 5 years into the future, you are at a Level 4.
Aligned to this concept, Mihály Csíkszentmihályi proposed the concept of flow. According to Wikepedia, flow is the mental state of operation in which a person in an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity. Flow is completely focused motivation. It is a single-minded immersion and represents perhaps the ultimate in harnessing the emotions in the service of performing and learning. In flow the emotions are not just contained and channeled, but positive, energized, and aligned with the task at hand. When you are caught in the dissatisfaction of depression or the agitation of anxiety, you would be barred from flow. The hallmark of flow is a feeling of spontaneous joy, even rapture, while performing a task.
People should be therefore assisted to empower themselves in order to be in flow. They should be helped to develop their potential and to live and work in a condition of flow. They should be in a constant state of elation and joy about doing their work, in an environment that is conducive for sustainable performance and empowerment. In any case, the one without the other is impossible. Putting people into a position where they do not have the potential to work productively and where they do not feel comfortable (in as much as they should), is tantamount to ignoring this principle. You are doing nobody a favor – not the organization, and definitely not the individual.
Empowerment is therefore not primarily a cognitive or governance issue. It is a psychological one. The most important element is the psyche of the individual and the organization!
The bottom line? Are you contributing towards the creation of an empowering organization and empowered employees and managers? Or are you the stumbling block? If you are uncertain, ask your peers and employees.
The irony is that if you are not an empowering organization, you probably will not hear the truth in any case. Not from your employees. It might be career limiting. Which makes the negative state of what I have spoken about, so dangerous. Nobody within the organization will tell the king he is actually naked!
Do you have your clothes on?
Perdeberg, Rex Equus and the Icon
My friends in the wine industry tell me that there is more or less a hierarchy of wines. At the bottom end of the better quality wines you find popular premium, followed by super premium, ultra-premium, and then the cherry on the cake, the icon wine. Depending on where your wine finds itself on this hierarchy, you would be able to charge more or less for your wine. A strong brand will bring more customers to the cellar and will enable you to sell more wine to existing customers. To develop a brand, it is important to have a clear understanding of your product offer and strategically deliver a consistent message through every action and interaction with your product and your customers.
This makes it obvious to me that you would very much like to be viewed as an icon wine. And here lies the snag – although you would like to be seen as an upper-end wine, the consumer ultimately decides what level of quality you are. And therefore what price they would be willing to pay for your wine. And how much of your wine they would like to buy. And to what extent they would be willing to act as customer evangelists for your wine!
There’s more. To put a top quality wine in the market normally requires more resources than a lower quality of wine. Your terroir or soil needs to be aligned with the quality of the grape. You mostly also find that the yields for the higher quality grapes are lower than otherwise. When you talk to the viticulturist, he or she will tell you that the quality of the wine is decided in the vineyard. This only happens when it is a good wine. When the wine is not so good, ownership of the quality is denied, or the winemaker will tell you that the grape quality was a bit suspect to start off with. And in spite of the terroir and the process in the winery, the consumer still decides. Marketing spend also goes sky high! Tough when you do not have the final say!
People apparently are a bit fickle as to what price they are prepared to pay for what wine. Reputation and brand (the two probably go hand in hand!) are important issues. The history of the winery is a point of importance as well. The longer back you can trace your lineage of good quality wine, the more aristocratic you may appear.
Obviously, just the idea that your wine is an icon or falls in the ultra-premium range, gives you tons of bragging rights! The truly classy people don’t do it outright though; but rest assured they love the idea.
Now where does Perdeberg fit in? It is a co-operative started in 1941 in the Agter-Paarl area. It derives its name from a mountain range close by, the Paardeberg, which is the name the Dutch gave it way back. Apparently there were a lot of wild zebra and quagga that used to roam the area. In the early days, these beautiful animals used to wander freely through the vineyards.
Like a number of other wineries, Perdeberg is a bulk wine provider. However, in 2005 Perdeberg made a decision that it was going to venture into the bottled wine market. Although they currently still move 75% of their wine into the bulk wine environment, I am more interested in what they are doing with the other 25%!
Amongst others, they have developed an easy drinking wine for the female segment of the Black Diamond category, and is actively marketing it in black residential areas. I also noticed in the SAA in-flight magazine of June 2010 that the Perdeberg Pinotage Reserve 2008 is one of the wines available in business class (couldn’t sit there – had a cheap ticket!). And I also had the privilege of tasting some of the 2009 Perdeberg Pinotage Reserve about 3 weeks ago at Perdeberg when I took a group of USA MBA students there for a visit. What a surprise! And at R53 a bottle! It was a delight – so much so that I bummed a few bottles to give to a group of corporate executive education students I was involved with as well!
But still it is not what I am really excited about! They also decided to make, bottle and market a new brand, Rex Equus, the King of the Horses! The cultivars selected are Cabernet, Shiraz, Sauvignon Blanc, and Chenin Blanc. And the prices range from between R180 to R240 a bottle. Squarely in the icon range – and this from a bulk wine provider! On their website, they state that “Passion and dedication has shaped this premium range, adding a personal and intimate touch that ensures these wines will be enjoyed for years to come. Rex Equus: a labour of love.”
Pretentious of them? I do not think so. I tasted the Cabernet and it was very good – easily as good as some of the other high-priced wines I have come across recent years.
The new Rex is a 2009 Shiraz/Cabernet Franc/Petit Verdot/Malbec blend. Rhys Van Wyk, the marketing manager, tells me that Perdeberg will only release the best wine possible under the Rex Equus label, be it a cultivar or a blend. Should quality allow it, they will release a new Rex every year. However, they are perfectly willing to wait a few years until the wine team feels the quality justifies the Rex brand. This, in my opinion, is the best way to go about to build a brand in the icon category.
My interest in this wine? That an upstart in the bottled wine industry could have the courage to challenge conventional thinking and launch a new brand in the icon category! That it could ignore the bulk wine label and history and boldly venture forth into aristocrat company!
Of course there will be detractors that will tell me that it is still very early days. That Rex Equus is not yet a brand but a label. That they would not have been the first, and definitely will not be the last to make such a daring move. And of course they may be right.
I am comfortable with this. Somehow, however, I feel that here we have something different. I do believe that they had to get out of the bulk wine industry. Nobody thinks back to a bulk wine they consumed in some or other idyllic scenery with nostalgia. For brand building purposes it was important that they had to move out of that segment. I also do believe that they have managed to come up with great quality. Whether the market at large will decide to buy at those prices is something one can only speculate on for now.
Rest assured – I for one will be tracking this wine very closely in future. Rex Equus – the King of the Horses – an icon in the making?
Are You Full of PEE?
When I started lecturing on undergraduate programmes at the Faculty of Military Science in 1991, I started off using the techniques typical of the day. Unfortunately I frequently found half of my class asleep. I must confess, sometimes I felt like falling asleep as well!
Then I changed direction and started teaching in fields that I had an interest in. What I found was that students, and especially MBA students, would forgive you a lot if you were passionate and enthusiastic about what you where lecturing on. My constant advice to new lecturers would be that if you were not enthusiastic about your work, how could you expect your students to be excited?
In the real world of work, I also found that the best and most productive people working for me were the people who were energetic and enthusiastic about their work. They were the ones that landed the clients and clinched the deals. They were the ones that attracted other employees to them for advice and mentoring. It therefore was a no-brainer to look for the people who were energetic and enthusiastic.
What do I refer to as PEE?
• P: Passion: According to Wikipedia, Passion is an intense emotion compelling feeling, enthusiasm, or desire for something. The term is also often applied to a lively or eager interest in or admiration for a proposal, cause, or activity or love.
• E: Enthusiasm: According to The Free Dictionary, Enthusiasm refers to a great excitement for or interest in a subject or cause. It also refers to a source or cause of great excitement or interest.
• E: Energy: The Free Dictionary explains Energy as an intensity or vitality of action or expression; forcefulness, as well as a capacity or tendency for intense activity; vigour and vigorous or intense action; exertion
What do people full of PEE do?
• They are committed to their jobs.
• They attract like-minded people to come and work for the same company.
• They create customer evangelists out of ordinary clients.
• They enable super-positive WOM.
• They enable the company to achieve above-normal returns.
• As leaders they enable engaged employees, with all the positive spinoffs associated with this.
Where have I seen this at work in South Africa?
Since October 2007 I have taken about 35 groups of MBA students from abroad, ranging from the UK to Denmark, France, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, USA, and Germany, to selected South African companies. In the process I have had the privilege of getting to know these companies that much better. What made a strong impression on me, was the PEE of the people we were exposed to in these companies! Allow me to embroider a bit.
At SABMiller, it was clear that they indeed did view people as an important factor. I hesitate to use the concept of asset, as assets tend to depreciate! The passion of a Nicola Jowell, a Vaughan Croeser, and a Shaun Francis had senior managers on MBA programmes from the USA, The Netherlands, and the UK excited and impressed about South Africa.
At Spier, Annebelle Schreuders and Heidi Newton-King equally impressed students from the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA.
At Backsberg, we have Clive Trent and Danwin James as examples of people who are full of PEE and committed! I have already written about these two gentlemen in my posting “Will the real owner of Backsberg please stand up.”
At Kids Development Academy we find Rian Truter, the executive manager of kda, who is full of PEE! It is one of the USP’s of kda that they indeed do have a Rian!
The principal of Eversdal Primary School in Eversdal, Bellville, is another example of a PEE person. Dr Heinie Brand serves as an example for his personnel and the kids who are fortunate enough to go to Eversdal Primary!
The MBA group from the UK who visited ABSA last week were exposed to three gentlemen who definitely were full of PEE. The students were still gushing when they returned to the hotel!
And so I can go on. The wine industry especially is an industry where I have picked up a lot of people full of PEE. And I do not want to suggest that the fruit of the vine has something to do with it. Here I have been exposed to the people at Badsberg, Beyerskloof, Darling, Durbanville Hills, First Cape, KWV, Riebeek, Swartland, and Tokara, to name but a few. I have no doubt in my mind that the success of these wine companies is directly attributable to the quality of the people working for them. Ordinary people full of PEE making ordinary companies great companies!
I have also had the privilege of being exposed to Ford, Toyota, and VW here in South Africa. Again, the PEE that these people were filled with was clear for anybody to see! It is therefore not strange to me at all that these companies are doing well globally. If they have the same kind of people abroad that they have here in SA, the reason for their success is a no-brainer for me.
I probably run the risk of antagonizing a few of my friends and connections, but I would have to use the rest of the afternoon to name all the great people working for great companies I have been exposed to! Let me therefore conclude the examples with the above companies.
The bottom line? As a South African I am proud of some great companies filled with people full of PEE. And if great scholars such as Jim Collins, Lynda Gratton, Kim Cameron, Robert E Quinn, and Christo Nel are correct, these companies are great because the people in them are great! It is the Farmer Brown analogy: the chickens “taste so good ‘cos they eat so good.” In our case, the companies are so great because their people are so great!
Being full of PEE is a choice! You are not born with it. You decide whether you want to be full of PEE! You decide whether you want to “ship it,” as Seth Godin would say. You decide whether you want to “crush it,” as Gary Vaynerchuk would say.
Have you decided?
Are Your Brain Cells Aligned and in Working Order?
Henry Ford has been quoted as saying that thinking is the most difficult work there is, which is probably why so few people engage in it. When I use this quote in my classes, students without fail tend to smile and even giggle. If it were not such a tragedy, I would have smiled as well!
I think he had some part of the truth! People tend to not think for themselves, as they tend to feel like failures when something goes wrong with a venture/program/project they had used their brain cells on!
I once came across an article, “Teaching Entrepreneurship through the Classics”, that addressed an important part of entrepreneurship, i.e. thinking! I love the example of Hamlet by Shakespeare. Those of you who dealt with it at school, will remember that Hamlet dated a girl with the name of Ophelia. Her father, Polonius, was the Chief of Staff of the King of Denmark. You will also remember that Hamlet was telling everybody who would listen, and also those that didn’t, that the King had murdered his father, married his mother , and stole his throne. The poor Polonius – this was not just a career-limiting situation! In those days it was somewhat of a life-limiting situation!
One fine day Polonius saw Ophelia chatting to a guy. When he asked her who it was, she replied it was a friend of Hamlet’s. Polonius looked at his daughter and asked her what she thought of Hamlet. She looked at him and probably thought to herself: “Do you really think I am such an idiot that I will tell you the truth?”
Her response was: “I don’t know Daddy. What should I think of Hamlet?” If she really had a mind of her own, she should have told dear daddy that Hamlet was the love of her life and that she was going to marry him and they were going to have 10 kids and grow old together! However, that was defintley not her response!
If Polonius really had his daughter’s best interests at heart, he would probably have told her the following: “My dear, you’re dating this guy. It is clear he has better taste than you have. But it is you who need to make up your mind!”
But what did he tell her? “Think yourself a babe and I will tell you exactly what to think of Hamlet!” And then he does!
What is the moral of the story?
Managers don’t think for themselves for a reason. It is not just because it is a difficult job. We have also been brainwashed as we grew up. Check out the following:
- Children at school always want to know what sir/miss wants them to know. It creates a safe environment. School children love playing the role of Ophelia. After all, they need to pass the grade, and giving the teachers what they want is a sure way of succeeding in this.
- Teachers at school like the power of knowing everything. Or so they think in any case. It is a power position that is intoxicating! They love the role of Polonius.
- Students at varsity are like the children at school. “Please Professor, tell me what to think, and please do not ask me for my own opinion – just now it might be wrong and then my grades will be screwed!” They make wonderful Ophelias.
- Professors at varsity are even more intoxicated by the illusion of power. They are masters at playing the role of Polonius, and the system actually encourages this narcissistic situation.
- Junior managers at organisations are only too bloody scared to develop a mind of their own, as here it really becomes career limiting if my thoughts are “wrong” and lead to negative consequences. The idea that organisations strive towards becoming learning organisations where we encourage risk taking and learn from our mistakes, only manifest in case studies at business schools and are not really the norm.
- Senior managers are also only comfortable with you using your brains to think outside the box if that box is still within the confines of their own box! Heaven help you if your outside the box thinking takes your manager to a space outside his/her own box! My students frequently tell me that it is great for me to tell them to think for themselves, but that it is really their managers who need to be in class to hear this story.
The bottom line is that we should not find it strange that people/managers do not think. Our school system, our university system, and our organisational system actually condition us to not think for ourselves. It is far safer to play the role of Ophelia than to break the shackles of a constraining system and put our brains to some good use.
And to make matters worse, the Ophelias of today become the Polonius’ of tomorrow. The victims of today are the oppressors of tomorrow!
So what do we need to do?
We first need to convert the Polonius’ of the world into people who grow and develop the talent they have. Jim Collins refers to Level 5 Leaders. He and Jerry Porras talk of “being clock builders and not time-tellers.” That is what we need. People who are comfortable within themselves and have high levels of EQ and SQ. They tend to be scarce however.
We need to be serious about the need to develop learning organisations and not just pay lip-service to the idea. We need to be serious about developing what Seth Godin calls “linchpins”. People who are not afraid to create art by giving of themselves and bringing about change by doing so. As Seth tells us, a cook using a recipe is not an artist. Someone creating a cullinary masterpiece by digging deep within him/herself, is an artist. This, however, does require that person to think for him/herself!
And we as individuals need to dig deep within ourselves. We need to get to know that person who we shave or make up in the morning. We need to make peace with that person deep within ourselves. The alternative is a life that is boring and humiliating. Break out!
Are you an Ophelia? A Polonius? It is time you break the mold and starting using your gray matter for the purpose the Good Lord gave it to you. Start thinking for yourself! It might just be an experience you like and can get used to! You really have nothing of lasting value to lose.
Have Visions become Boring?
It would probably be more correct to say that visions have mostly always been boring!
The academics tell us that the purpose of a vision is to provide direction, to create enthusiasm, energy, and creativity! It must generate so much excitement that the employees of the organisation will run into the future, drooling and panting!
I find Guy Kawasaki’s book on starting up a company (“The Art of the Start”) a refreshing piece of work. He actually states the following, using a mission statement as a substitute for a vision:
“Forget mission statements; theyʼre long, boring, and irrelevant. No one can ever remember them—much less implement them. Instead, take your meaning and make a mantra out of it. This will set your entire team on the right course. Crafting a mission statement is usually one of the first steps entrepreneurs undertake. Unfortunately, this process is usually a painful and frustrating experience that results in exceptional mediocrity.”
For Starbucks he identified the mantra (which has an internal purpose, in contrast to the tagline, which has an external one) as follows: “Rewarding everyday moments.” I love the simplicity and power of these three words!
I by no means want to suggest that we throw out the vision or mission statement of the organisation as something that has become irrelevant. I do want to suggest that we have a long and hard look at what passes for a vision or mission statement.
Because, what do we get?
Organisations strive to be the leading provider of this or that! They want to be the global leader in their industry. All of them want to be the global leader, or the best in their country!
I refer to this as the hillbilly school of visions! It is like kissing your sister! Probably even more boring! And I can assure you your employees find it as stimulating as doing exactly that.
If you need to have a vision, please have some creativity and develop a vision that will truly do what it is supposed to do. Stimulate the people in your organisation to be energetic and enthusiastic! To stay the course!
Pick ‘n Pay of South Africa has a mission statement in the place of a vision that states: “We serve. With our hearts we create a great place to be. With our minds we create an excellent place to shop!” This speaks to me much more than being the leading provider of some or other product or service!
Shoprite also has a mission statement (they call it their guiding mission) which is to “be the consumers’ preferred shopping destination, by retailing food and non-food products at the lowest prices from conveniently located outlets in an environment that is conducive to shopping”. As a vision I have my reservations about this. They do state that it is their philosophy. One can therefore probably forgive them. Interestingly enough, the company’s actions do reflect an enthusiasm and energy that belies the somewhat drab vision.
The global coffee company, Starbucks, has been on a journey of development as far as their vision is concerned. Their mission statement used to be the following: “Establish Starbucks as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while maintaining our uncompromising principles while we grow.” This also smacks of hillbilly tendencies!
Starbucks‘ current mission statement is as follows: “Our mission: to inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighbourhood at a time.” Personally I think this is brilliant! This is not the traditional vision of the hillbilly school we stumble across. Do yourself a favour and read the rest of their mission statement. It makes for great reading. This is an example any academic can feel comfortable about using, even in an MBA class!
The message Starbucks teaches us? It is not where you start, but where you end that is important.
Rest assured. When your vision is boring and uninspiring, it says a lot about the people in it. Do you want to be stereotyped as such?
Your behaviour tends to define you
I had to put together a business programme for a foreign business school from Europe. They had asked me to arrange a visit to a specific company and suggested one of their alumni (let’s call her Elen) help me as she had a direct contact with a senior manager at this entity. I was all for it.
This senior manager is a well known sports personality in SA and I sent him an email to thank him for his willingness to receive this group on behalf of my business school and to tie up the arrangements. To my utter astonishment and shock, I received an email from the alumnus of the European business school, stressing that I had to cut my emails to this person as it was unprofessional and that he had to concentrate on very important events.
My first response was to tell her to enjoy the journey to hell, as I was doing my job and demonstrating good manners, as all South Africans would! I also withdrew from any further planning for the course.
The staff at the European business school were dismayed at my withdrawal. I realised I had allowed my insecurities(?) to influence my behaviour. I had allowed myself to demonstrate a classic knee-jerk reaction, and in the process placed my client under pressure, which is unforgivable.
I immediately rectified the situation and went ahead with all the arrangements to facilitate the visit. The visit itself was a roaring success and the celebrity probably did not even know about the fracas.
Lesson for myself: there are too many Elen’s in the world to allow them to influence your behaviour. You cannot allow them to antagonise you to the point where you place your client under pressure. Be careful as to how you behave in times like these. It says more about you than about Elen – she was doing me a favour and had no obligations to anyone.
Teach, Coach & Consult 