Archive for the ‘change’ Category

Getting out the stories of Burmese prisoners–an heroic feat

Thursday, November 13th, 2008

George Packer’s Interesting Times blog from The New Yorker yesterday discussed Human Rights Watch’s honoring of a Burmese hero, Bo Kyi. Mr. Kyi had been held as a prisoner by the Burmese government, enduring the brutalities of that unique brand of confinement. Upon his release, Mr. Kyi moved across the border to Thailand and founded an organization, Assistance Association for Political Prisoners in Burma, the mission of which includes “report[ing] on the military regime’s oppression of political prisoners who are presently detained in various prisons.”

My Kyi’s remarks on accepting his award were powerful, and are excerpted in Packer’s post. I found this passage particularly striking:

We have a way to communicate with the prisoners and get their stories out. I cannot tell you how we do this. I do not want the Burmese regime to find out. But I can tell you that these stories fill the pages of our reports and those of Human Rights Watch.

The media use these stories. So do political leaders around the world. Over time, the stories of these prisoners generate pressure on the international community to take a stand.

Burmese dissidents are outgunned and outmanned. But they have ideas and stories on their side. Who doubts they will win someday?

Tags:
, , , , ,

"Sesame Street simple" communication with a story

Wednesday, November 12th, 2008

My first reaction to this Bob Sutton post–”Sesame Street Simple: A.G. Lafley’s Leadership Philosophy“–was a slight recoil. Perhaps because I thought we had tapped out on learning from A.G. Lafley (can’t we let the man run his company in peace?). But also because my natural communication style is not “Sesame Street simple.” Unsure of that? Read this blog for a while.

But, after letting it sit a few weeks, I’m starting to get what Sutton is saying. He’s onto something important about communicating with and influencing large numbers of people:

…although executives who talk about many ideas and complex ideas will be viewed as smarter — wiser and more effective executives pick just a few simple messages and repeat them over and over again until people throughout the organization internalize them and use them to guide action. Constantly changing messages lead to the “flavor of the month problem” where people don’t act on the current message because they have learned that, if they wait a few months (or days) the message will change (managers in such organizations become very skilled at talking as if they are acting on the flavor of the month, but not actually doing the thing that senior executives are pushing at the moment.) And making things overly complicated may make the senior executives seem smart and feel smart , but if a message is too complicated to understand, it is also means that the implications for action are impossible to understand as well.

Managers “talking as if they are acting…but not actually doing” recalls the damaging “false urgency” that inflicts many companies, as John Kotter discusses in his new book.

There’s a way to do “Sesame Street simple” in a way that provides powerful insight and direction. Telling a story. Stories can be understood by everyone. They can be retold and honed for a particular group (”what’s our ‘the consumer is boss‘ story?”). They can convey complex lessons and spawn deep discussions about meaning.

That’s a “Sesame Street simple” approach even I can understand.

(Photo: Hokey Pokey Elmo from Toys R Us)

Related Posts:
On John Kotter’s “A Sense of Urgency”
More on “A Sense of Urgency”
A.G. Lafley: “The Consumer Is Boss”

Tags:
, , , , ,

Corporate change #5 – role of consultants in "bringing the outside in"

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

In earlier segments of this thread, we discussed how “bringing the outside in” is imperative for companies to keep aware and humble enough to avoid complacency and drive their organizations forward successfully. By contrast, companies in which the context inside the company drowns out voices from the outside tend to attribute their successes to their internal competencies, blame their failures on outside entities, and stagnate their way to failure.

I was talking to an old customer earlier in the month about working to help companies learn about the world outside. “Exactly!” he said. “Companies need people like you to come in and help them learn about what customers think.”

To a point, yes. Having an outside perspective that is less invested in the company’s culture or politics is valuable. But not at the expense of a broad, internal effort to understand and make sense of the outside world.

Referring to the business complexity literature we’ve touched on a few times in this blog, the world outside is a complex, messy place. It’s constantly changing. So old information, and limited sources, are not very useful. To gain the best, most supple understanding of the outside, a company needs lots of eyes and ears, a diverse group gathering and interpreting information, and creating stories about it. Consultants should be among that group, but not the only or the most credible source for outside information.

Management’s job is to enable that story-creation, create systems for capturing and making sense of it, and above all to honor and use it to create strategy, spur innovation, and otherwise enable Kotter’s “sense of urgency.”

That’s a job that even McKinsey might hesitate to take on.

Prior posts in this series:
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

Reading list:
Gary Hamel, “The Future of Management”
John Kotter, “A Sense of Urgency”
Charlene Li & Josh Bernoff, “Groundswell”
Dave Snowden & Mary Boone, “A Leader’s Guide to Decisionmaking,” Harvard Business Review, November 2007.

Related post:
Complex business problems need diagnosis

Tags:
, , , ,

Corporate Change #4 – don’t leave engaging with the outside to marketing/PR

Friday, September 19th, 2008

In the prior post in this series, I talked about galvanizing the will to change through “bringing the outside in”–learning what customers, the press, influencers–really anyone–thinks about the company, its products, its marketplace, industry, etc.

To which a reasonable person might ask: “Isn’t that my marketing department’s job?” Especially with newer tools like blogs, wikis, Twitter, etc., marketing is taking the lead in engaging with the “groundswell.”

While marketing has a significant role to play, they cannot own this function, any more than finance can own any decision that has to do with dollars and cents–it’s too big, too comprehensive and too important to be limited to one group. Here are several reasons why:

Marketing is obsessed with brands & messages. Brands and messages are relentlessly positive–who buys a negative message? But learning comes from both positive and negative stories. There are threats as well as opportunities. Marketing is asked to convey messages, not to understand the world in all its messiness and complexity.

PR is asked to get positive stories out there, and to counter negative perceptions–not to learn or to inform the company. True dialogue involves listening–even when the conversation is negative or you don’t agree with it–and trying to find lessons in that. Perception is reality, and PR tries to change perception–what we’re talking about here is, by contrast, understanding reality.


The view of both is too limited.
Different parts of the organization have different things to learn from the outside. Operations needs to learn new ways of working. Product management needs to understand how customers actually use products. HR needs to know how the workforce is evolving. Groupthink is also less likely when a diverse group of people is examining the world–with more likelihood that sound actions, and commitment to achieve them, will result.

Comcast’s experiment with Twitter-based customer service (see example here of “Groundswell” co-author Charlene Li Tweeting for help and Comcast responding) works because the Comcast guy is trying to solve a customer problem, not deliver a message. If Charlene ends up feeling better about Comcast, it is a side effect, not the intent, of the action. The tech is also in a position to learn deeply about this customer situation and, I’m certain, to disseminate the learning to colleagues.

Imagine this fictional Twitter dialogue if Charlene had to engage with marketing instead of with a real tech (I’ve reversed it for readability. In real Twitter, the newest message is on top):


charleneli: @comcastmktg My connection keeps going in and out, happens every few months. Comcast Cust service has no idea why. Any way to escalate?

comcastmktg: @charleneli That’s hard to believe. Comcast has the highest network reliability in the industry.

charleneli: @comcastmktg Yeah, fine. Can you help me with my question?

comcastmktg @charleneli Of course. One more thing. Did you know we have twice as many HD channels as DirecTV?

charleneli: @comcastmktg What? Who are you? Can you get me to someone who can help me?

comcastmktg @charleneli Right away. Please email help@comcast.com and you’ll get a response within 24-48 hours. Have you heard about our community service initiatives?

charleneli: @comcastmktg Aaargh!

Coming next: what is the role of consultants (written by an actual consultant!) in bringing the outside in?

Prior posts in this series:
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 5
Reading list:
Gary Hamel, “The Future of Management”
John Kotter, “A Sense of Urgency”
Charlene Li & Josh Bernoff, “Groundswell”

Tags:
, , , , ,

Corporate Change #3 – Bringing the outside in, for real

Thursday, September 18th, 2008

OK, so you’ve read my prior two posts on the subject of corporate change, and recognized your need to greatly enhance the information you get from the outside world. Now what?

You’ll need to embrace a few basic principles (it won’t be easy!):

Enable employees:

  1. Reward curiosity and information sharing
  2. Make time and space for employees to engage with the outside world–wall-to-wall meetings are a no-no
  3. Tap existing conduits to the outside (sales force, retail clerks, customer service reps, marketing, investor relations)
  4. Ensure your information systems and policies don’t get in the way


Listen hard:

  1. Don’t tune out bad news
  2. Try to assemble information from many constituencies (customers, competitors, employees)
  3. Embrace raw/inarticulate/emotional input
  4. Honor dissent


Create systems and methods to gather and utilize information:

  1. Deploy information “commons” where information can be posted, commented on, and passed across and up to aid in decisionmaking
  2. Systematically gather information relevant to your business and add it to the commons
  3. Regularly gather and sensemake commons-generated information
  4. Use the information to inform strategy, planning, organization, etc.
  5. Demonstrate to the employees that the information is used, to encourage ongoing contributions

Most companies are not ready for this. Some are. Those that aren’t: start getting ready. If you think implementing the above is a lot of work, think how hard it is to navigate out of a crisis–an avoidable crisis, if only you paid attention to and utilized what was going on all around you.

In the next few posts, we’ll dig into some specific high-value areas of bringing the outside in.

Prior posts in this series:
Part 1 Part 2 Part 4 Part 5

Reading List:
Gary Hamel, “The Future of Management”
John Kotter, “A Sense of Urgency”

Tags:
, , , ,

Corporate Change #2 – Why are companies so inwardly focused?

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

In part 1 of this series, we discussed one key reason companies fail to change even though it’s vital: the inability to, using John Kotter’s term, “bring the outside in.” In other words, companies don’t choose to look outside their walls to see what’s happening around them, assess the implications, and absorb that into their strategies, products and operations.

Why is this so?

Reason #1 – The Community Effect
A company, as it expands from one person, to ten, to one hundred, to a thousand and beyond, takes on the identity of a community. The employees usually work in an office or plant together. They get information from the same sources–the company newsletter, intranet, staff meetings (more on that later). They spend more time with other employees than with anyone else other than family. A culture develops that inspires curiosity about what’s happening inside and reduces it about what’s happening outside.

Reason #2 – Leadership Arrogance
I talked to a former client last week and told him about some work I’m doing mining insights from customer-service calls. He told me, “Our CEO thinks he’s just like our customers.” Since this CEO sees himself as a perfect proxy, there’s no reason to dig deeply into customers’ feelings.

Reason #3 – Information Flows Top-Down
Leadership serves on outside boards, goes to conferences, talks with consultants. They are tasked with creating strategy, which requires some curiosity and information about the world outside the corporate walls. They process that information into strategy documents, brand images, mission statements, etc., and send it down the line.

Leadership likes orderly information, not the messiness that real engagement with the outside world creates. Most leaders believe that employees don’t want that much engagement (in some cases they may be right). Employees realize that the highly-packaged, spun information that they receive is bland and biased. I recently re-encountered a saying familiar from my early working days: “We workers are like mushrooms. Leadership keeps us in the dark and feeds us s–t.” I heard that expression countless times till I became a senior leader–interestingly, I never heard it after that.

Combine reasons 1, 2 & 3 and you have an inwardly-focused, uncurious company. Information is either packaged pablum from above, or internal gossip. Conduits to the outside–front-line customer service reps, retail clerks, B2B sales people–are drowned out by the inside talk. Marketing communications staffs engage with the external but are dedicated to sending out messages or countering negative news.

What we’ve created here is company-as-fortress. Suspicious of the outside, comfortable with colleagues, uncurious. Information is routinized and bleached of content and contrast. Clearly, there’s a lot to be done to realize Kotter’s prescription to bring the outside in. We’ll begin discussing how in the next post.

Other posts in this series:
Part 1 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5

Related posts:
A competitive advantage: employees who spend their day talking to people
Time to start listening to front-line employees

Reading List:
Gary Hamel, “The Future of Management”
John Kotter, “A Sense of Urgency”

Tags:
, , , ,

Time to rescue "corporate change" from cliché bucket

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

Every company recognizes the need to change, correct? There are so many failure stories describing the terrible consequences of companies standing still that no executive in her right mind would ignore the need to reinvent the business on a continuous basis. We hear this all the time:

“The only constant in our business is change.”

Yeah, right. Even if the idea is understood on its surface, companies worldwide are doing a terrible job of implementing it. If you read the newspaper, outside of mergers and acquisitions, change occurs only when companies are in crisis.

In other words, only when the situation is so bad that it can no longer be ignored or rationalized away do companies take on the hard work of reinventing themselves. What does this mean? As Gary Hamel wrote in 2007’s best business book:


…In recent years, entire industries have been caught behind the change curve. Television broadcasters and newspaper publishers, record companies and French vintners, traditional airlines and giant drug companies, American carmakers and European purveyors of haute couture–all have been struggling to rejuvenate seriously out-of-date business models. Sure, many of the companies in these industries will regain their footing–eventually. But in the meantime, billions of dollars and millions of customers will be lost. Such is the price of maladaptation. (p.42)

No CEO wants to squander billions of dollars of lost opportunity–not least because of the primordial urge to save one’s own skin. Yet it doesn’t happen. This week’s series of posts takes on one large reason why change rarely happens without crisis, and a way to start a fundamental culture change that can help instill the ability to recognize opportunities and threats and move more quickly to address them.

The root of this thinking is John Kotter’s great new book, “A Sense of Urgency.” Kotter takes his lifetime of study of organizations and wonders why so many organizations are so complacent, or worse, running around frantically accomplishing nothing. I’d like to focus on one reason why:

…Organizations of any size or age tend to be too internally oriented. Even people who know this fact often underestimate the size of the problem and its consequences. The disconnect between what insiders see, fee, and think, on the one hand, and external opportunities and hazards, on the other, can be astonishing at times–even in organizations that are producing very good short-term results. (p.67)

Kotter’s prescription for companies is to “bring the outside in.” To inform their people and thinking with a knowledge of the environment outside the company’s walls. That’s what we’ll elaborate on in our next post.

Other posts in this series:
Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5

Related posts:
Best business books of 2007
On “A Sense of Urgency”

Tags:
, , , ,

Why don’t businesses change and adapt? No "Sense of Urgency"

Wednesday, August 27th, 2008

John Kotter is the change guru. His article “Leading Change” from Harvard Business Review is a classic I’ve recommended to a number of people. His newest book, “A Sense of Urgency,” focuses on the one area where companies most often fail the change test–establishing an organization-wide priority to, using Kotter’s words, “move, and win, now.”

It’s a terrifically-written book, with lots of stories of organizations succeeding at or failing the urgency test. Kotter points out (as I’ve experienced) that many organizations in trouble foster a sense of “false urgency”–an inwardly-focused, fearful level of intense activity (wall-to-wall meetings; sound familiar?) that harms the organization, perhaps as much, or more than, old-fashioned complacency.

By contrast, “true urgency” engages employees’ hearts; focuses outwardly on customers, competitors and the industry environment; and is practiced by everyone in the organization, most especially the leaders. It also requires understanding the true priorities of the company and purging activities that are not connected with those priorities, thereby opening up time for reflection, experimentation, and immersion in the world outside the company walls.

Here’s my favorite snippet from “A Sense of Urgency”:

imagine

We call this a thought experiment. Imagine, if you will, an organization where people up and down the hierarchy, and systems throughout the organization, help pull the outside in through

  • Sending out people
  • Bringing in people
  • Bringing in relevant data in an eye-catching manner
  • Listening to customer-interface employees
  • Creating video about the outside
  • Widely sharing what is learned instead of shielding others from possibly troubling news
  • Changing the visuals

Nearly everyone in an organization can use these tactics to create more urgency among peers or their bosses. Imagine what would happen to complacency if many people at many levels did so. (p.100)

I can’t think of a better book for today’s business environment, when so many companies are struggling to reinvent themselves, while companies clearly in deep trouble continue to be surprised by the outside reality (example). ” A Sense of Urgency” is a must-read.

Related post:
Time to start listening to front-line employees