Change Evaluation

It is mind boggling to hear the rationale used by change managers, internal or external, about this topic. Experience shows that the great majority of change efforts fail -- only a few succeed.

Many feel that change programs cannot be truly evaluated because there are too many variables to contend with, that we do not have the luxury or opportunity to set up control groups, etc. Others, to justify their lack of success, will tell you that things would have been much worse without their intervention. Still others will insinuate that not enough time has passed to truly evaluate a change initiative, that we must wait. To me these and other excuses prevent us from advancing the state of our knowledge about organizational diagnosis and intervention.

It has been said that success has many fathers, and failures none. It is easy to appropriate credit when things go well (even though we might not have had much to do with it), but very difficult to be accountable should the results be less than we anticipated.

I have been around long enough to realize that success is highly dependent on favorable market conditions. Market pull makes geniuses of all of us. We come to believe our own PR. The truth of the matter is that the best is required from us when the markets get tough and the likelihood of success much more problematic. I have seen the rise and fall of many giant companies -- only a few have risen from the ashes.

Experience has shown that failures result from three sources: (1) we used the wrong methods, (2) we used the correct methods but improperly, or (3) both. Evaluation is essential to our learning. The feedback we gain helps us adjust our thinking and improve our skill set. Without an explicit change strategy, change managers take the ultimate risk of "flying blind." When you fly blind, you take the chance of running into unexpected consequences, of doing harm to yourself and others, and more hurtfully to be labeled a charlatan.

In my view, it is not a sin to admit that something did not work. As human beings we are not infallible, we do not know all there is to know, and we are prone to make incorrect assumptions. By admitting our humanity, we stand a better chance of becoming masters in our chosen profession. It has been said that most people learn more from their mistakes than they do from their successes. "You can fool some of the people sometime, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Our clients are intelligent human beings, they are not easily convinced by our contrite rationale.

At a recent meeting I attended in Oxford, one of the well respected participants asked me why had a particular culture change program (now in its 6th year) failed to make the changes stick. I have been reflecting on his question since.

There are two general ways to evaluate change programs, I was taught a few years back -- maybe there are more now but I am not aware of any. One is called the summative approach and the other the formative. In the former case, you compare longitudinally a number of metrics. The metrics are selected prior to the launch of the effort. Success can be established by comparing the gap between "what was" with "what is now". This approach has also been called the "goal attainment method."

Any unfinished business can be incorporated in future changes. This is the simplest form of evaluation but not necessarily the most instructive.

In the case of formative evaluation, you evaluate progress along the way, at critical phases and milestones, and at the end. This approach is much more demanding but can yield important "lessons learnt" in both end results accomplishment as well as to the efficacy of the change methods used.

I strongly urge practitioners to build into the change plan an evaluation component. The type and epth depends on the complexity of the change program. You do not need to use a 10 pounds sledge hammer to drive down a penny nail. All in moderation! I urge a vigorous debate about change efficacy.

In later blogs, I will discuss three specific change evaluation methods, ranging from the easy to the more complex. Choosing the appropriate method is important from a cost point of view. A simple change might not warrant large expenditures for evaluation, and vice versa.

Enjoy the journey along the learning curve.

Organization Development (OD)

OD is a relatively new field -- less over 50 years old.

For many users and for some practitioners as well, its history is a blur in time, and its application a combination of science and mystery.

Let me try to summarize its origins and conceptual definition.

Its origins have been traced to 1957 and were codified in 1969 by the publication from Addison-Wesley Publishing Company of the OD Series, with books by Beckhard, Bennis, Schein, and later by Blake and Mouton, Lawrence and Lorch, and Walton. The series, since then, has expanded by several books broadening the meaning and practice of organization development.

I received my first set of the OD Series as a gift from one of my superiors in February 1970 following my first participation in an off-site team building session, while serving as an HR Manager for a large division of Control Data Corporation in Sunnyvale, California. My superior felt, and rightfully so I might add, that OD was the missing link to effective human resources management. Later on, I came to the same realization.

As I perused these seminal books, these three things jumped out: (1) OD is a normative-reeducative process, (2) its values emerged from the behavioral science field, and (3) its collaborative nature of consultation.

I concluded, that if I was interested in the field, I needed (1) to learn about organizational norms (culture) and adult learning principles, (2) to get grounded on behavioral science principles, and (3) to learn process consultation (group dynamics and intervention theory).

Later on, as I got more and more interested in the field, I discovered that to better understand OD, I needed also to understand the assumptions that OD makes about people as individuals, groups and leadership, people in organizational systems, values of the client organization, and the value and beliefs of the behavioral scientist-change agent.

Applied behavioral scientist-change agents tend to give high priority to the needs and aspirations of human beings. They also believe that work and life can become richer and more meaningful, and organized effort more effective and rewarding, if feelings and sentiments are allowed to legitimately become part of the culture of an organization. Change agents have a bias toward action, along with research, in an effort to bring about improvement. Lastly, behavioral science practitioners place a high value on democratization or "power equalization" in the workplace through participation and involvement. The latter does not mean that employees will elect their superiors through a voting process nor that employees need to agree with everything management decides.

These values have a humanistic, developmental and optimistic foundation that supports a number of practices designed to differentiate OD from classical management consulting. In the latter, the client is defined as management, and in the former, the organizational system is the client. This difference has subtle but profound consequences with respect to confidentiality, agency (loyatly or allegiance to), and ultimately trust and confidence in the change process.

To me, to be a qualified OD practitioner requires first a baseline knowledge of and training in human behavior, process consultation, group dynamics, human resources management, and general management. This knowledge needs to be combined with on-the-job internships. I call the latter the art and science part. Secondly, an essential element for success is the practitioner's interpersonal competence, ethical dealings and leadership ability. I call the latter the professional part.

OD is not a job title that we can willy-nilly give away or take on. It has to be earned through rigorous study and painstaking application under professional supervision. It is a most rewarding profession. When combined with classical human resources management, it becomes a powerful tool for change management and institutionalization. It can have a profound impact on organizational performance and individual job satisfaction.

I encourage OD consultants to solicit feedback from the client system, not just the top dog, regarding their effectiveness and development gaps. Continuous improvement depends on our openness to seek and act on the feedback we receive.

Enjoy the trip along the learning curve. It is a lot of fun!

Managing Our Strengths

I learned several years ago from Dr. Allan Kathcher, a well known psychologist and co-author of the LIFO Orientation process, that overdoing our personal strengths results in most of our weaknesses. His counsel was to stay on the productive side of our behaviors and avoid going to the deep end of excess. Example: being supportive is a strength; being too-giving is a weakness. As a student of his process, I came to appreciate his insights and used them as guides for my own development.

While attending the UCLA Executive Program in Management, years later, I had the opportunity to learn from another well known psychologist and author -- Dr. Ichak Adizes. His message was similar. He had identified 4 critical roles that management performs in an organization. These four roles, when done in excess or overdone, become arch-types (weaknesses). He called them mismanagement styles. Here are the four roles described by Adizes:

The producer role is key to the organization's success. Done to an excess though the producer can become a lone ranger pursuing his/her own agenda with disregard of the collective goal.

As an administrator, the role is concerned for details and organization -- essentials to productivity. Done in excess people become bureaucrats and defeat the very purpose they are trying to achieve -- efficiency and streamlining -- by creating obstacles and hurdles that do not advance the need for speed and agility.

Every organization needs an appropriate dose of entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurs can create challenging environments, facilitate innovative thinking, and nurture risk taking. Done to an excess, entrepreneurs can become arsonists. They do not know when to stop. They also often surround themeselves with claques or sycophants.

The integrator role is essential to organizational growth. The bigger the organization gets, the more complex it becomes. To an excess, integrators become superfollowers and can be perceived as spies for senior management. Over time OD professionals whose primary responsibility is to faciliate integration and alignment can fall into this trap and become distrusted.

I have been told and I have come to accept the notion that we are defined by our strengths, not by our weaknesses. Knowing what they are helps us do more of what works for us and less of what does not. Overdoing what works for us is triggered by the stress that comes from opposition or perceived indifference by others. Extending our strengths and blending them are worthwhile developmental strategies.

Think about ways to stay effective and minimize ways that stray into undesirable territory. Remember that excess is often triggered by stress. Learn how to manage fear and perceived threats.

Enjoy the ride along the learning curve. It is a lot of fun and it keeps you young.

The Fallacy of Transformation

As a student of organizations, I have noticed the penchant for sexy terminology. Consultants are in particular experts at generating terms that connote better methods or unique know-how. Transformational change rather than incremental change is an example. Who in the world wants to be a change plumber? Fixing leaks here or there in the organization's plumbing. Transformation is more sexy since it denotes morphing into something better, more powerful, more vibrant.

Transformation is not a uni-directional term. You have three ways out of a transformational change: better, worse, or the same. Transformation that does not improve an organization positively is an illusion. Transformation that does not result in improvement at best is a wash, and at its worst is a rip-off.

Questions to ponder are: has the change effort resulted in increased margins, higher revenues, better employee engagement, more loyal customer base, more robust market share, etc.? If not, it is time to find out why.

Have you been sold snake-oil? In the wild west of yesteryear, it was the medicine salesmen sold from town to town to cure any and all human ills. Today we are awash with slick folks who pretend to have the magic bullet, the better idea, the smarter tools to overcome all organizational challenges. Buyers must beware!

When we confront the snake-oil salesman, we will hear interesting excuses. Not enough time has passed yet, let's be patient. We did not execute the change properly, the way we should have. Right now we are playing defense e.g., we are cutting the fat. The market has gone south. Etc.

How can you spot snake-oil peddlers?

They have the same medicine for everybody regardless of the unique organizational situation. They will tell you that it worked fantastically elsewhere (usually a name company with a great reputation like GE, IBM, Sony, etc.) The problem is that your company is not like any other in either size, scope, history, geography, culture or capability. It is one of a kind. Sure, something might have worked elsewhere but you are not elsewhere, you are somewhere? For example, the medicine you give a baby (start-up) is usually different than what you give an older person (declining or mature organization). Different in dose. Forbidden to one or the other.

Plumbing is not a sexy job but it is still a noble one. It does not make it more glamorous by calling it transformation. Sure, in some situations incremental change is not good enough. If we choose to make radical changes, then we must be sure that the methods fit the situation on the ground.

During my career, I have witnessed very few arch-type transformations: GE, Apple, IBM, to name a few. The landscape, however, is full of organizational carcasses that did not survive the transformational change. I will not give you a long list. I know you have your own.

Enjoy the trip along the learning curve!

The Problem with Management Fads

I was startled by a handout I received during a seminar that I attended last year. It was a graph plotting all the management fads of the past 60 years. They all promised to be the answer to the pressing problems of the day, but in hindsight none of them were. That does not mean that we should junk all of them.

In my view they all serve a purpose at one time or another, buyers beware! Students of the systems approach know that there is really no one best way to solve complex organizational problems, that it all depends on a number of factors. We also have been taught that no two methods are alike or yield the same benefits ... some are faster, others are longer lasting, etc.

In the mid 1980's I read the abstract of a doctoral dissertation -- "What's new in OD." I have forgot the author's name but not his findings. The Ph.D. student spent a good part of three years tracking and documenting the evolution of the organization development field, dating back to the pre WWII experiment at Western Electric. His conclusion was startling for me. He found nothing was really new except better packaging.

As I reflect on the last 25 years, I regrettably have come to the similar conclusion.

The Western Electric experiments opened our eyes. The increase in employee productivity was not as a result of better lighting (a recommendation by the consultants) but as a result of the attention employees where receiving. This breakthrough finding gave birth to what scientists refer to as the Hawthorne Effect (HE). The HE does not last, however. Like the rubber band, once you forget to pay attention to the employees, the rubber band will snap back to its earlier position (status quo).

Fast forward to the 21st century.

I have observed the Hawthorne Effect during the initial phases of change programs. You form a task force, cross-functional team, a "skunk" group, you name it, and unleash it on problem solving, and by golly, things begin to change. You think you are a genius, that you have arrived. Well, you had something, but not a lot to do with it, you simply unleashed the Hawthorne Effect. The rubber-band effect? Sustainability is the issue.

Many change efforts die or lose their impetus over time because the HE is exhausted. Change fatigue sets in. People get tired. Over the long haul, the overall impact is hard to discern. Skepticism sets in. It is time for renewal ... it is time to re-seed the situation.

It has been said that people are good at criticing the work of others but not their own. They think that everybody is screwing up but not themselves. Well, I am not one of those people. I have experienced many failures -- failures in the proper use of change methods and failures in the change goals. How about you?

More on Jerks in the Workplace

My blog on the subject touched a sensitive spot with those who perused it. Today as I was signing in for my email I noticed the results of a recent survey conducted by Ranstad USA. The survey tried to classify the type and degree of jerkness in the work place. Here are the highlights of the employees' pet peeves:

At the top of the list were the Psst-er (gossipers). Apparently nobody likes their rumor mongering and insiduous comments about co-workers' personal affairs.

Next, was the Broken Clock (poor time managers). They are always late to meetings. They miss deadlines and as a result often impact negatively the work of others and create resentment.

The Mold-Guy came next. He or she is like a mold, it grows all over and you cannot get rid of it. This type thrives in a messy workplace. The biggest offense is that this type tends to mess up the communal space. he or she often throws food in the waste basket where it stays for days.

The Wiffy-Wonder follows. You can smell this guy from the other side of the partition. His or her personal hygiene leaves a lot to be desired. In some cases, the odor is generated by the ethnic food they eat -- garlic, fish oil, and other pungent condiments. A shower and a frequent change of clothes could ameliorate the situation.

The Cracker is next. He or she is loud, likes to crack the knuckles, makes a racket when chewing gum, jingles the spoon in the coffee cup, etc. You know the kind! He or she is totally oblivious to the irritation they generate.

Last, but not least, comes the Tapper. Quiter than the cracker but not that much less of an irritant. Tappers are always tapping, on their computers, on the PDAs, and on their communication devices. They do this during meetings. They are seen as rude, distracting by others.

Where do you fit in?

I think that I might on occasion dable in Cracking, not so much my knuckles but the spoon in the tea cup, and when on I choose to chew gum.

The report highlights some positive aspects to all the peeves. They serve to unite the work group against the bothersome interloper. They bring the group together more or less. They also wake people up to the notion that it might be time to look for a better job in a better work setting. They might stimulate some hidden entrepreneurial instinct to start our own business so that we can have the luxury of picking our own co-workers.

Enjoy your trip along the learning curve! Things could get worse before they get better. Watch out for jerks. They are everywhere.

Organizational Viruses

I recently heard Dr. Dwayne Dyer, a well known clinical psychologist and spiritual guru speak on public television (PBS). The title of his lecture was "Excuses Begone." He quoted two interesting books that I plan to buy and read. I did not have the time to jot down the authors' name.

The two books are: The Biology of Belief, and Viruses of the Mind. His thesis is that as human beings we become infected by excuses and habits that impact our lives, often in a negative way. Examples, he uses, are:

You are too old, that's impossible, you cannot help it, you are the way you are, no one else does it, you have tried it before, you are tired., etc.

He calls these supposed ways of thinking and acting imbedded in us "memes."

Viruses do three predictable things:

(1) they duplicate (they come from our parents to us via our belief system),
(2) they infiltrate (they go where they cannot be easily found), and
(3) spread (they become our cultural norms).

Interesting stuff!

My mind began to wander as I was listening to Dr. Dyer talk. I thought about how computer viruses and worms can infect our computers, and the havoc they bring into our daily routine.

To protect our valuable data and hardware we purchase anti-virus software. We have developed a defense, although not completely bullet proof.

I have pretty much followed Virginia Wolf's advice along the way: arrange whatever pieces come your way. My father used to say: if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. I guess I learned to go with the flow, so to speak. A virus?

I began to wonder about any viruses I might been infected with as I grew up through my parents, grandparents, teachers, parish priests, friends and colleagues. I quickly discovered that my limitations, foibles, and biases are essentially viruses or worms that I might have picked up along the way. An excuse? Possibly!

Unfortunately there are no off-the-shelf anti-viruses, but costly and time consuming sessions on the couch, often with dubious results.

As an organizational observer, I have seen a few great organizations change for the worse, but I had not realized that the cause might be insidious viruses. To escape detection viruses often mutate to make their identification difficult. Upon reflection, I have concluded that "fads" and "magic bullets" can mutate into powerful viruses. Here are some fads that come to mind:

Restructuring -- we all know that it is beneficial for an organization to periodically look at itself and rearrange the way it does business. When restructuring becomes a chronic solution, does the method become the mission? I have seen many organizations cut their vitality and long term viability by over-zealeous cost cutting. I have suspected all along that centralization and decentralization might be placebos for cyclical challenges.

Outsourcing -- it makes a lot of sense to outsource non-critical work to people who can do it better and at a lower cost. But does it make sense to do so to people who do not do it as well as you do, and at a higher cost to boot? Does it make sense for an organization to outsource two of the most vital functions (talking to their customers and talking to their employees) to outsiders? In my view these two functions are CORE, critical, essential. A virus?

Cross-functional teams -- a great organizational tool to break communication barriers and accelerate problem solving and decision making. But do we need to use a 10 pound hammer to drive down a penny nail? On a recent trip I asked a COO what he was doing to improve his organization's performance. he replied; we are doing cross functional teams. Wow! A virus?

Team building -- a great intervention to build cohesiveness and esprit de corps. But building cohesive and rah-rah incompetent teams is no antidote to failure. A virus? Perhaps.

I can go on with examples. The managerial literature is full of breakthrough methods that broke along the way.

Experience teaches me that devotion to a specific method, advocacy of a specific way, and lack of candor ultimately can erode the vibrancy of an organization. We need people who think differently than us. We need to encourage experimentation with different problem solving methods. We need to reward openness and candor. Too often we weed out those who stand out as being different than us. A virus? For sure.

So what can we do to get rid organizations of viruses? Dwyer suggests these steps for renewal:

1. Awareness (viruses do not want to be discovered). Get information from new sources. Cliques and hierarchies have ways to feed the viruses to protect their turf, their agenda. Abolish perceived "culture polices" -- a clever disguise for viruses. Culture police has a lot in common with the secret police -- they spy on people, they report on people, they use informants.

2. Alignment. Examine disconnects between the talk and the walk. Cultural norms are great places where viruses feed. "It is not our culture" is a give away. People will use culture to defend poor stewardship of resources. Excuses are forms of misalignment.

3. Contemplation. Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher, said that contemplation is the greatest form of activity. Imagine what it would be like if the organization was pristine, free of viruses. Insights can come from this activity.

4. Willingness. We have to be willing to change, to look an other paradigms, to go into unfamiliar territory. We need to let go in order to start something new. Clinging to practices that are not beneficial is a virus.

5. Passion. Become infected with the habit of enthusiasm. Leave the gloom and doom at the door. Love what you do and who you do it with. Do not be afraid. The worst has already happened.

Enjoy the trip along the learning curve. It is a lot of fun. Your thoughts?

Working with Jerks

While waiting for my flight home at the Rome Fiumicino Airport, I went into the airport bookstore to buy a magazine. There was a small book that caught my eye "Lavorare con dei Coglioni ... e riuscire a liberarsene", losely translated as "Working with Jerks ... and succeeding in getting rid of them." The Italian word for jerk is much stronger and it refers to a part of the male human anatomy. The French have a similar word, so do the Spaniards and the Portuguese. I guess Latins have a lot in common when addressing this menace.

The book, turns out, was a translation by Antonella Viale, of "Travaller avec cons" by anonymous. The book is published and copyrighted by Sperling & Kupfer Edizioni. Permission is given to use parts of the book for personal use.

I immediately got ingrossed in the book and I finished reading it before my flight took off for London. The book was right on target on a subject we all think about but rarely discuss it. My first reaction while reading the book was: why did not I think of it? I vowed to do a blog on it.

Jerks exist in all walks of life. It is part of the human condition to have to deal with them. No setting is free of them ... at work, in church, at social gatherings, even in the cherished family circle, you will find one or more jerks.

There are two kinds of jerks.

The first type is evil, mean-spirited, anger-provoking, and often in your face. They are interested in getting ahead at all costs, even if they have to make their colleagues look bad, sabotage their work, or take credit for others' ideas. They often come across as pompous know-it-all, letting you know what and who they know, talking down to you, patronizing others, and by behaving in a most intollerable way.

They are often referred to as bulls-in-a-china-shop; they create havoc by stepping on others' tender feelings. As you read this, I am sure that one or more people will pop up in your head. We are told to cope with them, ignore them, and/or avoid them at all costs. See, they have no idea the damage they create. They are not aware how their behavior hurts those around them. They are volunteer spies and do not think twice about reporting any of your faux pas to the boss. They can insidiously plant rumors, they can embarass you in public with sarcastic remarks. They think they are witty and are the first (and sometime the only ones) to laugh at their own jokes.

The second type are clumsy, inappropriate, and inept, but they do not mean any harm. They are the good jerks. Fortunately, there are more of this type than the former. They make us laugh, we feel sorry for them, we tolerate them and embrace them as our own. We do not want any harm to come their way, and we pray for their well-being. They have a good heart, not a mean bone in their body and soul. They try to help when no help is needed. They volunteer to do anything and everything for others. They interrupt but they do not realize it. They are responsible for all kinds of small disasters through no ill intentions such as jamming the fax machine, using the remaining paper on the copier, entering your office without knocking, spilling coffee on your office desk forcing you into a mad dash to protect your computer and other valuable papers, they are all over the place ... just trying to be helpful.

The Jewish community uses two words to illustrate the problem. "Schlemil" is used to describe the jerk who spills the soup on the patron. "Schlemazol" is used to describe the jerk on whose suit is the soup spilled on. In this context, we are all jerks -- perpetrators and/or victims.

During my long career, I have met many jerks -- some chronic, others free-lance, some mean-spirited, others innocent. None of us are immune to this desease. I too have acted as a jerk in a few situations, to my later embarassment and regret. I am the schlemil-type when I behave like a jerk. I can soil somebody's good suit and ruffle feathers. I thank God for not been chronically afflicted by this condition.

About you? Which type fits you?

If we are to eliminate the jerks in our workplace, we must start by "owning up" to the possibility that we too on occasion or chronically behave like jerks. None of us is perfect, I guess. With a little soul searching we can find ways of freeing the workplace from this affliction. The cure depends on the type of jerk affliction you suffer from. The first type is tough to admit to and harder to change. How about some delicate feedback to our colleagues when they behave as a jerk?

The Peter Principle

In 1968 Lawrence J. Peters, ex-CEO of Avis Corporation, published a humorous book titled "Up the Organization." Research since then has established the theoretical validity of Peters' treatise. His key point was that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence. The book created a big buzz amongst the managerial class of the '70s.

The corollary to the Peter Principle (named after the book's author) is that in time every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties.  Dynamite statement!

Questions to ponder:

1. Have you observed this phenomenon in your work setting?

2. What are the consequences of the Peter Principle on an organization?

My view is that we tend to select people for promotion based on their current performance or personal connection without examining whether the person in question has the skills, abilities, and horse-power to handle the demands of the new job.

As examples, we take a great salesperson and make him/her a lousy sales manager, a great engineer and make him/her a disaster prone engineering manager. Both are "lose/lose" transactions.

Experience teaches us that by promoting people so long as they work competently in their current job is not sufficient. We need to assess people's potential to succeed in the new job by using valid criteria. A satellite problem that I have seen, time and again, is that once people reach their level of incompetence, they become blockers to those below who have the potential to advance. Blockers tend to push high potential employees out. They unknowngly generate undesirable turnover.

In my view, this is a widespread problem that needs management attention.

After my tour of duty in the Middle East, I came to realize that there are two general approaches to selection:

1. We select people based on their technical skills primarily, only to see them fail because they are interpersonally inept. I call this the US approach.

2, We select people based on their style or personal relationship, only to see them fail because they are technically inept. I call this the Middle East approach.

Arch-types? Sure. Generalizations? Sure. But they can serve us well as illustrations. What is your view?

Healing The Wounds

My good friend and colleague David Noer wrote a breakthrough book on the subject about 25 years ago. I guess not much has changed since then, or has it? His book was inspired by a series of layoffs and redundancies resulting from the many consolidations taking place during the 1980's. It has now become a modus operandi for organizations to periodically reduce their workforce in the face of falling margins and greater shareholder pressure.

Like the wise farmer teaches us, there is a time for everything. There is a time for planting, a time for irrigating, a time for harvesting, and a time for pruning. Pruning at the proper time ensures that the tree grows healthier and gives more fruit in later years. Pruning is not a substitute for sound management. It is a tool for improved performance.

Staff reductions, unless properly done, change the organizational landscape in undesirable ways. Zealous managers can be careless or indeed unscrupulous. People join companies because they are attracted by an employer's reputation, culture, and leadership. There is an implied psychological contract that emerges between the two parties -- the individual and the employer -- and sealed upon joining. Staff reductions often violate or outright break this "contract". The result is the tears that Noer writes about. Lives are disrupted, careers altered, promises broken, trust disappears. The company is not the same again. The romance is over.

Those who remain in the company are forever changed. Their trust is reduced. Their level of engagement becomes more perfunctory. Their view of the leadership becomes more skeptical and critical. Leaders need to heal these wounds as quickly as possible in order to avoid the hardening of the "categories" e.g., lack of trust, cynicism, stress, etc. It requires action, not commiseration.

Good leadership is not a litany of slogans, proclaimed when things are going well. Good leadership is demonstrated under painful conditions. Mediocre leaders will not be up to the challenge because they will be preoccupied with their own survival or are trying to show how good they are at cutting heads.

P.S.: This subject reminds me of the famous article "The Emperor Has No Clothes" -- a subject too important to discuss in this short blog. I suggest we all re-read it.

Let's ponder the question that Noer treated so well in his book.

How do we heal the wounds following a reduction in staff? How do we renew the organization?

In my view, restructuring or downsizing are not strategies for growth but admissions of poor leadership (doing the right things)and inept management (doing the right things correctly). Let's learn from our mistakes.

Know When to Hold Them, Know When to Fold Them

Poker is an interesting game to watch. It requires strategy, skill, and luck. When luck is not there, strategy and skill are essential. Competitors watch carefully your non-verbals. They are keen to identify any clues that will give away a strong hand, a bluff, a lack of concentration, fatigue, hesitation.

Questions: 

Can others "read" your hand? 

What clues do you give away? 

Can others tell when you are bluffing? 

Are you an amateur or a professional player?

Professionals know when to hang on to a dealt hand and when to throw it in. They calculate the odds, they "count" the cards, they watch competitors for clues, they do not give away their hand. They are "poker faced".

Amateurs ignore or play against the odds. They try to bluff others who are not easiy bluffed. Amateurs can win on luck in the short term but lose over the long haul to skill and better strategy. 

Of course, it is always better to be lucky than a better player. Luck makes everyone look like a genius.

I have observed this phenomenon often in the business word. 

I have seen individuals screw up a great career by being called on their bluff to resign over often a petty subject. I have seen individuals who do not know that they have a winning hand, thus settling for a meager win. 

Bet a strong hand. Throw away a weak one.

What kind of a player are you? 

 What are your strengths? 

 Your track record? 

Careers are more important than poker playing. I am using the analogy to drive a few points across. 

I wish you a great ride along the learning curve. Be a winner! God is on your side.

Organizational Phrogs

Years ago, Jerry Harvey, professor of organization behavior at the George Washington University, wrote a piece in the OD Network newsletter discussing "Organizational Phrogs." Jerry is one my favorite authors. He is well known for the Abiline Paradox, Group Tyranny -- the Gunsmoke Phenomenon, and the Asoh Defense. Jerry's sense of humor has always made learning a lot of fun for me.

Now, what is the topic all about? Jerry chose the ph spelling on purpose. In his view, frogs do not like to be called frogs. They prefer to mask their identity and to blend in the landscape. They are masters of camouflage. They eat insects. Frogs usually come out at night and, although they cannot be seen, their mating calls can be heard. Some frogs come in very unusual colors -- they are few in number -- and use their unique coloring to warn predators that they are poisonous. As amphibians, frogs are equipped with a latex kind of skin to protect them from the water. On a full moon, the reflection can give away their camouflage. They live in ponds or by rivers. They are nocturnal.

I am taking some liberties with Jerry's work to illustrate what I have come to witness inside contemporary organizations.

Organizational phrogs do exist and thrive. As their counterparts in the wild, they like anonymity and they like to blend in the background. They feast on gossip and they augument the organizational chatter by spreading rumors, back biting, and badmouthing their colleagues. They can also be great brown-nosers by charming superiors with their professed loyalty, ideas, and "by-the-way" dialogue. On a bright night, their shiny skin might give them away and make them targets. A few of them can be outright venemous, evil in their intent. Their unique coloring warns others about their letal poison.

In my entire career, I have encountered less than half a dozen of this rare breed. But when I have witnessed them, I have discovered that they can do much damage.

Phrogs do have a place in the organizational ecosystem.

Their whisper fills the night's silence. Their mating call attracts others of the same kind and breaks the daily monotony. Together, they comprise a community of practice -- self serving, often injurious to others' careers. Unchecked, they can become a nuisance and a health hazzard. They feast on "bad" information, and they gain energy from one another's speculations. Containing rather than eliminating them is needed. Exposing them will dimish the harm they might inflict.

Have you seen any phrogs in your organization?
How would you chracterize them?
How do you deal with them?

A Few Comments About Change

Change is the norm in our lives. Economic, political, social, and/or personal factors drive it. One question I am repeatedly asked regarding organizational change is: Is all change good? I welcome your pondering about this question and to share your answers with me.

Now let me share my answer with you. Change is desirable whenever we are dissatisfied with the status quo or when our survival is at stake. In my view, change without improvement is pointless. To give change meaning, it has to improve performance (growth) and/or it has to ensure survival.

Now, change is not easy.

Organizations, just like human beings, prefer predictability and familiarity. Like human beings, organizations can fall into habits and patterns over time that can be hard to change. With change, things tend to become unpredictable and unusual. Scary, if you will. Change requires us, as Bill Bridges teaches us in his book on Transitions, to let go of the status quo (ending) before we can start a new beginning, and in between these two points we have to travel the uncomfortable zone called the "neutral" zone, neither here nor there, so to speak.

In Silicon Valley there is an expression that made quite an impact on me as young professional: To stay still is to fall behind. Meaning, your competitors might overtake you and leave you behind. So if an organization is stuck and unable to change and adapt, it risks the likelihood of losing its competitive edge. This principle applies to our career management process. If we stop growing technically and personally, we risk losing any marketable advantage we might have. Lifelong learning is not just a slogan but a strategy for career advancement.

Organizations also need to always live to fight another day. They need to have the opportunity to renew themselves, to become better. The landscape is full of carcasses where organizations were not able to do so and as a result had run out of time. Change indeed can provide organizations the ability to at least fight another day. It is sad to see the icons GM and Chrysler run out of time, possibly to be rescued by the Federal government.

In closing, my premise is that organizations who know how to manage change have a competitive advantage because they know how to do it well. A subject I will discuss in a future blog.

Let me hear from you.

Resizing the Workforce

In the July 1, 2002 issue of the Journal of Business Strategy, Barbara Davison wrote the article "The Difference between Rightsizing and Wrongsizing." She goes on to quote me: "Cutting staff is a common response during economic downturns, but if staffing plans are not linked to the business strategy, rightsizing can go badly wrong."

I had forgotten this interview. So here are some questions for you to ponder:

What are the best ways to right size an organization? Why are they best?
What are the worst ways to right size an organization? Why are they the worst?

During the current economic downturn, to stay financially viable, organizations will surely need to get on the treadmill. It is a time to shed the fat organizations accumulate during the glory years. It is a time to confront performance issues ignored for a long while. It is a time to optimize resources, to get the biggest bang for the money. Getting on the treadmill should improve the organization's cardio-vascular system. You get in shape. You get healthier, and you feel better. You also can run faster and for a longer period of time. You are not only leaner but also more agile.

So managers are told to review their headcount and make adjustments. Often managers have little or no experience in rightsizing. The focus on headcount rather than skills or dollars and cents does not help either. Instructions from upper management might be sketchy.

Righsizing involves redesigning the organization for a variety of reasons: (1) improving profit margins, (2) in anticipating lower demand, (3) capitalizing on technological innovations, (4) streamling operations, and/or (5) eliminating duplication or non-value added activities.

Redesign should start with the end in mind, and that end must be clearly and properly communicated throughout the hierarchy. Sound change management processes must be in place too.

Some indicators of poorly executed resizing:

• The little guy gets the ax ... the driver, the office assistant, the mail clerk, the person at the bottom of the totem pole.
• Personal scores are settled ... when managers release people with whom they might have "bad blood" or with whom they have unfinished business.
• Those with different views get "purged" or sent to the "gulag", e.g., given undesirable assignments intended to drive them out of the company.
• The "untouchables" stay, even though they are not performing. Favoritism. Nepotism. Nationalism. Racism. Outright discrimination.
• The dollars saved are miniscule. the cost of acting is greater than the cost of not acting.
• Firing on one end while hiring the same people on the other end.
• Lack of focus on the core skills needed to run the business successfully.
• No clear appeal system in place to ensure due (fair and consistent) process.
• Outsourcing to partners who cannot do it better and at a higher cost to boot.
• Empires seem to be protected.

What are some other indicators that possibly are more important than those listed above? Your experience with this process?

An Important HR Dilemma

The very first principle of HR that I was exposed to in my junior year at the university when I decided to major in human resources has been with me for over 47 years. I have never forgotten it. It has always accompanied me when pondering or deliberating HR policy choices. Good HR decisions must meet the test of consistency, fairness and competitiveness.

So here is one dilemma.

Is it more important to be consistent rather than fair? Or, is it more important to be fair even though you cannot be consistent?

What are the consequences of chosing one over the other, if you have to?

I speculate that most line managers, especially those trained in the physical sciences, will tend to choose consistency over fairness. To them, consistency rules. Others, especially those trained in social sciences, might go in the other direction. I think that I am one of them. Why?

We say and believe that no two human beings are alike. We do know that people differ in their needs. We all accept that. But for one reason or another, possibly administrative expediency, we have adopted policies over the years that ignore individual differences and try to fit everyone in the same box. The famous Dilbert cartoon series has made its author rich. His cartoons often depict the evil HR Director in less than positive light. An artistic distortion? Perhaps!

One pay system for everyone, a travel policy by job role, the same benefits for everyone. There are exceptions, of course. We have special pay schemes for sales people. We have cafeteria plans that permit employees to configure their own benefit plan. We have flexible hours to accommodate family needs. And so on. But when it comes to issues of employee relations, we often try to solve an individual problem with a common solution. One size fits all?

I advance the unorthodox notion that fairness should trump consistency in employee relations matters. Fairness originates in our heart, in our emotional side, it is part of our soul, while consistency comes from our rational side. This side has no feelings. It operates like a machine without a soul. What good does it do us if our actions are perceived to be unfair but consistent? What deficits do we accrue if we choose to be fair but not necessarily consistent? Are all situations the same? Does the same medicine cure all ills? Is the world black and white or are there shades of grey?

I welcome your thoughts on this subject.

What Is Wisdom?

My good friend Cris Hagen suggested that I start my blogs with some questions for the reader to ponder, to let the "thinking juices flow." I have taken his good and much appreciated advice.

So get ready, get set, and go.

What is wisdom to you? How do you recognize it and differentiate it from dime-store psychology or fortune cookie advice? How do you find it in your job or personal life? Where do you look? Why do you look there?

Enough questions! We want to have fun here, not get a headache.

I was born in a part of the world where experience is revered and where elders are respected and honored for their wisdom. We looked to the elders to teach us and to share with us their travails and their wisdom. I have lived most of my adult life in a country that encourages the elders to move to retirement villages and to join other elders in the sunset of their lives. I submit to you that the latter shortchanges the learning opportunities of the younger generations and perpetuates the cycle of mistakes made.

As it has been eloquently said and I paraphrase: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

In my journey as a consultant and executive I have concluded that the most dangerous people to our companies and indeed our society at large are people who do not know what they do not know. They are blind to the obstacles in front of them and they have no ear for the lessons learned. I have seen them do much harm and little or no good comes from their actions. I learned later in life to avoid them, to stay clear of them, and to not bother trying to reason with them. Cynical view? You bet! Ernest Hemingway said it well: life breakes you and makes you stronger in the broken parts.

The Bible in Ecclesiastes 7:12 teaches us that "wisdom keeps you safe -- this is the advantage of knowledge". Later on in the same chapter, the Bible continues "wisdom does more for a person than ten rulers can do for a city (7:19)."

What a wonderful way to succinctly communicate such powerful thoughts!

I have nothing else to add that would illuminate the subject further. Let me hear from you.

Gaffes Executives Make

We all have been, directly or indirectly, touched by mergers or acquisitions. We all have our ideas and feelings about them. What makes them successful or not?

I would like to hear from you. Specifically, I would like you to share with me the answers to these two questions:

What have you heard executives say in communicating a merger or acquisition to employees, that in hindsight, you think, it was "stupid" or "ill advised"?

What dumb things or gaffes did you see very smart people make?

Over the years, I have coached and advised executives regarding communication with their employees following a merger/acquisition. As part of the advice, I have urged them not to say or do anything that they might later regret.

For some reason or another, executives will say and do the opposite of what I have just advised them to do.

Here are my favorite gaffes:

... Nothing is going to change...
... This is a merger of equals ...
... There is a job for everyone ...
... We will select the best practices ...
... One plus one equals three ...

I am sure you have favorites too. I would like to hear from you about them.

What? nothing is going to change? This must be by far the stupidiest one. A merger or acquisition without change is inconceivable to me.

What? a merger of equals? Next to the the first one, this makes the top list. I have never seen this. Has anybody else? Of course someone will emerge as more equal.

What? there is a job for everyone? For some it will be on the unemployment line, for some else there might be a bigger job but quite a few will surely have a smaller one.

What? select the best practices? Sure, we will talk about them, this is part of the dance routine, but ultimately, people will gravitate toward the familiar and tried. Consultants love this dance. It has many billable hours.

What? one plus one equals three? We talk about synergy, we know its importance, and we might search for it. But it is an elusive goal that requires neutering big egos, listening to quite voices of reason, and letting go of petty personal agendas and preconceived ideas.

It has been copiously written that most if not all mergers end in some form of failure, that they do not achieve the intended results. It has also been found that one of the major reasons for failure is that different cultures cannot be easily harmonized. This might all be true, but to me, it all boils down to not forgetting what drove management to do it in the first place. For some unexplained reason, people will abandon logic and common sense at the door of the integration process.

I hope your experience has been different. I would like to hear better stories. Surely there are some.

Just A Start

This is my very first blog. I was encouraged by my good friend and colleague Tom Sherby to publish it. I hope to share snippets from my long career and my personal adventures. I have had a lot fun, and I hope that in a small way I have made a difference.

I recently retired from Zan Group as its Chief Human Resources Officer. The company is a leading telecom provider in 24 markets in Africa and the Middle East. Zain employs over 16,000 employees with over 100 nationalities. It has been a tremendous journey. Zain has a fearless leader at the helm and it strives to achieve a culture that engages and motivates people. I feel blessed for having had this opportunity.

Over the years, I have also had the opportunity to work in many countries: in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia. I also have had the privilege of visiting over 60 countries. We live in a wonderful world ... full of mysteries and beauty. You can see our Creator's magic hand all around you, in the mountains, in the lakes, in the rivers, in the mighty oceans, and in the many hamlets, small towns and cities that dot our planet. And, of course, in the people you meet ... black, white, yellow, brown, red ... it does not matter! We are all God's creation.

Born in Italy, I emigrated to the US at the age of 18. After serving in the US Army, I attended the University of Connecticut where I met my bride to be, a beautiful young woman of Greek descent from Palo Alto, California. We married at the end of the freshman year. She was barely 19 and I had turned 21 seven months earlier. We transferred to San Jose State University after we got married.

As an immigrant, I had humble goals-- to provide adequately for my family and to engage in work that would provide me with a challenge and the opportunity to learn.

People now tell me that I have lived the American dream ... successful career, financial independence, and respect from my peers and colleagues. America is indeed the land of opportunity (a land of immigrants) but my expectations were meager, just a yearning for learning and advancement.

So I start this blog with the goal of sharing some of my thoughts, reflections, and a few pet peeves. The latter is a luxury that you earn with age as you "awake from the hypnosis of social conditioning" (Deepak Chopra, M.D.). Someone has said that wisdom is experience plus mistakes made. Well, I have lots of experience and I have made many mistakes. I hope to share some lessons learned along the way.

I encourage those who read my blog to make their own mistakes because that is the best way to learn but not to necessarily repeat those mistakes I have made.