Establish Trust in your Virtual Team


 You can gauge the health of a virtual team by measuring the average lag time between when team members identify a problem and when they discuss it.

If you and your colleagues don’t trust one another, issues will go unaddressed for much longer than they should.

That’s why it is critical for members of a virtual team to establish trust and a sense of safety up front.

Trusting people is hard when you don’t work with them face-to-face, but even the smallest of gestures can help: Be generous with information.

If someone is struggling with a project or task, be the first to offer help. And when someone on the team has even a minor success, send a congratulatory email.

A little kindness goes a long way in encouraging others to give you the benefit of the doubt

when stresses inevitably arise.

Adapted from “How to Raise Sensitive Issues During a Virtual Meeting,”
by Joseph Grenny

TRUST 4

 

Trevor Lee

https://www.linkedin.com/in/trevorblee

@trevorblee

http://www.ep-i.net

http://www.ceo-worldwide.com

 

Advertisements

Earn Trust by Showing Trust


Most people do their best work when they know their manager trusts them. If they worry that you think they’re lazy, incapable of directing their behavior, or lack integrity, they’re unlikely to take feedback or coaching from you.

So go out of your way to gain your employees’ trust by demonstrating positive assumptions about them.

Give challenging assignments, with the clear and confident belief that your expectations will be met.

And don’t hide information, or assume people will mishandle it. Instead, promote transparency.

Try adding a “through the grapevine” agenda item to meetings as a fun, informal way for people to share company information they’ve heard, so you can either confirm or debunk the rumor. When managers demonstrate positive assumptions, employees respond in kind.

Adapted from “If Employees Don’t Trust You, It’s Up to You to Fix It,”
by Sue Bingham

TRUST 4

Trevor Lee

tblee@ceo-worldwide.com

http://www.ceo-worldwide.com

@trevorblee

Successful Business Transformation


9 implementation principles that will guide you toward a successful transformation:

The problems facing every company are different. They largely depend on history, culture, capabilities, and information technology. However, the importance of vision and communication cannot be overestimated.


Therefore …

A clear vision of the tasks ahead and good communication skills will enable you to navigate around the most difficult obstacles and prevent the organization sliding back into its old habits. The following principles will guide you toward a successful transformation:

  1. Think like a revolutionary

  2. Build an urgent case for change and convince the board

  3. Establish a ‘guiding coalition’

  4. Create a compelling and coherent vision for change

  5. Communicate the vision

  6. Enable and encourage people to change

  7. Look for quick wins

  8. Work around the resistors

  9. Consolidate the gains and maintain the momentum

Ed: These are principals that form the core of my friends at the Beyond Budgeting Institute – bbrt.org – and form the business model of such diverse companies as AstraZeneca, Arla, Danfoss, Handelsbanken, HILTI, Lego, MAERSK, Michelin, Sodexo, SKF, Timpson, Volvo and many more.

But getting back to point number 2,

because it is crucial to discuss how we sell the case for change to the people that matter.

Who are the key ‘influencers’ that you need to convince?

In most companies, the two primary persons to convince will be the CEO and CFO. However, it is of great importance to engage the whole organization. I will get back to that later.

While the case for change might appear to be compelling to you, it can seem too vague and “in the future” for others.

Hard-pressed managers need more organizational change like a hold-in-the-head. Therefore, the reasons must be compelling and the case well prepared and presented.


So how do we convince key influencers?

Ask yourself the following questions:

  1. What will it involve?

  2. What are the costs and benefits?

  3. Which parts of the business are affected?

  4. Is this the only option?

  5. What evidence do we have that it will work?

  6. What are the risks?

  7. How long will it take?

  8. How will we know if we have succeeded or failed?

Addressing them objectively will strengthen your credibility and increase your chances of success even though these questions are difficult to answer. 


Remember …

One common pitfall of implementation is believing that the total transformation of the model can be driven by finance (or any other one function) alone, and failing to engage other parts of organization such as Human Resources or members of the management team.

Author: Anders Olesen – Director, Beyond Budgeting Institute.  E-Mail: info@bbrt.org

transformation

Curated by Trevor Lee

tblee@ceo-worldwide.com

http://www.ceo-worldwide.com

@trevorblee

 

Buurtzorg: Humanity Above Bureaucracy


A guest post.

In only nine years, Buurtzorg has grown from a great idea to a very successful neighbourhood nursing organisation with almost 10,000 employees in the Netherlands. At the core of this remarkable success is a unique leadership philosophy.

Buurtzorg (‘neighbourhood care’ in Dutch) is a wonderful example of the Beyond Budgeting principles in action.

With this case report, the Beyond Budgeting Round Table (BBRT) shared with its members a great example of the extraordinary levels of competitive advantage and performance an organisation can achieve, solely due to its innovative management model.

Background and the case for change 

To describe Buurtzorg, we have to start with its founder Jos de Blok. Originally, Jos studied economics but shortly after, he decided to follow his vocation and educate himself to become a nurse. For 15 years, he worked as a nurse; first at a hospital and later as a district nurse in the community. For reasons that I come back to shortly, he quit this job and went on to work in the health administration in various leadership roles. This lasted for about 10 years, when in 2006 he decided to establish Buurtzorg.

To start with, Jos found his work as a district nurse in a local community to be very inspiring. The job obviously involved a lot of contact and interaction with patients, it included a large variety of activities, and work was coordinated in a team of local nurses. This, however, ended in 1993 when Dutch politicians decided to ‘professionalise’ community care. Jos refers to this as a disaster. The local teams became integrated parts of much larger organisations, managed by managers. Instead of focusing on delivering solutions for people, nurses were now delivering products. In order to become more efficient, the many different activities were detailed, coded and time measured. Nurses had to specify their time spent with patients in a wide range of product categories; this created confusion and took away time and focus from patients. Many nurses found these new working conditions degrading.

With the specification also came specialisation, which was an even bigger disaster for patients than it was for nurses. Some patients experienced having up to 40 different health care workers in their house every month; all of whom asked the patients the same questions about their situation… i.e. not a very human way to treat people who are already weak and insecure. This also meant that the personal relationships between patients and nurses were lost, to the extent that nobody felt responsibility for the care of the individual patients.

Buurtzorg at a glance

Nine years after its foundation, this is Buurtzorg:
• Highest client (patient) satisfactio
• 40% lower costs then peers
• ‘Best employer’ prize 5 years in a row
• 9,700 nurses taking care of 75,000 patients in Holland
• 850 self-managed teams, freed from admin and intervention
• Minimal bureaucracy

Like in many other countries, the Dutch system was inspired by the apparent efficiency gains in companies and industries of mass production. This is sometimes referred to as ‘new public management’. More and more managers took over the profession, and consequently (albeit with the best of intentions), hierarchy and bureaucracy increased significantly. Focus decreased on the employees who actually did the work, not to mention the patients. This is a classic example of the separation of decision making from work, which leads to poorer performance.

Much to the surprise of legislators, the ‘new public management’ had exactly the opposite effect of what they expected: In 10 years, costs doubled and quality decreased dramatically. However, instead of challenging the obviously flawed assumptions about the new way of managing, more of the same was practiced: Nurses were, for example, provided with even more specific plans that had to be adhered to, and deviations had to be explained to managers. Consequently, this created even more dissatisfaction with the system and further reduced the time available to patient care. Not surprisingly, costs continued to rise and quality to go down.

Buurtzorg: the foundation and rapid expansion

In 2006, Jos and a few friends decided to do something about the deteriorating situation. Based on their experience from the 1980’s, they knew that this could be done in a much better way. Therefore,they established a not-for-profit nursing organisation based on principles of trust and self-organisation.

In early 2007, it started as a bit of an experiment with only four nurses, but it soon picked up and more teams were established. After a few months of operation, the same thing happened again and again: Small teams of nurses developed networks with hospitals, doctors and pharmacies etc. in the local community. They worked and organised themselves according to the new principles and within months they had so many patients, that they had covered their initial costs and were profitable. Many nurses wanted to work for Buurtzorg, and by the end of the first year, they had nurses working in 10 different locations.

The teams were more profitable than intended and this provided a sound basis for the expansion, which went very fast. From 2008, they established 10-20 new teams of nurses every month. And by November 2015, when we conducted our interviews at Buurtzorg, the number of nurses working for them in the Netherlands stood at a staggering 9,700.

Jos explains: “We didn’t have problems to manage the growth since the teams were managing themselves. Another contributing factor was that we have always avoided any kind of bureaucracy.”

Results

Buurtzorg is a remarkable success story that has gathered a lot of attention from both inside and also outside the Netherlands. It needs to be told and widely copied in the opinion of this curator.

Below are highlights of their achievements:

• Buurtzorg has highest client (or rather: patient) satisfaction in the country.

• Despite the fact that Buurtzorg has higher educated nurses than peers, their costs are far lower: Compared with peer organisations, they spend some 40% fewer hours of care per patient because their patients need care only about half as long; they heal faster and become more autonomous.

• Buurtzorg patients use far less medicine, which is a great benefit to both patients and the Dutch government.

• Buurtzorg has ranked at the very top of the ‘Best Employer’ list for the last 5 years in a row.

• Buurtzorg has also shown to be very profitable. This was not the intention, but it has made it easier to fund growth, experiment and develop the organisation.

Buurtzorg’s management model

In the following, we review some of the key elements that make up Buurtzorg’s unique management model. Readers familiar with the Beyond Budgeting principles will find a great resemblance between these and the elements below. As you will see: Buurtzorg is a great example of the Beyond Budgeting principles in action.

Purpose

A key element of their successful model is a clear purpose that ties the whole organization together. In this case, the purpose is in line with nurses’ natural vocation: Helping patients lead better lives. The task of the teams of nurses is thus to take the best possible care of their patients, which translates into helping them recover their ability to take care of themselves as much as possible. It is up to each team to figure out how this is best done for each individual patient.

Every Buurtzorg employee knows what good performance looks like and what is expected of him/her. Experience shows that clear and noble purposes are far more powerful than strategy plans and financial targets to inspire people and drive performance. One of the reasons is that purpose comes without the negative side effects of plans and targets.

Transparency

Buurtzorg believes in the power of sharing information; also because this makes it a learning organisation. For this purpose, and to support the local teams of nurses in their daily job of taking care of patients, they have developed their own unique IT-system. This has many purposes and features:
• It provides teams with confidential patient information, and nurses are responsible for continuously updating this.
• It is a platform for sharing ideas, news and other information; as well as for seeking advice.
• Planning and scheduling work. This also provides a basis for statistics about capacity utilisation etc.
• The system provides teams with their actual performance metrics. Performance data are shared for the purpose of self-regulation and learning

In building the system, Buurtzorg deliberately split the administrative process from the professional processes, so that all the administrative and bureaucratic work is done without interfering with the day-to-day job of the nurses.

No bureaucracy

In order to give maximum attention to their patients, Buurtzorg avoids activities that do not support the purpose of taking care of patients. This means deliberately avoiding the introduction of a lot of the elements associated with traditional management: strategy, budgeting, targets, forecasting, business reviews, management meetings, variation analysis, rules and regulations, etc..

Small organisations that want to grow usually copy such management tools from the more established ones. Sometimes such tools are introduced with the help of consulting companies and / or inspired by business schools. The result is usually the same: as the small company grows, it loses the agility, spirit and benefits of being small – and very often it becomes rigid, bureaucratic and in some cases even a sad place to work.

Not least due to the founder’s own experience from before the government introduced its disastrous way of working, Buurtzorg has resisted all attempts and pressures to go in this direction.

Trust and autonomy

These are also central elements in Buurtzorg. The teams of nurses are completely self-managed. They are not just empowered by Jos or the hierarchy; they have power because there is no hierarchy with any decision-making power over them. When shown such trust, nurses take on the responsibility of taking the best possible care of their patients. The concept of self-management is a great way to avoid one of the main problems of traditional management; namely the separation of decision making and work. This also contributes to making it a very attractive work place:

Five years in a row, Buurtzorg has been at the top of the ‘Best Employer’ list in the Netherlands.

Customer / patient focus

The above-mentioned purpose has naturally created a very strong customer / patient focus. At Buurtzorg, nurses generally spend a lot of time together with new patients to get to know their situation, needs, background, etc. Based on this, the nurses have complete freedom to come up with individual solutions for patients.

A very interesting (but also obvious) finding is that this way of working leads to far less hours needed in patient care. Why? Because patients become better much faster. Over time, Buurtzorg spends approx. 40% less time together with patients than their peers; this is a massive efficiency increase and it even comes with much happier patients!

With small and dedicated teams of nurses working with and around a clearly defined group of patients, it is no wonder their patient satisfaction is very high; it is by far the highest in the country.

Organisation

“In Buurtzorg, we don’t use organisational charts,” says Jos de Blok. They have a simple structure that makes such charts redundant. The organisation has three parts: Teams of nurses, coaches and the head office.

The core consists of self-managed teams of educated nurses that work out of a small office in their local community. Each team has some 10-12 nurses, which means that there are now a little more than 850 teams across the country. Even though the teams are self-managed, there are times when they need support, so they have some 20 coaches (approx. 45 teams per coach) that help teams in several ways; primarily coaching about how to make teamwork work. The coaches are not managers; they have no say on the actual work of the teams and are not responsible for the teams’ results.

The modest head office with 40 people is located at the outskirts of Almelo, a small town in the eastern part of the Netherlands. The role of the head office is to act as a service centre for the teams and the coaches; i.e. help them do their work better. In addition, the head office takes care of those activities that they have found made sense to centralise and standardise. The latter includes support and admin within accounting, IT, sales contracting (customers are insurance companies and municipalities), salary administration and housing (agreements re. each team’s local office). These limited staff functions are also organised in teams with a minimal level of managerial hierarchy.

The head office can provide guidelines but they have no decision-making power; they are truly a service centre. As mentioned above, there is a small team that takes care of salary administration (contracts and salary payments); but there is no HR department. Those other tasks that usually belong in a HR function (like recruitment, training, development, feedback and communication) are either performed by teams locally, by Jos or not at all.

Except for Jos de Blok (founder and CEO), no one in the organisation has a management title. Further, there is no management team, and there are no fixed meetings. This frees up time to focus on how to become even better at helping patients and solving problems. Meetings are only held when there is a specific need; not because they have been scheduled.

Buurtzorg and the Beyond Budgeting principles
If you compare Buurtzorg’s management model with our 12 principles, you will find a striking resemblance. We cannot claim that Buurtzorg was inspired by us. But what is very encouraging and much more important, is that an increasing number of organisations, independently of each other, are finding new and better ways of managing their businesses; ref. also Frederic Laloux’s great book: Reinventing Organizations, 2014.

Why is this? Because command & control is failing; and because there are better ways to design and manage work.

Buurtzorg is a great example of a company that has managed to find such a way.

This organisational model ensures optimal coordination, and with no bureaucracy on top of it, it becomes both very effective and efficient.

Management processes

In general, management processes are kept to a bare minimum. Only the ones that support the core decentralised service delivery and those required by law (compliance) are done. Everything else is regarded as potential waste that should be avoided. This means that Buurtzorg’s process are carried out dynamically based on the underlying (continuous) rhythm of patient activities; adjusted for events as they happen. Buurtzorg does not have the calendar year as the default basis for its management processes, as is found in most organisations.

Guidelines instead of targets

At Buurtzorg, they know that short-term financial targets come with significant negative side effects. Accordingly, they do not use such measures.In order to assist teams when making certain decisions and when assessing their performance (which is what targets are often used for), they have developed a number of guidelines. One such measure is the percent of nurses’ available time that is spent with patients. Based on analysis, they know that good financial performance is achieved when this figure is at a level of 60%.

Accordingly, teams are measured on this parameter and their performance is visible to all. When a team is significantly above or below this level, such information is addressed by the local teams of nurses and is part of their ongoing (self-regulating) considerations and prioritisations.

Another example of a financial guideline is the amount available for new teams to establish their offices, for training, etc.. Teams can deviate from the guidelines; these are only there to help – not to be followed rigorously. By treating teams with such trust, teams respond by acting responsibly… so what we find is improved performance because of trust and the absence of detailed targets and management intervention.

Achieving more with less… brilliant!

Financial management

A team of eight people at the head office handles all financial administration for Buurtzorg. Two of these employees are responsible for preparing sales invoices and two others are responsible for checking purchase invoices. The rest of the team (four persons) handles bookkeeping, accounting, controlling and reporting. On a monthly basis, the team prepares a simple set of financial statements including profit & loss and a balance sheet. The P&L is broken down per team of nurses and they receive their results in the before-mentioned common it-system. Teams are measured on what they can influence. For example: As the teams are not responsible for sales or negotiating terms with customers (the commercial agreements are handled by a small team at the head office), Buurtzorg’s total income is averaged out and divided between the teams based on number of hours together with patients. This way, the teams’ focus remains on patient care and efficiency, which they can influence locally. To nurture teamwork and the sense of belonging, everything is done to help teams perform better as teams. So, even though data is available about the efficiency of individuals, this information is not used. The purpose of the internal financial reporting is learning for continuous improvement. Therefore, the information is provided and transparent to ensure teams know how they are doing; also compared with others. Deviations are regarded as learning points, and are not subject to (traditional) managerial scrutiny, control or variation analysis. Buurtzorg does not ask its teams of nurses and coaches to spend any time preparing financial forecasts, budgets or the like. They simply do not see the need. At head office level, they now and again make limited high-level financial forecasts in order to balance cash flows, which during the rapid expansion has sometimes been under pressure. This view on financial management is sometimes referred to as “sense and respond” as opposed to (traditional) “predict and control”

It will probably not come as a surprise, that Buurtzorg does not make use of any incentives in the form of bonuses or the like. Every employee has a fixed monthly salary. For the nurses, the salary level is slightly above that of nurses employed in the public sector.

Humanity above bureaucracy

Buurtzorg’s management model has been very successful on all of the above mentioned parameters.

In addition, it is also extremely beneficial for society, which is why the Dutch political parties now support the spread of this way of working throughout the country. Ernst & Young has estimated that the Netherlands could save € 2 billion annually if all care organisations were as effective as Buurtzorg… not to mention the benefits in terms of increased quality of life for both patients and nurses.

Talking about the achievements Jos de Blok says: “Just by doing nothing, we achieved all of the above. We don’t have an HR department, and we do far less of the traditional management stuff like controlling and commanding people what to do, and this is how we get far better results.”

Buurtzorg is a fantastic story about how a simple coherent management model that serves a very noble cause can also be extremely effective.

Ref, W.E. Deming: Out of the crisis, 1982 and John Seddon: Freedom from command & control, 2003
Patient focus – avoid bureaucracy
The focus is on the patient – and to take the best possible
care of the patient. Everything that does not help the patient (i.e. waste) is avoided.

A White Paper from Beyond Budgeting Institute : bbrt.org

Curated by:

Trevor Lee

tblee@ceo-worldwide.com

http://www.ceo-worldwide.com

@trevorblee

 

Executive Search & Interim Management since 2001
Connecting you with the best certified executive talent on the planet

Three steps to building a top team.


When your top team fails to function, it will likely paralyze the whole company.

 

Few teams function as well as they could. But the stakes get higher with senior-executive teams: dysfunctional ones can slow down, derail, or even paralyze a whole company. McKinsey in their work with top teams at more than 100 leading multinational companies, including surveys with 600 senior executives at 30 of them, they identified three crucial priorities for constructing and managing effective top teams. Getting these priorities right can help drive better business outcomes in areas ranging from customer satisfaction to worker productivity and many more as well.

  1. Get the right people on the team . . . and the wrong ones off

Determining the membership of a top team is the CEO’s responsibility—and frequently the most powerful lever to shape a team’s performance. Many CEOs regret not employing this lever early enough or thoroughly enough. Still others neglect it entirely, assuming instead that factors such as titles, pay grades, or an executive’s position on the org chart are enough to warrant default membership. Little surprise, then, that more than one-third of the executives they surveyed said their top teams did not have the right people and capabilities.

The key to getting a top team’s composition right is deciding what contributions the team as a whole, and its members as individuals, must make to achieve an organization’s performance aspirations and then making the necessary changes in the team. This sounds straight-forward, but it typically requires conscious attention and courage from the CEO; otherwise, the top team can under-deliver for an extended period of time.

  1. Make sure the top team does just the work only it can do

Many top teams struggle to find purpose and focus. Only 38 percent of the executives McKinsey surveyed said their teams focused on work that truly benefited from a top-team perspective. Only 35 percent said their top teams allocated the right amounts of time among the various topics they considered important, such as strategy and people.

  1. Address team dynamics and processes

A final area demanding unrelenting attention from CEOs is effective team dynamics, whose absence is a frequent problem: among the top teams McKinsey studied, members reported that only about 30 percent of their time was spent in “productive collaboration”—a figure that dropped even more when teams dealt with high-stakes topics where members had differing, entrenched interests.

Correcting dysfunctional dynamics requires focused attention and interventions, preferably as soon as an ineffective pattern shows up.

Finally, most teams need to change their support systems or processes to catalyse and embed change.

Each top team is unique, and every CEO will need to address a unique combination of challenges.

Developing a highly effective top team typically requires good diagnostics, followed by a series of workshops and field work to address the dynamics of the team while it attends to hard business issues. The best top teams will begin to take collective responsibility and to develop the ability to maintain and improve their own effectiveness, creating a lasting performance edge.

© McKinsey & Co • Michiel Kruyt, Judy Malan, and Rachel Tuffield

Trevor Lee

tblee@ceo-worldwide.com

http://www.ceo-worldwide.com

@trevorblee

CEO LOGO

Decoding Intuition for More Effective Decision-Making in 2017


It turns out that intuition is not really intuition at all.

Just like the invisible, inseparable quarks that underlie the protons and neutrons in the nucleus, rules of thumb (ROTs) are the fundamental, sometimes invisible, particles of CEO decision-making. They are the building blocks that underlie what CEOs describe as “intuition” or “gut feel.”

Ask an experienced CEO how she/he made a major decision and their typical response is “intuition” or “gut feel.” Yes, analysis also plays a role, but intuition was found to be a major or determining factor in 85% of thirty-six major CEO decisions that we studied.

Some were good decisions, some were not, but regardless, intuition seemed to always rule the roost.

intuit-2

But what is it?

After persistent and deft questioning, CEO’s will identify, sometimes to their surprise, judgmental heuristics — ROTs — that go a long way towards explaining their major decisions. It is these building blocks that we must examine in order to discriminate between “good” and “bad” intuition.

After CEOs identify a few ROTs, a torrent of supplementary ones often follows. Some CEOs argued, however, that they use values for guidance, not ROTs. But values alone don’t provide clear guidelines. Only when they are operationalized into ROTs do they serve as decision-making tools.

At Odebrecht S.A., a large ($22B) Brazilian conglomerate, the CEO and founder’s grandson, Marcelo Odebrecht and the rest of the company’s leadership are dedicated to upholding the company’s core values: trust and partnership. But when it came down to actual decision-making it became clear, after considerable probing, that the company operated with four basic ROTs derived from these overarching values and passed down from generation to generation of Odebrechts:

1. Decentralize operations
2. Decentralize strategy
3. Promote only from within
4. Partner with your customer

These ROTs guided CEO Marcelo Odebrecht when, despite serious misgivings, he decided to support his Brazil Director’s call to take over the construction of the Pan American Games facilities in Rio de Janeiro from another contractor. Marcelo did not interfere in his Director’s decision because of his commitment to his ROTs (#1 and #2) and because the director was a long-term employee who had “drank the Odebrecht Kool Aid” (ROT #3).

Business leaders ignore their intuition at their own peril. When Gustavo Cisneros, the CEO of the Cisneros Group, was considering a 50/50 partnership with AOL to establish AOL Latin America, his board, his family and his management team were united in endorsing the deal.

On the other hand, Cisneros had a gnawing feeling that Latin Americans were different from U.S. customers, and they would not pay a subscription fee to use the internet. But because everyone, including AOL’s intense and charismatic leaders — Steve Case and Bob Pitman — saw it as a great deal, Gustavo sublimated his intuition. Five years later, after a bankruptcy filing and nearly a billion dollars in accumulated losses, Gustavo regrets not having paid more attention to his “intuition.” Now Gustavo has a new ROT: “Never make a deal if it doesn’t feel right with your intuition.”

Bill Amelio, former President and CEO of Lenovo, learned the same lesson, even though he’d deliberately produced his own set of personalized rules of thumb, after taking on the challenge of merging Legend Computer and the IBM PC division into what we now know as Lenovo.

Here’s Bill’s list (amended following the merger, as described below):

Strategy:

1. Identify and concentrate on the critical few decisions.
2. A call is better than no call.
3. Give your decisions a short leash. Quickly pull back in case of mistake.
4. Trust your intuition.

People:
1. Communicate the critical few decisions effectively and repeatedly.
2. Don’t tolerate jerks.
3. Build a team of people you can trust and rely on.
4. Trust your intuition.

Self:
1. Get feedback early and often and act on this feedback.
2. Earn the trust and confidence of others.
3. Demonstrate vulnerability to gain credibility.
4. Play to your strengths.
5. Trust your intuition.

To build a new management team he could rely on (ROT — People #3), Amelio demoted a man who had contributed much to the development of Legend, someone the Chinese refer to as a “made man.” Bill went through the right process and got his Chinese Chairman to sign off. But he ignored his intuition and the body language of the Chairman when he responded cryptically that as CEO he had “full authority to decide.”
The result was a major debacle in which Bill was faulted for ignoring the values of Chinese culture and caused a significant loss of trust. Amelio consequently added “Trust your intuition” (ROT — Self #5) to his rules.

Discovering, and continuously updating, rules of thumb is an important task for every CEO. It is a fundamental element of self awareness. Yes, values and beliefs are important, but it is really ROTs that operationalize and bring down to earth what really guides CEO decision-making. These rules can then be identified, challenged and adapted as circumstances change.

 

intuit-1

Trevor Lee

tblee@ceo-worldwide.com

http://www.ceo-worldwide.com

@trevorblee

Executive Search & Interim Management since 2001
Connecting you with the best certified executive talent on the planet

The Firm of the Future


In this paper, Dr Jules Goddard, Fellow of London Business School, puts forward the argument that, with three relatively small contextual changes, businesses themselves could amplify and exploit the VUCA world in which they compete and thereby disproportionately enhance their opportunities for wealth creation. The firm of the future will be the one with the courage to do so.

The three great challenges facing business today are to create a commercial culture in which capital is more patient, work is more variegated and entrepreneurship is more mainstream

Anyone listening in on the conversations of executives over the last 10 to 20 years cannot help but have noticed that managerialism – the art of getting things done by and through other people – is the main source of frustration, disengagement and underperformance within most organisations. As a 19th century social technology for controlling and coordinating large numbers of relatively unskilled people, managerialism is delivering ever-declining value. We are trying to create wealth in a knowledge economy by relying upon structures and processes designed for the industrial age.

The language of planning and control, of targets and KPIs, of metrics and benchmarks, of efficiency and excellence, of specialisation and standardisation, of jobs and careers betrays a way of thinking that is wholly unsuited to the challenges confronting firms today.

The agenda has moved on. More management is not the answer. Tweaking the managerial model by opting for out-sourcing, de-leveraging, re-engineering, dis-intermediating, off-shoring, and other such administrative processes beloved of consultants, is a classic case of “doorknob polishing” when the stately home has long since fallen into disrepair.

The problems facing business have much less to do with internal systems and processes and much more to do with external or contextual variables, such as the institutions and structures within which companies are expected to perform. The five-day work week, the employment contract, the job description, the office hours mentality, the working time directive, the lifetime career, the long hours culture, the limited liability company, the quarterly reporting cycle, the acquis communitaire, and the regulatory mindset are just a few of the situational factors that contribute to a culture of indecisive management, compliant employees and passive shareholders.

For some time we have been witnessing diminishing returns to management. We need to pioneer alternative organisational models that have the potential to motivate and inspire those coming into the workforce, as well as re-energising those already within it. To borrow a telling phrase from Charles Handy’s most recent book, we need to invent a “second curve” – a new way of working – if we are to attract millennial talent into the world of business and put it to work on behalf of a better world

Three deep-seated structures – or pathologies – are particularly responsible for holding back economic growth in today’s world:

  1. The 5-Day Workweek: we spend too many hours in the constrictive environment of the office and too little “out and about”. Our working week is typically too monotonous, too uniform and too “full-on” to lend itself to creativity. What has been called “hurry sickness” is crowding out time better spent on inquiry, reflection, natural conversation and “downtime” generally.

  1. The 5-Week Shareholding: perhaps this should read the “5-Second Shareholding”. It has become a cliché – but none the less true for that –that capital markets are insufficiently patient to serve one of their main purposes, which is to match lenders with borrowers and, in doing so, help direct savings into their most productive uses (even though, shockingly, only about 3% of the assets of British banks are today devoted to this purpose). Short-termism is a rational response to the irrational state of affairs in which the business model that drives the decisions of asset managers conflicts with the interests of the investees, namely, companies and those whose money is invested in them.

  1. The 5-Decade Career: the problem, as Charles Handy said many years ago, is not just unemployment, but also employment. As a legal structure and behavioural context in which individuals may be planning to build their working life in the 21st century, it is too closed, too restrictive and insufficiently developmental to meet their variegated needs.

Increasingly the role of senior management will be to redesign the organizational context in which work is done, rather than to supervise the content of the work itself. Ideally, there will develop a competitive market in employment practices and ownership rights – where, for example, different firms will experiment differently with the length and composition of the workweek, the incentives attaching to different classes of shares, and the opportunities for employees to become entrepreneurs in mid-career.

The 4-Day Workweek

Remember, you only have 2,000 weekends, and then you die”

Ryan Carson, CEO of Treehouse, a company that treats Fridays as part of the weekend

John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by 2030, there would be a 15-hour workweek. Yet the statistics suggest that, if anything, people are working longer hours now than they did in the 1930s. This is a paradox. Presumably, Keynes’ logic was that, as the wealth of the world increased, so the marginal utility of income would fall relative to the marginal utility of leisure, placing pressure on governments to encourage more flexible employment contracts and offering opportunities for firms to compete on the basis of hours worked. Yet the reverse would seem to have occurred. The wealthier we get, the harder we work, the longer we stay in the office, and the later we retire, if ever.

The working week needs a radical re-think. Just as the notion of a career – that is, working (often for the same employer) for 45 hours a week for 45 weeks a year for 45 years – was radically challenged by Charles Handy in the 1980s when he wrote about “portfolio working”, so it is time to re-appraise and overhaul the unduly rigid notion of the 5-Day workweek.

The gig economy, the pop-up shop, the farmer’s market, the boot sale, the innovation hub, the zero-hours contract and so on are all symptoms of the fact that work needs to break out of its straitjacket and try on different apparel.

Ironically, zero-hours contracts have come in for a terrible pasting by the media and yet 80% of those on such contracts are delighted with them, such is the freedom and flexibility that they afford. Instead, the real problem is the formulaic nature of the everyday employment contract. We talk a lot about corporate agility and the merits of anti-fragility, yet we persevere with one of the most embedded and inflexible institutions in modern society.

In their genealogical explanation of civilization, Acemoglu and Robinson draw a distinction between inclusive institutions, such as those that “enforce property rights, create a level playing field, and encourage investments in new technologies and skills” and which “distribute political power widely in a pluralistic manner” with extractive institutions, such as those that “concentrate power in the hands of the few” or “are structured to extract resources from the many by the few”. Today’s workplace, with its rigid structures, burdensome rules, and mood of distrust is in danger of becoming the 21st century equivalent of the kind of extractive institutions that Acemoglu and Robinson believe to have been antithetical to human progress.

So why not move to a 4-day workweek? Why not “Thank God it’s Thursday”?

Dan Hamermesh, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin, makes a fair point when he says that, “It’s very easy for folks sitting back in their chairs to say, ‘Yes, you need to be on a part-time schedule, or a four-day, 32-hour schedule’, without thinking about the extent to which such folks want the income and are willing to put up with the hard hours”. In other words, there’s always going to be a tradeoff between hours worked and income earned. If everyone worked fewer hours, then surely the economy would shrink, and salaries and wages would suffer.

Yet this same argument must have been used 100 years ago when a New England mill, to the delight of the labour movement but perhaps to the consternation of the entrepreneurial class, became the first American factory to treat Saturdays as off-limits to employers.

There are two linked assumptions made by those defending the “long-hours culture”: first, that there is a positive correlation between the length of the workweek and the productivity of the workforce; and second, that, given this fact, very few people would prefer to take a pay cut in exchange for a longer weekend.

However, there is some evidence that this may not be the case, for four principal reasons:

First, fewer hours to perform a task means less time to waste:

As Ryan Carson, Founder of Treehouse, an online education company, observes, “You get all Friday off, instead of pretending like you’re working when you’re not”. The more hours that are made available for a job to be done, the more the job-holder will find ways to distract himself if only to break the monotony. This is an echo of Parkinson’s Law: work expands to fill the time available. Twice the hours doesn’t mean twice the effort or twice the output. Particularly in the case of knowledge workers or creative tasks, forcing longer hours is invariably counter-productive. To invert Parkinson’s Law, perhaps work contracts to fit the time allotted, or, put another way, time quickens to achieve the task to be done.

The workaholic is a menace in the office. It is said that Field Marshall von Moltke sought out intelligent and lazy officers to be his Commanders because they placed particular emphasis on finding the easiest way of achieving a task; whereas he was notoriously averse to stupid and energetic officers because they made so many things happen but almost all of them wrong-headed. Many of us will immediately recognize this type of manager: he is the one who is endlessly setting targets, measuring effort, cutting costs, re-engineering processes, judging others – and working long hours.

Second, longer weekends refresh and stimulate the creative mind:

Creative problem-solving, innovation and critical thinking are more likely to thrive under conditions of trust and patience than supervision and urgency. Quality work happens best when uninterrupted. Guy Claxton has demonstrated that the creative mind works at a slower pace than the mind engaged on routine tasks. Jason Fried, the founder of Basecamp, a software company whose employees take Fridays off in the summer, discovered that “Better work gets done in four days than in five”.

Third, more free time makes for a happier work environment:

Those countries that work shorter hours tend to be happier and more convivial than others, with no apparent loss of prosperity. An OECD report in 2013 found that, amongst full-time salaried workers, the Netherlands enjoys the shortest workweek in the developed world, at an average of 29 hours per week, followed by Denmark (33), Norway (33), Switzerland (35) and Sweden (36). Is it any coincidence that these same 5 countries, according to the World Happiness Report of 2013, were also the 5 happiest? The same report provided evidence that happiness is positively correlated with productivity, health and longevity.

When Kelly Holmes was rounding the final bend in the Athens Olympics’ 800m final, for which she won the gold medal, Michael Johnson, the American sprinter who was commentating on the race for the BBC, remarked that, whereas every other athlete was racing, Kelly was running. What a wonderful insight. And what light it throws on today’s workplace, which incentivizes racing rather than running. Julie Burchill, the writer and journalist, recently remarked that, “Most of us would do our jobs better if we did them less”.

Fourth, a four-day workweek has formidable power to attract and retain talent:

Adding an extra day of freedom to each week is a magnet for talent. Any mention of a shorter workweek, even when this entails a cut in take-home pay, usually excites even the most industrious and sober of managers, professionals and working people. The millennial generation, in particular, is likely to price its freedom at a higher rate than earlier generations.

Patient Capital

There is something unreal about the way in which finance has evolved, dematerialized and detached itself from ordinary business and everyday life”

John Kay

The extraordinary growth of the finance sector since deregulation – what John Kay has called the “financialisation” of the modern economy – has contributed remarkably little to the creation of new wealth; rather, it has discovered ingenious ways of expropriating the wealth created elsewhere in the economy and rewarded itself handsomely for doing so.

Once upon a time, or so our memory tells us, the investment landscape was peopled by a rather small number of prominent fund managers looking after a rather selective share portfolio on behalf of a rather larger number of influential private investors. The investment chain was much shorter. The fetish for index-tracking or index-hugging had not yet been adopted and the fashion for hedge funds making ultra high-frequency trades had not yet been invented.

Most observers of the world of business and finance – and indeed many who earn their living in this world – have long had concerns about short-term decision-making – and the perverse incentives that seem to reward this behaviour. Particularly since the crash of 2008, there have been innumerable recommendations for how to reverse the seemingly remorseless move away from long-term considerations in equity markets.

The response by US authorities to the 2008 crash was to invent ever more voluminous and intricate regulations, such as Dodd-Frank. John Kay believes that this is precisely the wrong response. “There has not been too little regulation, but far too much … we should put an end to the seemingly endless proliferation of complex rule books.”

Nor can we count on virtue. In the last few years, we have learned that any change in behaviour that relies upon good faith, noble declarations, “social responsibility”, value statements, well-meaning compacts and commitments, what Private Eye used to call “Solomon Binding”, is likely to fall foul of the epithet that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Something much tougher is needed.

In Britain, the emphasis has been squarely on the reversal of financialisation. The Kay Report made four significant recommendations: release companies from the obligation to report their quarterly financial performance; replace this custom with a “stewardship code” and make asset managers who are responsible for other people’s money personally (not corporately) subject to civil and criminal penalties; ban all short-term cash bonuses to executives; and encourage greater communication between shareholders and companies. On all these fronts, progress is being made.

However, there is one area where the pace of change needs to quicken.

It starts with the distinction between “investors” and “traders” – between those who buy shares on the basis of their understanding of the fundamental value of the company and those who buy on the basis of their expectations of short-term fluctuations in the share price. This distinction is not always clean-cut if only because some trading is necessary if liquidity is to be made available to investors. But the argument remains: the sheer volume of trading that we witness in today’s capital markets is far in excess of this requirement.

A dramatic change in the incentive environment is needed if short-termism is to be reversed. How about firms offering different classes of shares with different degrees of power, such that voting rights are related not to how many shares you own but to how long you have held them? When buying the “more powerful” class of shares, for example, shareholders would register the length of the time they intend to hold them: the longer the time, the greater the number of votes. If the shares were later sold “prematurely”, then there would be a financial penalty. One of the beneficial outcomes of such an arrangement would be that decisions about acquisitions and mergers – which are currently a major source of short-term bias – would be mainly in the hands of the more committed shareholders.

The limited liability company was originally a noble idea designed to give protection to shareholders who, as residual claimants, were more vulnerable to the failure of the firm than other stakeholders, such as creditors, employees and customers, whose claims were contractually prioritized. The balance has now swung decisively the other way. Such is the pressure on Boards of Directors to maximise shareholder value that other stakeholders, particularly future shareholders, are losing out. Colin Mayer has argued convincingly that, as a result, companies are seriously failing society by engaging in unjust forms of inter-generational wealth transfer.

The Post-Employment Enterprise

Smart young things joining the workforce soon discover that, although they have been selected for their intelligence, they are not expected to use it”

André Spicer

In 30 years time, we will look back on employment habits and customs as the last vestige of a kind of feudalism in the workplace. This is not to suggest that today’s employees can be compared to serfs but simply to bemoan the cynical and dispiriting assumptions about human nature that underpin so many workplace practices.

No one who expects to live to 100 – as do most of those coming into the workforce – is going to put their faith in a 70-year career, let alone a single employer. Those who are imaginative, energetic, optimistic, or adventurous will want to create for themselves some form of independence and self-responsibility by the age of 45. (Indeed, firms such as Uber and Airbnb, are capitalizing on this very trend.) But understandably most young recruits into business will still expect – and need – an “apprenticeship” in business acumen before they go it alone and found their own start-up. The firm’s role will be to act as a kind of incubator in which employees in their 20s and 30s acquire the skills and confidence to design successful new ventures

It will be a rare employee who wishes to remain within the firm after, say, the age of 50. A society of free citizens will gradually come to be interpreted as a network of entrepreneurs, co-owning with friends and colleagues their own businesses and taking responsibility for creating jobs for those younger than themselves rather than occupying them. Firms will increasingly treat their employees less as loyal citizens over the course of their career and more as potential entrepreneurs whose businesses they help nurture and in which they invest capital.

All employees will, effectively, have two jobs: the “day job” delivering value to the core business and the “development job” preparing to launch their own new venture. These activities will be intimately linked. The day job will offer the experience from which the employee learns about business: how customers are won, how leadership works, how humans are motivated, and how wealth is created. The development job will translate these emerging skills into nascent businesses.

Let us illustrate the argument with some numbers. A firm of 10,000 employees will typically contain 2,000 in their 40s, an age that is ripe for the adventure of entrepreneurial innovation. Let’s say that half of them – or 1,000 – are up for this. And let’s also assume they have come together in teams averaging 5 members around a strong idea for a start-up. So the firm has the opportunity to invest in 200 new businesses every decade. Let’s say half of them survive and grow. In other words, every year the firm is investing in 10 spun-off organisations, each led by 5 of its former employees.

My prediction would be that within 10 years the aggregate market value of these new ventures would be greater than that of the parent company that spun them off. This is the reward for moving the company from being a place to build a career to becoming a place to invent a business. We could name this new form of company “a venturesome enterprise”.

The evidence for the viability of this model is growing all the time. It is well documented, for example, that the new ventures founded by Hewlett-Packard “alumni” since 1990 are now more valuable than Hewlett-Packard itself. The tragedy for HP, of course, is that it didn’t foresee this turn of events and therefore didn’t invest in these businesses.

Why do so many people need to be employed? Why do so few want to do the employing? We educate the young principally to find employment. Very few schools and very few teachers see the purpose of education as creating jobs rather than simply filling them. We look to others to provide work for us. We should not be surprised if there are people eager to fulfill this role, but we should be wary of becoming the followers of those who aspire to lead.

This is the real inequality in society: the disparity between those exercising power and those submitting to it. Disparities of wealth are innocuous by comparison with disparities of power and influence. Yet most of us aid and abet these disparities by choosing employment over self-employment. The economic health and vitality of a society can be measured by the proportion of people who resist the lure of employment and choose instead to manage their own working lives. To be employed at a young age is fine so long as its purpose is to grow out of the need for it. Rather in the way that parents bring up their children to grow out of childhood and to become adults, so employment should develop young adults to move beyond dependency into self-reliance.

Concluding Remarks

Stop the world, I want to get off”

The conditions that Daniel Berlyne, the cognitive psychologist, discovered to be the ones most conductive to creativity are what called the “collative variables”, such as uncertainty, novelty, surprise, complexity, incongruity and absurdity.

The oft-repeated platitude that “business hates uncertainty” is not only a serious misconception of the role of business but also a slur on business and on the creativity of business people. Good businesses thrive on unpredictability. Indeed, markets reward those firms that detect opportunities in ambiguity and complexity that other, less creative firms don’t. If the future were predictable, entrepreneurs would not exist.

Consider the following analogy: just as it makes no sense to say that you are “in heavy traffic” when the reality is that you are yourself the traffic about which you are complaining, so it is equally nonsensical to describe business as having to accommodate – or respond to – “a VUCA world”, as though volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity were an unwelcome visitation rather than the natural and perennial ambience of business activity itself.

Volatility is what business is about. Indeed, most of the VUCA we experience in the world is the direct and intended product of business, particularly the globalization of the world for which business bears the primary responsibility. Trade has always had the effect of unsettling societies and disturbing the habits to which they have become accustomed. Business is intrinsically restless. Arguably, it has been the greatest disturbance factor in history. Hayek believed that the first moneylender was unknowingly the inventor of the modern world.

Gifted businessmen like nothing more than the uncertainty out of which innovative strategies are crafted. Most competitive advantages, most entrepreneurial breakthroughs and most sources of wealth creation arise from different interpretations by different people of the same data. The market itself is a filtering device for removing businesses that are fearful of the VUCA world or do not have the wit and energy to discover in the chaos the opportunities for disruptive innovation.

FUTURE 3

In appreciation and posted by:

Trevor Lee

http://www.ceo-worldwide.com

http://www.ep-i.net

@trevorblee

Executive Search & Interim Management since 2001
Connecting you with the best certified executive talent on the planet

 

References

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty (London: Profile Books, 2013).

Mats Alvesson and André Spicer, The Stupidity Paradox: The Power and Pitfalls of Functional Stupidity at Work (London: Profile Books, 2016).

D. E. Berlyne, Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960).

Guy Claxton, Wise Up: The Challenge of Lifelong Learning (London and New York: Bloomsbury, 1999).

Jules Goddard and Tony Eccles, Uncommon Sense, Common Nonsense: Why Some Organisations Consistently Outperform Others (London, Profile Books, 2013).

Daniel S. Hamermesh and Elena Stancanelli, “Long Workweeks and Strange Hours,ILR Review, Cornell University, vol. 68(5).

Charles Handy, The Second Curve: Thoughts on Reinventing Society (London: Random House UK, 2016).

John Kay, “The Kay Review of UK Equity Markets and Long-Term Decision Making”, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2014).

John Kay, Other People’s Money: Masters of the Universe or Servants of the People? (London: Profile Books, 2015).

Colin Mayer, Firm Commitment: Why the Corporation is Failing Us and How to Restore Trust in It (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).