The culture of a company is the behavior of its leaders. Leaders get the behavior they exhibit and tolerate. You change the culture of a company by changing the behavior of its leaders. You measure the change in culture by measuring the change in the personal behavior of its leaders and the performance of the business.
Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done by Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan with Charles Burck. 2002. Crown Business, NY, NY. p. 105, 106
The reason most companies don't face reality very well is that their dialogues are ineffective. And it shows in their results. Think about the meetings you've attended - those that were a hopeless waste of time and those that produced energy and great results. What was the difference? It was not the agenda, not whether the meeting started on time or how disciplined it was, and certainly not the formal presentations. No, the difference was in the quality of the dialogue.
Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done by Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan with Charles Burck. 2002. Crown Business, NY, NY. p. 103, 104
We measure the success of change management by measuring the degree to which the objectives of the change are realized.
We apply change management for one primary reason: to ensure that the desired results from the change are achieved.
Change management is the application of processes and tools to manage the people side of change from a current state to a new future state so that the desired results of the change (and expected return on investment) are achieved.
I once worked with an executive team that needed help with their prioritization. They were struggling to identify the top five projects they wanted their IT department to complete over the next fiscal year, and one of the managers was having a particularly hard time with it. She insisted on naming eighteen "top priority" projects. I insisted that she choose five. She took her list back to her team, and two weeks later they returned with a list she had managed to shorten - by one single project! (I always wondered what it was about that one lone project that didn't make the cut.) By refusing to make trade-offs, she ended up spreading five projects' worth of time and effort across seventeen projects. Unsurprisingly, she did not get the results she wanted. Her logic had been: We can do it all. Obviously not.
Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less by Greg McKeown. Crown/Archetype. 2020. p.54, 55
That's why executives are paid the big bucks. Part of their job is to realize a future that's not going to happen through managing what's already in place. And that's also why leadership is typically not an "I" thing. It requires enrolling others to see something possible for themselves and their team that wasn't there before...
An organization that remains rooted in doing the same things the same way will be left behind. It's inevitable. Everything changes--from technology to consumer demand and everything in between--and because of that, it's crucial to imagine what has never been imagined before (at least for that specific organization).
It's the leaders who stand on the precipice of impossible and show the world (their employees, team members, or close friends and confidants) where they want to go. Where they wish to lead.
"Where Does Management Stop and Leadership Start?" Inc.com. January 27, 2022
"You can't focus on results because in the box you're focused on yourself."
...Even most of the people you've encountered in your career who you think are results-focused really aren't. They value results primarily for the purpose of creating or sustaining their own stellar reputations. And you can tell because they generally don't feel that other people's results are as important as their own. Think about it - most people aren't nearly so happy when other people in the organization succeed as they are when they themselves do. So they run all over people trying to get only their own results - with devastating effects. They might beat their chests and preach focusing on results, but it's a lie. In the box, they, like everyone else, are just focused on themselves. But in the box, they, like everyone else, can't see it.
And it's even worse than that. Because, remember, in the box we provoke others to get in the box. We withhold information, for example, which gives others reason to do the same. We try to control others, which provokes the very resistance that we feel the need to control all the more. We withhold resources from others, who then feel the need to protect resources from us. We blame others for dragging their feet and in so doing give them reason to feel justified in dragging their feet all the more. And so on.
And through it all we think that all our problems would be solved if Jack wouldn't do this or if Linda wouldn't do that or if XYZ department would just straighten up of if the company would get a clue. But it's a lie. It's a lie even if Jack, Linda, XYZ department, and the company need to improve, which they surely do. Because when I'm blaming them, I'm not doing it because they need to improve, I'm blaming them because their shortcomings justify my failure to improve.
So, one person in an organization, by being in the box and failing to focus on results, provokes his or her coworkers to fail to focus on results as well. Collusion spreads far and wide, and the end result is that coworkers position themselves against coworkers, workgroups against workgroups, departments against departments. People who came together to help an organization succeed actually end up delighting in each other's failures and resenting each other's successes.
Leadership and Self-deception: Getting Out of the Box by Arbinger Institute. Berrett-Koehler. 2002. p.105-107
Maya Townsend and Elizabeth Doty
"The road to successful change is lined with trade-offs," strategy+business. November 2, 2020.
1. My manager gives me actionable feedback that helps me improve my performance.
2. My manager does not "micromanage" (get involved in details that should be handled at other levels).
3. My manager shows consideration for me as a person.
4. The actions of my manager show that he/she values the perspective I bring to the team, even if it is different from his/her own.
5. My manager keeps the team focused on our priority results/deliverables.
6. My manager regularly shares relevant information from his/her manager and senior leaders.
7. My manager has had a meaningful discussion with me about career development in the past six months.
8. My manager communicates clear goals for our team.
9. My manager has the technical expertise (e.g., coding in Tech, selling in Global Business, accounting in Finance) required to effectively manage me.
10. I would recommend my manager to other Googlers.
11. I am satisfied with my manager's overall performance as a manager.
Then Google employees are asked to complete two other questions:
12. What would you recommend your manager keep doing?
13. What would you have your manager change?
The evaluation spends almost no time assessing a manager's knowledge, skill, and experience. All but one question focuses on soft skills: communication, feedback, coaching, teamwork, respect, and consideration.
What you know matters, but communicating, delegating, creating a sense of autonomy and purpose...that matters a lot more.
Granted, you could argue that possessing superb technical skills is less important for Google's team managers; after all, it's easier for Google to recruit and retain incredibly skilled people than it is for many companies.
But that argument misses the larger point. While most employees need some degree of training early on, the emphasis soon shifts from what they know to how they use their knowledge and skills.
"Here's How Google Knows in Less Than 5 Minutes if Someone Is a Great Leader" Inc. November 18, 2020
