Government Shutdown & the Organizational Leadership Lessons

I don’t believe anyone considers our government is the proper model to structure our organizations after.  But there are valuable lessons in the failures of our government and the continued political grandstanding that rips the branches of our government to shreds.  I’m currently awaiting news to see if I’ll be paid, but with the help of some DoD leaders and other great organizations like USAA, we will be taking care of.  To say we need change is grossly understated. But, I digress, here are some lesson you can watch out for in your organization.

Allegiances to Subordinate Teams

A massive problem with our government is the loyalty to their party and not to the good of the most significant and more important team.  In this case, the house and senate are loyal to their political party and are looking to push their agenda even at the cost of the people.  This is made clear by the 95% vote of “yea” by Republicans and a 5% vote of “yea” by Democrats for a recent proposal to keep the government open.  Clearly, the allegiances are to their party…

Each department or section in the organization can’t only be concerned for their own success.  Different departments will naturally lobby for what they need, and all organizations have a finite level of resources, but each department should know and be aware of the needs of the others.  They should be equally concerned about their success.  When the marketing department dominates resources and prevents the HR department from having all the tools they need to be successful, the organization will fail.  What do you need great marketing for if you have a failing HR department?

No Direction

Our legislative branch of the government has no direction.  Each major and minor political party have fractured the legislative branch to the point that I’m shocked they can get anything done. The problem with this divisive organization is they lack a unified and overall direction.

A successful organization brings each department together to create synergy.  They are not just the sum of the parts; they are more than that. The prevailing direction brings the departments together, they are no longer selfish but work out problems together.  Manager’s ambitions do not outweigh their appetite for reasonable, calculated risk.

Competing Priorities

This is probably the most significant reason for the failures of our government.  They have competing priorities.  The Democrats are looking to push the Democrat’s agenda, and the Republicans will push their agenda.  These agendas come at the cost of the legislative branch as a whole.  Don’t get me wrong; there needs to be debate, their needs to be conflict, negotiation, and compromise.  But this is not it.  Their priorities are to their party, not to the country or its people.

In your organization, you must ensure the organizational priorities are aligned.  Each department should work with the others to make the team prosper.  There must be a willingness to sacrifice your department to ensure another department is successful.

 

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

Advertisements

Band-Aid Fixes are Bad

Does it take too long to complete your processes?  Do your supervisors fail to follow the procedures?  Do you feel like you have a never-ending list of problems to address?  Many managers face these issues and believe they have no choice but to work the problems as they occur and try to keep their heads above water.

One would probably guess this article is about time-management or strategic planning, but this article is really about finding full spectrum solutions for your organization.  This is also not about root causes.  Root causes are essential and are a part of full spectrum solutions, but the critical difference is that a root cause does not always affect other processes, but a full spectrum solution does.  These solutions will enable and eventually empower your people to solve the other issues that arise, leaving you time to dedicate to more strategic issues.

We all get caught up in the most recent issue.  The most recent problem is the “most important” issue because it is fresh.  A good manager will not automatically react to every problem as if it must be fixed right away.  A good manager will know there are many problems and just because this problem happened now, does not mean it is the more important problem to direct the focus.  This is reactive problem-solving.  It is not always a bad approach, but it is not usually the best.

How does one identify a full spectrum solution?  Mostly by what will happen if the solution is found and implemented.  For example, if there is a problem with a report not being completed correctly, but you have already provided training, and they just don’t seem to get it.  The initial solution would be to hold more training and perhaps start writing people up for accountability purposes.  But a full spectrum solution that will help with this problem would be to invest in the supervisors and help develop them into problem solvers.  This solution takes much more time and will require patience from the manager and their boss.

Another issue we must face is the expectation for instant results.  Most solutions take time, and nothing will ever be perfect.  So, guard against working only for short-term and immediate results.  This is called making a band-aid fix.  The problem with this kind of fix is the actual issue is never addressed.  A band-aid is placed on it for short-term success but the issue will continue to come back.

Here are a few places that are typically associated with full spectrum solutions:

Training programs

Supervisory development (leadership & management)

Equipment upgrades

Look for solutions that will have 2nd and 3rd order of effects

 

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

Why is the foosball table killing your start-up?

Start-ups are well known in the world, however, what are they precisely? We can describe them as small organizations which are just starting their journey. Most of them don’t have their particular investment. However, they are financed by people who have. Due to that, we can often see a start-up without a genuine item, which means it is only beginning to develop.

The main issue with start-ups is that they need to start from the scratch. They have made a study, they have tried the market and they trust that their product or service has its place under the sun. The only word we have to focus on the last sentence is “trust”. It is the most important feeling in every person connected to the start-up.

Looking for the best people for the job

Upon taking the first step, developers need to start with looking for the best individuals for the group. Before that, they design the office and they get lost in it. The majority of them adore the possibility of a perfect office loaded with cool things which will help them bring the best people for the business. And that is a mistake. If you hire a person who came to you just because you have a cool office, then a “foosball table” will definitely kill your start-up.

What most developers don’t understand is the fact that new businesses are a just starting a battle for their place on the market. That is the reason you must be cautious when you are picking the people for the group. One individual might be a specialist in his field, yet that doesn’t mean he will be the best for the team and the start-up.

What this has to do with a foosball table?

In the most recent decade, Google has opened its way to the best office on the planet. That office is a mix of work and play. Individuals there can play foosball, eat as much as they prefer, sleep and do other things besides the ordinary work stuff. That makes Google a good example for organizations everywhere around the globe.

Google has the ideal workspace

Each organization wants to resemble Google, and they begin that by planning workplaces like Google. What they don’t think about is that they aren’t at a similar stage where Google is. Google can have all cool stuff, and it won’t matter because people will work hard to stay in Google. No matter how the office looks.

Start-ups can pull in wrong workers with cool office design, and that can be very bad for the business. What start-ups need are people who believe in their product or service? Those people will stay late at work if they have to, they will work for less money, and they won’t mind because they believe those people know that a little sacrifice can work a long way in the future of the company. By working hard now, they are investing in their future, and that is not so uncommon for workers who believe.

Workers who come in your organization because you have a foosball table or cool office should leave immediately because they won’t give their best and they will probably play foosball more than work. Your task is to discover persons who will work hard like you, so you can together build up an organization where a foosball table is an award and not a reason to work there. Try not to utilize a foosball table as the fascination apparatus; use it as a reward for your team. That way, the foosball table won’t stand in the way of your success.

Author bio:

The post is composed by Mark, who is a blogger and a wild foosball fan. He writes a blog about foosball to show to the general population that foosball is a standout amongst other game tables. He adores sharing his opinion about foosball, and he does that by being a part of the Foosball Zone. You can check out his work on this link: http://www.foosballzone.com/harvard-foosball-table/

What Comes First?

You are a Manager/Leader of Lies and Lip service and your employees know it! Just take a look at your structure and the lines of effort that come out of that structure.

Many organizations have a structure that supports the development of professional or technical skills. Most of the time this takes place upon initially hiring an employee and is sustained by on-the-job training and measured by supervisors. They also have a Human resources department that takes care of the mundane tasks of who is where what needs to be tracked and when John will hit retirement age. They also track and take care of specific training requirements, such as who needs and has completed Human Relations training. Maybe some will have a Talent Management division who endeavor to put the right people in the right place at the right time or delve into recruitment, but after the placement or replacement is complete, it is up to work centers to deal with the employee.

Human resources? Human Capital? Human Beings! People, Your People…

How much time do you spend on your processes? How much time do you spend on production meetings, operations, how high, how far or whatever your business is? I’ll call them functional competencies.

How much time do you spend on your people? People/Human competencies. What do you measure as a leader? How would you know if your organization was successful in this area? What do you expect your first line supervisors to do as it relates to People competencies? Know their names, birthdays, personal goals and desires?

You will do what is important to you, not what you say!

In the military, many organizations have a phrase that tries to keep leaders in remembrance of this balance between the function and people. “Mission First, People Always!” or sometimes it is said in reverse. For the most part, it is a good phrase, but I have found in my experience that in most organizations there is almost zero focus on the People. I have been in fantastic organizations where we spent a lot of time on the people, and the Mission of the unit (function) excelled. I would state the phrase this way “People First to First Achieve Mission Success. A lot can be learned from this.

As Senior Managers and leaders in an organization, we have to begin to understand that our best asset is our Human resource. We should strive to create a desire within our people to want to please their first line supervisors by their duty performance. I want my people to want to work for me, not because I am the boss, but because they know I care about them and their development as people. I have a desire to help them achieve their personal goals, even if those goals take them away from my company! Leaders at each level of the organization need to spend time developing functional competencies and human competencies. In most cases, each organization has programs that pretend to get after the task of human competencies. They may even write policies, hold seminars or conduct development courses but it rarely resonates with the majority of employees. Most of them will view the Senior Manager/Leader as a blowhard that is only focused on production, money or your board of directors.

We need to measure our leaders in our organization with two sticks:

How good are they at function production?
– If they are bad at their jobs, it matters.
How good are they at people production?
– If they don’t have measurable factors here, they have no business leading/managing, anyone. Let them go! It is better to have a mediocre function producer and a high people producer than the reverse.

I will state it again: You will do what is important to you, not what you say! Your people will know it, and it will impact their performance. It will affect your bottom line.

Develop lines of effort to directly get after each member of your organization. Get to know them as people, what makes each one tick. Know their kids’ names. Give them a day off for their spouse’s birthday and consider it an investment to your bottom line. They matter and without them, your functional competencies will only get you so far.