You have been hard at work on your latest technology innovation. This innovation can take your organization to a higher level of profitability or streamlined operation. You've been successfully making your case for your innovation across departmental and hierarchical lines. But there are obstacles in your way:
- your boss doesn't believe your innovation can actually work
- there is no room in the budget to accommodate your innovation in the short term
- your innovation would open up new lines of business, but your organization's senior executives will not examine a relationship between a technology component and a profit potential of these lines of business
You truly and strongly believe that your innovation can take your organization higher, but the obstacles remain. You take all of the "believe in yourself" advice to heart in order to "hang in there", but the frustration continues to mount. The message of innovation can be tough to deliver to, and be accepted by an organization. On the surface, it can actually appear to be insubordination if your innovation is not part of the "master plan" in the minds of your organization's management.
Before your frustration bubbles over, you may want to consider these points:
- Understand your organization's short-term goals
For the next three or six months, your organization might not have the capacity to handle your innovation. There may be a critical window for your organization to focus on what it is doing right now, and what it plans to do in the short-term. You must exhibit an understanding and acknowledgment of your organization's situation and direction, otherwise a perception of aimless wandering regarding your ideas may result.
- Understand the current climate
You don't really feel the below-freezing temperatures when you are wearing seven sweaters - cut through the layers and get in touch. Who really holds the influence cards in your organization? Where exactly is your organization feeling the pressure that your innovation might relieve? Are there any factors outside the organization responsible for this pressure? And how much do you really know about them? Find out!
- Understand and believe in your organization's long-term goals
You are part of your organization because you want the organization to succeed in its goals, yes? If you ask yourself this question, and any part of the answer resonates "no", then you have an internal conflict of interest that no amount of innovation (or insubordination, for that matter) can overcome. You will need to reevaluate whether your goals for seeing your innovation put in play are in alignment with your organization's goals after all.
- Believe in yourself via persistence, not arrogance
Continue to make your case, but back it up with tangible benefits that can be sold across your organization. Exactly where and how will your innovation help your organization's people to complete your organization's goals? If you can state the costs and benefits of your innovation with equal and increasingly strong precision, you can avoid the far less convincing "I'm just right about this" and "Trust me" selling tactics.
When you can understand and accept the above, you know that you will need to take your mounting frustration to task, and focus on finding ways to work with or remove the obstacles in your way. You then can work towards a realized innovation and avoid an insubordinate situation that may not be necessary.
One exception to the above: emergency or crisis of organizational survival. There's nothing like a true survival emergency for an organization to consider ANY idea, no matter how far afield the idea lies. If a true crisis like this exists in your organization, and your organization's culture opens up its pathways of reception, you can go for the straight sell of your innovation. What may be perceived as insubordination at the outset can be forgiven, just as long as your organization weathers the crisis using your innovation, and of course, you are right about the results.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Considering the Exception-Tolerant Organization in 2009
After almost five months into 2009, how are things going for you and your organization? Well, I hope. But perhaps you now have to do more with less. Perhaps you need to find a new way to profit, keep the status-quo, or just survive. Perhaps it is time for your organization to become an Exception-Tolerant Organization (ETO).
Today’s management consultants and thought leaders preach the mantras of embracing change and embracing uncertainty. Being able to embrace change and embrace uncertainty are indeed important. But being Exception-Tolerant is about taking these embracements and bringing them into the practicality of day-to-day business. Being Exception-Tolerant is not about solely reacting to business events and then making on-thy-fly adjustments into your workflows and systems just to keep above the water level.
For more on the Exception-Tolerant Organization, please see this post.
Today’s management consultants and thought leaders preach the mantras of embracing change and embracing uncertainty. Being able to embrace change and embrace uncertainty are indeed important. But being Exception-Tolerant is about taking these embracements and bringing them into the practicality of day-to-day business. Being Exception-Tolerant is not about solely reacting to business events and then making on-thy-fly adjustments into your workflows and systems just to keep above the water level.
Being Exception-Tolerant is about anticipating these business events and proactively building workflows that allow both people and systems to adapt and adjust smoothly, sometimes within minutes or hours of the exception occurring. In current-generation software development tools, there are language constructs that allow you to anticipate the exceptions that may occur during processing, and build a framework to handle them. Since we can do this with software, why can we not create these types of constructs in our own business processes, and with our own people?
We can, but only if we have the facilities and communication channels to do so. An Exception-Tolerant Organization (ETO) has the Exception-Tolerant people, the Exception-Tolerant business processes, and the Exception-Tolerant technology to proactively execute during times of change, uncertainty, and exception.
Exception-Tolerant Organizations:
- embrace change and uncertainty while systematically executing their business
- build the communication pathways, business processes, and technology features to handle exceptions systematically
- emphasize their strengths and compensate for weaknesses by working together and communicating openly
- practice daily Risk Management
- do not tolerate waste, stifling of innovation, or inflexibility
And when ETO’s practice the above effectively, they turn out to be exception-al organizations, not exception-less. For if you are exception-less then you don’t stand out and cannot be exception-al in business.
For more on the Exception-Tolerant Organization, please see this post.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Letting Go Of The Past
A president of a technology organization has been very successful in satisfying a rather narrow vertical in a niche market. Under his guidance, a custom-crafted data warehouse and reporting engine developed over three years has been successfully deployed to his highest profile clients. This reporting engine was the result of a decade of this president's experience and development in this vertical.
The president, seizing on a new but potentially lucrative revenue stream, now wants to apply this data warehouse and reporting engine to a new domain, but one using a new report query methodology with frequent use of highly cross-tabulated data. The president brings in an experienced professional outside the technology team to lead the construction of software to support this new report query methodology.
After a review of the problem domain and the current data warehouse architecture, the team lead demonstrates that the current architecture will not store the data effectively, or quickly execute the queries in the new lucrative domain. The new team lead reports on the expected size and structure of data, and a potential architecture to support storing and executing the new report queries.
The president, disturbed by the team lead's negativity towards the older engine and data model, declares that this is not what he wants. The president tells the team lead to take the current engine and "fix it, make it better, but we can't redo it otherwise we're deviating from our platform. I don't want two platforms. We spent three years building this platform and we must use it."
The team lead, seeing the incompatibility of the current data model, asserts that a new data model and reporting query engine would need to be constructed, and that a new architecture could be backwards-compatible with the reporting queries from the president's current niche market. The team lead provides a working engine and database to demonstrate the new architecture's viability, integration with features of the current platform, and ease of construction to satisfy this new domain.
The president, after conferring with the older members of the team, is more disappointed than ever. But the other members do not have a strong alternative to the new team lead's solution. Not being technical but always willing to contribute technically, the president makes a few technical short-cut style suggestions. One suggestion is plausible to the new team lead, but the others have no connection to the new reporting query engine requirements.
A few of the technical team members take a look at the team lead's work and begin to agree with the team lead. But the president still does not come to an agreement with the team lead's assessment. Soon after, the team lead is off the project, while the president continues to search for a solution.
Should the president expect a custom data warehouse that took three years to construct, and that was fully paid for by the company, to be usable towards every revenue stream the president wishes to tap? Or does the president need to let this go and move forward?
Should the team lead reference the technical knowledge and experience accrued over time to make an assessment? Or, because of the new domain, should the team lead let this go and move forward?
Who is right in this situation? The president? The team lead? Keep in mind that what is most wrong with this situation is that the lucrative revenue stream remains untapped.
It can be difficult for us to let go of our past ideas and our creations in order to move forward, but in some cases this is actually what is needed to make the best of our present state and lead us to our future successes. If faced with a similar decision, do you think you could let go?
The president, seizing on a new but potentially lucrative revenue stream, now wants to apply this data warehouse and reporting engine to a new domain, but one using a new report query methodology with frequent use of highly cross-tabulated data. The president brings in an experienced professional outside the technology team to lead the construction of software to support this new report query methodology.
After a review of the problem domain and the current data warehouse architecture, the team lead demonstrates that the current architecture will not store the data effectively, or quickly execute the queries in the new lucrative domain. The new team lead reports on the expected size and structure of data, and a potential architecture to support storing and executing the new report queries.
The president, disturbed by the team lead's negativity towards the older engine and data model, declares that this is not what he wants. The president tells the team lead to take the current engine and "fix it, make it better, but we can't redo it otherwise we're deviating from our platform. I don't want two platforms. We spent three years building this platform and we must use it."
The team lead, seeing the incompatibility of the current data model, asserts that a new data model and reporting query engine would need to be constructed, and that a new architecture could be backwards-compatible with the reporting queries from the president's current niche market. The team lead provides a working engine and database to demonstrate the new architecture's viability, integration with features of the current platform, and ease of construction to satisfy this new domain.
The president, after conferring with the older members of the team, is more disappointed than ever. But the other members do not have a strong alternative to the new team lead's solution. Not being technical but always willing to contribute technically, the president makes a few technical short-cut style suggestions. One suggestion is plausible to the new team lead, but the others have no connection to the new reporting query engine requirements.
A few of the technical team members take a look at the team lead's work and begin to agree with the team lead. But the president still does not come to an agreement with the team lead's assessment. Soon after, the team lead is off the project, while the president continues to search for a solution.
Should the president expect a custom data warehouse that took three years to construct, and that was fully paid for by the company, to be usable towards every revenue stream the president wishes to tap? Or does the president need to let this go and move forward?
Should the team lead reference the technical knowledge and experience accrued over time to make an assessment? Or, because of the new domain, should the team lead let this go and move forward?
Who is right in this situation? The president? The team lead? Keep in mind that what is most wrong with this situation is that the lucrative revenue stream remains untapped.
It can be difficult for us to let go of our past ideas and our creations in order to move forward, but in some cases this is actually what is needed to make the best of our present state and lead us to our future successes. If faced with a similar decision, do you think you could let go?
Publicity and Heroism in the Workplace
Usually it feels pretty good to be recognized in the workplace or in your industry's community circles for your achievements, milestones arrived at, or just for a "job well done". You may also have had a chance to be lauded as a "hero" for landing that big account, completing that project on time and under budget, or working 36 hours straight to restore your organization's data warehouse up-to-date after a major hardware meltdown.
But have you noticed how the heroes who, say, weather us through a crisis sometimes receive more applause and "atta-boy"s than the heroes who, say, maintain steady but unchanging profits for years? Because of our human nature, we tend to be more attracted to the highs and lows of drama, rather than a seldom-changing sameness, even if that sameness is a positive and profitable one.
To land a major client, one organization had to close the deal and on-board the client within a very contracted time frame. A few principals involved were working 7-day weeks around the clock to the tune of 100 hours a week, while driving their teams to produce quickly for the client. At one point the client became very disturbed by a perceived lack of progress made by the organization in closing the deal. Shortly after the client made their feelings known to the organization, one of the principals mentioned to the client how he had been up all night working on a particular issue with the deal.
While that issue had not been completely resolved, the client was so impressed with the display of effort that they relaxed their expectations enough to accept the organization's progress, and became more receptive to future scheduling adjustments. Unfortunately, the client had not known about the 7-day weeks and 100-hour weeks spent previously. And even if they did, that knowledge may not have impressed them more than the image of one person toiling through the night solely for them. This is a much more dramatic picture indeed.
Some of us may need to work through the night from time to time to satisfy our organizations or our clients. Some of us in certain lines of work can easily work these hours or long shifts in a "business as usual" capacity. In either case, these shows of effort can easily be unrecognized, or worse, taken for granted if they are repeated too consistently. While being lauded as a hero shouldn't be the ultimate goal, make sure you are visible and your quality hard work is recognized.
But have you noticed how the heroes who, say, weather us through a crisis sometimes receive more applause and "atta-boy"s than the heroes who, say, maintain steady but unchanging profits for years? Because of our human nature, we tend to be more attracted to the highs and lows of drama, rather than a seldom-changing sameness, even if that sameness is a positive and profitable one.
To land a major client, one organization had to close the deal and on-board the client within a very contracted time frame. A few principals involved were working 7-day weeks around the clock to the tune of 100 hours a week, while driving their teams to produce quickly for the client. At one point the client became very disturbed by a perceived lack of progress made by the organization in closing the deal. Shortly after the client made their feelings known to the organization, one of the principals mentioned to the client how he had been up all night working on a particular issue with the deal.
While that issue had not been completely resolved, the client was so impressed with the display of effort that they relaxed their expectations enough to accept the organization's progress, and became more receptive to future scheduling adjustments. Unfortunately, the client had not known about the 7-day weeks and 100-hour weeks spent previously. And even if they did, that knowledge may not have impressed them more than the image of one person toiling through the night solely for them. This is a much more dramatic picture indeed.
Some of us may need to work through the night from time to time to satisfy our organizations or our clients. Some of us in certain lines of work can easily work these hours or long shifts in a "business as usual" capacity. In either case, these shows of effort can easily be unrecognized, or worse, taken for granted if they are repeated too consistently. While being lauded as a hero shouldn't be the ultimate goal, make sure you are visible and your quality hard work is recognized.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Turning Cost Centers Into Cost Savers
With almost 15 years of experience in the financial industry, and hedge funds in particular, I have held responsibility for not only enabling my organizations to use the best information available to make effective investing decisions and earn money, but also to effectively KEEP as much of the money earned as possible. I held this responsibility not as a trader or a front-line deal maker, but by working for and uniting two of the largest cost centers of these organizations - Operations and IT.
To be sure, any organization's Operations and IT groups are cost centers, especially when considered separately on their own. They exist as internal machines of the business, providing:
- the automation of workloads
- the storage of current, transient, and historical information
- the bookkeeping and checks and balances
- warehouses of business knowledge
- communication conduits to the front lines of the organization
- suggestive voices for organizational improvement and advancement
Put simply, Technology procurement and development costs money. Staffing and supporting Operations costs money. But now consider these other cost centers:
- fees on money held away as collateral for investments that have already matured, expired, or otherwise unwound
- time and effort repairing transactions and bookkeeping entries incorrect by factors of tens, hundreds, or thousands - discovered, validated and verified only well after their transaction dates have passed
- repetitive outbound money transfers now unnecessary due to changing market or exceptional conditions
- minutes and hours spent daily modifying business processes to work around technology limitations, because the technology in place is the only option offered to the business
- minutes and hours spent daily installing technology to keep pace with the cacophony of uncoordinated and seldom-related business process improvement requests
- unrecognized internal or external business events not brought to a principal's attention in a timely manner
These cost centers truly translate into money lost, not spent. Technology alone cannot automate and execute all of the business decisions required to reverse the direction of cost spent. Nor can Operations alone leverage enough manpower to execute and reverse the direction of cost spent in the necessary transactional time frames of seconds, minutes, and hours. If your organization can truly acknowledge the above as real cost centers threatening the bottom line, and acknowledge that IT and Operations separately cannot represent a silver-bullet answer, then your organization can recognize that a unified cohesive effort is necessary to reduce or eliminate these cost centers.
Now take notice of the last cost center mentioned above. Unrecognized events, being that they are unrecognized, do not have a workflow built into the technology to resolve them, nor are there any accruals previously posted on the books and records to account for them. Yet a poorly-priced security or trade, a trading partner's sudden unavailability to participate in a supply chain, or an incorrectly-prioritized customer order, could easily skew an organization's valuation or daily health snapshot into a hazard zone.
These events are the ones most sharply reacted to or chased after post-occurrence, often affecting not only the organization's capability to handle these scenarios, but causing a slowdown or loss in quality of the organization's regular business. If you are thinking that these events should be recognized rather than unrecognized, then you have taken the first step towards addressing the issue. The second step would be the desire to recognize these events and exceptions as soon as they enter into your business processes.
This is why I stress the need for organizations to become Exception-Tolerant, and build exception-based workflows into their business processes so that there IS a route for these exceptions to travel and begin to be handled timely. This can only be done through a united cohesive effort between Operations and IT, and is one of the best forms of internal risk management you could ever exercise.
So, can you unite your organization's Operations and IT cost centers into a more cohesive cost saver? Can you help your organization KEEP as much of the money earned as possible?
To be sure, any organization's Operations and IT groups are cost centers, especially when considered separately on their own. They exist as internal machines of the business, providing:
- the automation of workloads
- the storage of current, transient, and historical information
- the bookkeeping and checks and balances
- warehouses of business knowledge
- communication conduits to the front lines of the organization
- suggestive voices for organizational improvement and advancement
Put simply, Technology procurement and development costs money. Staffing and supporting Operations costs money. But now consider these other cost centers:
- fees on money held away as collateral for investments that have already matured, expired, or otherwise unwound
- time and effort repairing transactions and bookkeeping entries incorrect by factors of tens, hundreds, or thousands - discovered, validated and verified only well after their transaction dates have passed
- repetitive outbound money transfers now unnecessary due to changing market or exceptional conditions
- minutes and hours spent daily modifying business processes to work around technology limitations, because the technology in place is the only option offered to the business
- minutes and hours spent daily installing technology to keep pace with the cacophony of uncoordinated and seldom-related business process improvement requests
- unrecognized internal or external business events not brought to a principal's attention in a timely manner
These cost centers truly translate into money lost, not spent. Technology alone cannot automate and execute all of the business decisions required to reverse the direction of cost spent. Nor can Operations alone leverage enough manpower to execute and reverse the direction of cost spent in the necessary transactional time frames of seconds, minutes, and hours. If your organization can truly acknowledge the above as real cost centers threatening the bottom line, and acknowledge that IT and Operations separately cannot represent a silver-bullet answer, then your organization can recognize that a unified cohesive effort is necessary to reduce or eliminate these cost centers.
Now take notice of the last cost center mentioned above. Unrecognized events, being that they are unrecognized, do not have a workflow built into the technology to resolve them, nor are there any accruals previously posted on the books and records to account for them. Yet a poorly-priced security or trade, a trading partner's sudden unavailability to participate in a supply chain, or an incorrectly-prioritized customer order, could easily skew an organization's valuation or daily health snapshot into a hazard zone.
These events are the ones most sharply reacted to or chased after post-occurrence, often affecting not only the organization's capability to handle these scenarios, but causing a slowdown or loss in quality of the organization's regular business. If you are thinking that these events should be recognized rather than unrecognized, then you have taken the first step towards addressing the issue. The second step would be the desire to recognize these events and exceptions as soon as they enter into your business processes.
This is why I stress the need for organizations to become Exception-Tolerant, and build exception-based workflows into their business processes so that there IS a route for these exceptions to travel and begin to be handled timely. This can only be done through a united cohesive effort between Operations and IT, and is one of the best forms of internal risk management you could ever exercise.
So, can you unite your organization's Operations and IT cost centers into a more cohesive cost saver? Can you help your organization KEEP as much of the money earned as possible?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Communities Are A New Leadership Currency
I recently spoke with a member of one of my communities who recently lost employment, and is temporarily renting her house and relocating a short distance away while she conducts her job search. I lent a sympathetic ear and words of understanding when she told me her story, but I also reminded her that she was still part of our community, and her value in our community did not change just because her employment or housing status did. In fact, because she has been so proactive in responding to the recent changes in her life, she may have planted a seed of community with her new tenant, one that may prove to be very valuable to both in the future.
Creating and sustaining a community can be one of the greatest challenges we face during rough times. People often feel disconnected when they experience both large changes (employment status, income, housing, family) and small changes (the closing of a favorite restaurant, the turning of a calendar page, or even the weather). Reminding people that they can be, and are, part of an entity that accomplishes more and increases in value when the entity's members are connected - this is the essence of community.
As leaders, we step forward to create and sustain these communities. We understand that our communities are a viable currency for investing in our ideas, and earning success for all involved. As such, we must continue to remind others that we are part of something that can accomplish more when we are connected. We must make clear that those involved in the community are investing in a currency whose value rises rapidly the moment that they step forward to become involved. No other investment market can provide such an immediate rate of return.
Whether your community is in your family, in your place of business, or a non-profit in your community (all three in my case), remember to remind others that they can and do belong in your community. Be the leader that invests in and promotes the currency of community, and reap the near-term rewards now while understanding that the long-term rewards will be even richer.
Creating and sustaining a community can be one of the greatest challenges we face during rough times. People often feel disconnected when they experience both large changes (employment status, income, housing, family) and small changes (the closing of a favorite restaurant, the turning of a calendar page, or even the weather). Reminding people that they can be, and are, part of an entity that accomplishes more and increases in value when the entity's members are connected - this is the essence of community.
As leaders, we step forward to create and sustain these communities. We understand that our communities are a viable currency for investing in our ideas, and earning success for all involved. As such, we must continue to remind others that we are part of something that can accomplish more when we are connected. We must make clear that those involved in the community are investing in a currency whose value rises rapidly the moment that they step forward to become involved. No other investment market can provide such an immediate rate of return.
Whether your community is in your family, in your place of business, or a non-profit in your community (all three in my case), remember to remind others that they can and do belong in your community. Be the leader that invests in and promotes the currency of community, and reap the near-term rewards now while understanding that the long-term rewards will be even richer.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Resolving our Top Priorities
At one point in my career I became champion for one of the most critical projects for an organization - one whose previous lack of focus on completion had already caused harm (including physical damage) to the organization twice in two years. As such, this critical project had been labeled "top priority" for this organization.
As champion, I had been dissatisfied with the lack of management focus on this top priority project, and brought this to the organization's attention. I was given a stern reminder by management that this goal was one of five or six top priority projects, and that the resources and focus necessary to complete this goal would be utilized across all five or six projects as they were available. And in the months that followed, this project did not experience the appropriate increase in focus as it continued to compete with the other projects for attention.
In your organization, is there an actual "top" to the list of priorities, or is it more of a raised plateau of several priorities all seeking to be fed? Can any of the following priorities for an organization be considered absolutely Priority One:
- Generating new leads
- Delivering increased product
- Bringing the next technological innovation to the marketplace
- Replacing aging infrastructure with current or next-generation systems
- Reorganizing to maintain competitive advantage
- Generating enough revenue to keep the lights on
Certainly every organization needs to do all of the above, and needs to do them well in order to thrive in the marketplace. It seems impossible for many organizations to focus on one of these priorities over some of the others, but some careful examination may yield more clarity in addressing priority:
- Do these priorities compete with each other?
- Do they complement each other?
- Does the completion of objectives of one priority facilitate the completion of objectives in another priority?
- Will our resources be able to address one or more of our priorities while covering business-as-usual responsibilities?
These may be simple questions that require intensive analysis to answer, but it is worth re-reading the questions often when we start to lose ourselves in tools, charts, and numbers. It is also worth reminding ourselves that allocating and juggling six top priorities really amounts to seven in number - one priority is the actual juggling effort that takes place while trying to manage the other six priorities.
Another consideration is where in the organization these priorities need to be addressed. There are areas in an organization where priorities and responsibilities must be partitioned in parallel, and there are areas that must be focused on a top priority objective. The management of the organization above had not quite figured out the optimal locations of partition and focus.
As many of my readers know, this is not as simple as a top-down partitioning and arrangement of responsibilities. An organization's current structure and its culture can greatly help or greatly hamper this analysis. You see evidence of this when organizations announce numerous reorganizations and restructures within the span of two or three years. They are still seeking the proper structure of partition and focus to complete top priority objectives. Or worse, they are seeking the proper structure that will help them define their top priority objectives.
If your organization is experiencing uncertainty with juggling or establishing an order for top priorities, try taking on at most TWO top priority objectives at once, one primary and one secondary. This way your organization will have TWO objectives completed rather than five or six that remain suspended in a perpetual juggle-state. In today's marketplace, juggling priorities is not an excuse for lack of completion of any one or two top priority objectives.
As champion, I had been dissatisfied with the lack of management focus on this top priority project, and brought this to the organization's attention. I was given a stern reminder by management that this goal was one of five or six top priority projects, and that the resources and focus necessary to complete this goal would be utilized across all five or six projects as they were available. And in the months that followed, this project did not experience the appropriate increase in focus as it continued to compete with the other projects for attention.
In your organization, is there an actual "top" to the list of priorities, or is it more of a raised plateau of several priorities all seeking to be fed? Can any of the following priorities for an organization be considered absolutely Priority One:
- Generating new leads
- Delivering increased product
- Bringing the next technological innovation to the marketplace
- Replacing aging infrastructure with current or next-generation systems
- Reorganizing to maintain competitive advantage
- Generating enough revenue to keep the lights on
Certainly every organization needs to do all of the above, and needs to do them well in order to thrive in the marketplace. It seems impossible for many organizations to focus on one of these priorities over some of the others, but some careful examination may yield more clarity in addressing priority:
- Do these priorities compete with each other?
- Do they complement each other?
- Does the completion of objectives of one priority facilitate the completion of objectives in another priority?
- Will our resources be able to address one or more of our priorities while covering business-as-usual responsibilities?
These may be simple questions that require intensive analysis to answer, but it is worth re-reading the questions often when we start to lose ourselves in tools, charts, and numbers. It is also worth reminding ourselves that allocating and juggling six top priorities really amounts to seven in number - one priority is the actual juggling effort that takes place while trying to manage the other six priorities.
Another consideration is where in the organization these priorities need to be addressed. There are areas in an organization where priorities and responsibilities must be partitioned in parallel, and there are areas that must be focused on a top priority objective. The management of the organization above had not quite figured out the optimal locations of partition and focus.
As many of my readers know, this is not as simple as a top-down partitioning and arrangement of responsibilities. An organization's current structure and its culture can greatly help or greatly hamper this analysis. You see evidence of this when organizations announce numerous reorganizations and restructures within the span of two or three years. They are still seeking the proper structure of partition and focus to complete top priority objectives. Or worse, they are seeking the proper structure that will help them define their top priority objectives.
If your organization is experiencing uncertainty with juggling or establishing an order for top priorities, try taking on at most TWO top priority objectives at once, one primary and one secondary. This way your organization will have TWO objectives completed rather than five or six that remain suspended in a perpetual juggle-state. In today's marketplace, juggling priorities is not an excuse for lack of completion of any one or two top priority objectives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
