PRESIDENTIAL PARALLELS, ONE

We were seriously entranced with Bloomberg Businessweek’s op-ed on why Hillary Clinton lost her first POTUS campaign.

So much so that we read it twice, and mused about parallels to our business.

The reasons for her demise, asserts writer-pundit Joshua Green, were multiple, specifically:

• No clear overarching justification for candidacy
• Not focusing squarely on the issues
• Trying to be all things to all people
• Delaying a response to uproars and turmoils and
• Not recognizing her own shortcomings.

First things first:  The business case.  Right now, it’s clear that Hillary is concentrating on middle-class economic advancement and, as a sub-theme, making Washington work better.  That’s a singular target – and though overall motifs might vary (depending on the audience), messaging potentially will carry the same narrative.  It’s simple, impactful, and just might be as powerful as Obama’s ‘change.’ 

On the other hand, it could be subjected to the candidate’s (and her/his strategists’) boredom and continual polling.  Hear it now:  “The economy has changed; the middle class isn’t as worried as before.”  Or:  “Xyz is much more critical these days; let’s zero in on that issue.”   And:  “The opposition is attacking us on abc now; we need to answer.”

Squirming yet?  Check how you’d respond to these questions:

• How often do we abandon our messaging at the drop of a survey – and latch onto another hot topic? 
• Are we easily dissuaded from pursuing original goals? 
• Can we withstand corporate requests and continue our mission?

Next up:   The stuff that campaigns are made of …

THE YEAR OF LINEAR THINKING. OR NOT.

For years, we’ve had an on-and-off debate with our change colleagues.  [Mostly off, to tell the truth.]

These disagreements center on the nature of change:  Is it linear?  And more, can we superimpose different change frameworks (whether Prosci or Kotter or Bridges or you-fill-in-the-blank) on a human process that, quite frankly, doesn’t always respond to a one-step-at-a-time logic?

Case in point:  One of our clients was incredibly frustrated when a project went AWOL, primarily because executive sponsors had to tend to other burning platforms.   Not ours, obviously.   We went back to start, analyzed, compared it to other shifts in the business, and found that, yes, human ADD simply pushed it away.  Over-multi-tasking was the culprit.

Solving change problems, to us, must consider the human element.  Any number of managers and leaders can nod and give lip service to a specific effort, say, around the supply chain.  The business case, the sense of urgency, the executive sponsors, and the project team might be in play.  But it’s human:  Managers might forget.  Allocate their time elsewhere.  Be called into work on a different initiative.  Or simply resist in a passive-aggressive way, and stymie progress.

Or, another scenario:  Everyone nods, and buys in.  They agree, this IT or HR or cost-saving change must happen for the business to grow.  Change chugs along until – yup – a pocket of the population isn’t motivated or willing to shift attitudes, behaviors, roles, or whatever they’re being asked to do.  Back to the business case, then.

Bottom line:  Thinking linearly doesn’t work for us when driving change.  Sure, frameworks are handy, if only to remind you what needs to be done.  Instead, we prefer moving in a non-straightforward manner, making the connections we need to make at the times we need to make them, and in the ways they need to be made.  Definitely messy, but it works. 

Is this your year to break out and through change?

GOOD ENOUGH: Is it, er, good enough?

While reading (belatedly) an interview with Larry Light, the then-new chief brands officer at Intercontinental Hotels, we braked hard at this sentence:  “Doing fine is not fine.”  [That quote, from Light’s CEO, segued into how this well-known marketer is upgrading and revamping/realigning the brand.]

Which got us to musing:  How many of us would actually say that … and mean it?

It’s one thing to spout the multiple mantras of continuous improvement, urgency, and burning platforms, phrases often associated with the change world.  It’s another to express discontent with reality – even though it might look pretty good to outside (and inside) observers – and begin making shifts.

Many change masters insist on building a compelling case for making things happen.  They talk to the critical needs of appealing to both hearts and minds, emotions and facts.  News of change on the way ricochets through the halls and plant floors, along with the names and accountabilities of task forces.  Implementation begins, goes onward, then is completed.  Now what?

Those who measure ROIs (and non-successes) of those efforts tell us that a majority never quite meet the assigned metrics.  Our burning question:  Was this a dramatic change, positioned as an “either/or”?  Or are employees and executives rewarded for following the dictates of Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, and other methodologies continually, rather than all at once?  Will those two very different situations differ in results delivered?

There’s no answer, yet.  The next time someone comments that “whatever” is pretty good or good enough, we’d suggest a sharp self-scrutiny is in order.