Think about the last time you observed senior management's
efforts to shift the direction of an enterprise. Was it like watching
someone steer the Queen Mary (a metaphor that I often hear), or
more like coaching a sports team. Or was it more similar to how
the Federal Reserve tries to influence the economy. Through key
factors resulting in emotional interpretations influencing individual
action. Even simple work is accomplish through complex interactions
of people and tasks. My experience is that complex work organizations
take on a nature which has organic rather than mechanical attributes.
I have observed that every organizational or process change effort
that has been mechanically implemented (command-control) in the
long run has failed to achieve it's purpose.
Example: The $50M MRPII implementation across manufacturing
plants, achieving Class A in two years. The new "standardized"
information systems where manipulated to support 'unique' plant
requirements, no information was sharable across plants, new versions
of the software could not be implemented. At the same time competitor's
products were innovative and gaining market share. The first plant
that achieved Class A was the first plant to be shut down. These
were not stupid people! But people who got caught up in the mechanics
of their business and lost sight of the organic nature of the
business.
Example: The $30M next generation order management
process that will reduce order cycles, reduce costs, and better
serve the customer. Designed and built by a select group of experts.
Three years later (two years late) the political owners of the
legacy organizations and system convince senior management that
there is nothing wrong with the existing (15 year old) process
after all. The next generation effort is labeled a success. Costs
of order administration and inventory are highest in the industry
in which margins have gone from %50 to %2 in the last 5 years
and products have become commodities.
Adaptation, change to an ever changing environment
is essential for survival. This is true of ourselves and enterprises.
People adapt through individual behaviors, national and world
economies adapt through the cumulative behaviors of underlying
enterprises. Adaptation can be both destructive and constructive.
It seems that in the enterprise there is an energy that either
resists change or causes change, either one is difficult if
not impossible to directly manipulate. Good leadership acts
as a catalyst to influence this flow of energy. Bad leadership
tries to control and eventually fragments this energy resulting
in the destruction of the enterprise. We have all felt this energy
at one time or another in our careers. When a sense of purpose,
a sense of need, galvanizes a group of people to accomplish something
pure. We look back at these experiences and wonder why, and want
to go back to that time again. I believe that it is in those moments
that the spirit of the enterprise defines the organization and
mechanics of the work which will best accomplish the purpose of
the enterprise.
In fact an analogy can be drawn with how we, human
organisms, function. The human organism can be seen as having
three critical dimensions; the body or biological dimension (the
physical body, organs, blood vessels, etc.), the mental dimension
(conscious mind), and the spiritual dimension (higher purpose).
Work organizations can be viewed as having similar corresponding
dimensions. The biological body of the enterprise (the mechanical
work/work flows), the mind of the enterprise (organizational control
structures), and the spiritual (vision, culture, purpose in the
market place, asking what is the greater meaning of the work beyond
how it is accomplished).
This next paragraph may be a reach, but please pay
close attention. It contains the essence of my understanding.
To achieve and maintain a state of enterprise health
for the organization all three dimensions of spirit (purpose),
mind (control structures), and body (work flow) must be healthy
and in balance. To neglect any of the three dimensions and their
balance, is fatal both to humans and organizations. To carry this
further, like people large organizations have personalities, skills
and resources. Some learn and adapt more quickly than others.
Some are arrogant and dominating, others are caring and giving.
Ultimately the health of an organization is reflected in its meaningful
value to its environment (customer). I don't just mean the customer
as the purchaser of goods and services. I believe the definition
of customer is broader and needs to include not only the customer
chain but the organizations equity owners and overall contribution
to community, national and world economies.
When I work with a client I try to develop empathy
for the organism of the enterprise. To meet with it, shake hands,
have a dialog. This empathy allows me to understand the state
of enterprise health (purpose, control structures, and work flows),
and how I might be able to help.