Report on the activities of the agricultural holding MHP

 

What to write in a report to get investment 

Investors evaluate a business not only by financial indicators. They are interested in the sustainability of the business model, the presence of a risk management program (especially in Ukraine now is very important), a personnel development program, environmental, energy-saving initiatives, etc.

How can this be shown? 

In the MHP report:

🔸shows exactly how it makes money

🔸explains the risks for the company and describes a model for responding to them

🔸describes how MHP activities support the UN Sustainable Development Goals

🔸shows staff health care program

🔸 describes the corporate governance system and its compliance with British standards

🔸shows support for Ukraine during the war

This is only a small part of everything, the report has 200 pages (here is the full version (https://api.next.mhp.com.ua/images/20ad4/aeac4/1cd6903755.pdf). And it gives a very good idea of what to focus on in order to interest European investors.

The Birkman: Preferred Work Styles

 

by The Wineinger Company

Management Styles

Management Scores

An important point to remember about the Management Scores is that Birkman does not measure skill or aptitude in any way. This means that a high score on a Management Style does not necessarily mean the person will be a good manager. The results only provide information about the style that will likely be seen by that individual.

Corporate Styles

Social Styles

Intellectual / Problem Solving Styles

The following pairs have scores that add to eleven. So, by definition, if an individual is high on one s/he will be low on the other.

Descriptions of Combinations of Thinking and Problem Solving Preferences

The following is a description of possible combinations of the intellectual/problem solving style scores.

Conceptual-Global

Individuals with high scores on Conceptual and Global are strategic thinkers and are often comfortable with ambiguity. They can be quite patient when reflecting on all of the possibilities – even those that have little chance of actually coming to fruition. Open to new ideas, they prefer to consider all facets of a problem or issue before taking action. Their problem solving approach would often be considered more intuitive than fact-based. They consider it their priority to make sure that the problem has been thoroughly identified and defined. Then they move to take action on solving the problem.

Conceptual-Linear

Individuals with high scores on both Conceptual and Linear will use their imagination to solve problems, yet their imaginative solutions will be pragmatic. They couple a desire to act quickly with an ability to be creative. Their creativity will have an underlying logic to it that they can explain fairly easily. Drawn to complex problems, they are confident enough in their abilities to start work without a clear-cut plan and make adjustments on the fly. Their creativity helps them solve problems quickly, but their tendency to plan on the run makes it difficult for others to follow their leaps of logic.

Concrete-Global

Individuals with high scores on Concrete and Global look to facts and logic to provide them a sense of comfort in their problem solving. Nevertheless, these individuals are ready to take on large problems. Their inclination is to think they can solve big, sweeping problems in a short time. These individuals are good planners who will work hard to make sure their plan is carried through. The plan will need to have practical goals and objective to meet one of the criteria important to this group of people. Often, the objectives will be expressed in a numerical fashion. Time spent on planning is seen as a wise investment. Concrete-Global people are inclined to test their plan more against its underlying logic than against reality.

Concrete-Linear

Individuals scoring high on both Concrete and Linear are practical and action-oriented. Their credo is “Give us the facts and get out of our way!” These individuals see the use of logic and hard analysis as valuable and necessary. On the other hand, they are impatient with the planning process and often question its value. They are at their best when the problem to be fixed can be readily analyzed and contain an element of urgency. Objective and pragmatic, these individuals are not drawn to problems just because they are problems. The problems need to have practical results if solved.

https://thewineingercompany.com/

Dennis Muilenberg – People First, Customer Always!

 

Dennis Muilenberg was made the CEO of $34B Boeing Defense Security and Space in September 2009.  He subsequently was made the CEO of all Boeing in Chicago.  One of his key mantras, as he moved to implement his own vision for the organizations, was:

People First, Customers Always!

He believes that executing upon the People First theme includes the following:

Employee Development

• Professional and Technical Training
• Mentoring, Rotations, Knowledge Management
• Employee Development Plans
• Leadership Development / BLC / LTL
• Succession Planning

Employee Engagement

• Meaningful and Challenging Work
• Timely and Sincere Recognition
• HPWO and Employee Involvement
• Employee Survey Action Plans
• Roundtables, Webcasts, Staff Meetings, Blogs

Employee Health & Well-Being

• Clean & Safe Workplace
• Employee Wellness
• People First – People Fit
• Community Involvement and Volunteerism
• Family Events

Employee Focused Culture

• Open & Honest / Leadership Matters
• Ethical Behaviors & Decisions
• Diversity in Thought and Representation
• PE BG&O’s and Discussions
• Management Accountability Scorecard

https://sliwainsights.com/

Five Essential Elements for Building a Strong Strategy Execution Culture

 

by Terry Sterling

Many of our clients do an excellent job creating their strategic plan only to run into significant challenges on the strategy execution side, often due to cultural challenges. Culture, defined as the shared values, beliefs, norms, and behaviors that define how people within an organization interact with one another, plays a pivotal role in the success of any organizational strategy. An organization with a strong and aligned culture will not only embrace the actionable components of a well-designed strategy, but will enthusiastically implement the measures and initiatives to ensure its success. When a strong organizational culture is present, members of that organization are much more likely to exhibit shared values and desired behaviors that support strategy resulting in a shared sense of purpose and accountability.

So how does an organization establish a strong culture? We have found addressing the following five elements to be essential in building a strong strategy execution culture.

Element 1: Alignment of Values & Strategy

One of the most significant impacts organizational culture has on strategy execution is in the area of alignment of values. If a company’s strategy is compatible with its culture, a powerful coalition is generally found that can propel the performance aspects of an organization forward. Imagine, for example, a strategy focused on innovation and agility in a culture that highly values creativity and experimentation. In this type of environment, employees are much more likely to embrace, contribute to, and execute strategic objectives enthusiastically.

On the flip side, when a disconnect between culture and strategy occurs, execution quickly becomes an uphill battle with less than optimal results. Organizational cultures, for example, rooted deeply in bureaucracy and risk-aversion, will generally foster an environment of resistance and pushback, especially when attempting to implement a strategy that requires rapid-decision making.

Element 2: Leadership

Leadership has a significant impact when it comes to shaping an organization’s culture. Effective and experienced leaders understand culture is not something that can be imposed from the top down. Rather, it is a process that must be nurtured over time, in order to morph into a desired culture where individuals are content, motivated, empowered and committed. These types of desired behaviors must be modeled by the organization’s leaders and actively promoted throughout the organization. If leadership fails to do this, the cultural aspects of an organization will develop on their own and it may be a far cry from what is necessary for an organization to succeed.

When leaders put forth the required effort to align with the culture and its strategy, a sense of purpose and direction permeate an organization and can often lead to the development of a high-performance culture where the successful execution of strategy is much more likely. Employees look to leaders for guidance and inspiration, as well as purpose. When leaders are observed demonstrating the cultural values of the organization, it reinforces the connection between strategy and execution.

Element 3: Employee Engagement and Motivation

Another critical aspect of culture’s impact on strategy execution is its influence on employee engagement and motivation. While leadership greatly influences this area, other factors also weigh in. It is about mutual respect and creating an organizational environment characterized by a sense of belonging and purpose. It is a positive and inclusive culture where employees feel valued, heard, and respected. When these things are present in a culture, employees are much more likely to be fully engaged in their work and committed towards organizational goals.

Not only are engaged employees more productive, but the are the ones generally willing to put forth that extra effort; to go the extra mile to ensure organizational success. They have a positive self-im

Element 4: Adaptability & Change

Today’s fast-paced business environment is constantly causing disruptions and change. Technology, for example, is impacting every organization as Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to evolve at lightning speed. The necessity to be able to adapt and make positive change in light of these disruptions is critical for long-term organizational survival. Organizational culture greatly impacts how well an organization is able to navigate through these changes. Cultures that encourage learning, experimentation, and resilience are much better positioned to handle these types of disruptions and leverage them to their advantage.

Cultures resistant to change, or those that are overly complacent can become a major hurdle to being able to successfully execute organizational strategy. In these types of organizations, we often see employees who are accustomed to a rigid and unchanging environment struggle greatly with new processes or technologies necessary for the organization to achieve. This results in poor execution and hinders the successful implementation and success of an organizational strategy.

Element 5: Risk-Taking and Innovation

In today’s competitive markets, organizations must focus on staying competitive and innovative. In order to do this, its culture must be one that supports risk-taking and innovation. A culture than provides encouragement to its employees to explore new ideas, take calculated risks, and learn from failures can be a powerful driver of strategy execution. Not only are employees engaged, but that are challenged to be creative problem solvers, resulting in a culture where continuous improvement is the norm.

Organizational culture is not a side note in the process of strategy execution; it is a central player capable of making or breaking the successful implementation of strategic initiatives critical to the success of the organization’s strategy. Developing a keen understanding of the cultural impact on strategy is not only crucial, but actionable. Leaders who recognize the interplay between culture and strategy can effectively shape and align both to drive their organization forward towards its desired outcomes.

Summary

It is vital to examine your culture and strategy from a holistic point of view. Regardless of what framework you might have utilized to develop your strategy, it is essential that cultural considerations be considered and embedded. Performance is more than just numbers and metrics. It involves the people who drive the execution of your strategies and how their beliefs and behaviors can either propel or impeded progress.

The importance of harmony and alignment in achieving goals cannot be overstated. Just as a well-orchestrated song requires every instrument to be in tune and in perfect timing, so too does a successful strategy require every element, including its culture to also be in harmony and in synch. It is in this end that the harmonious blend of strategy, culture, and the passion by its people in these cultures are able to achieve that pinnacle of success, or in this example, the ability to create the sweetest melodies of success in today’s business environment.

Do you need help with your culture? Are you interested in learning more about how to be successful in strategy execution? Consider attending our strategy execution course. For more information: https://strategymanage.com/practical-strategy-execution-certification/

https://balancedscorecard.org/

International Business: Control and Evaluation. Unit 9 - Multinational Corporate Culture and Host Countries

 

https://egyankosh.ac.in/

Performance Boost

 

What should you expect in terms of commercial outcomes from adopting the integrative approach of the ROUNDMAP™ strategic and executive framework?

4.1 - EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS

Although the effects of the deployment of the ROUNDMAP™ methodology will depend on the specific circumstances, the authors of HumanSigma suggest that increased engagement, which is one of the objectives of ROUNDMAP, will produce results ‘that far exceed companies’ expectations’. Kotter & Heskett’s extensive research on the effects of culture on performance even showed a 765% net income improvement over a period of 11 years (~22% YoY-growth, between 1977-1988).

https://bit.ly/3zgU2Br

When Engaged Employees Meet Engaged Customers

These moments produce results that far exceed companies' expectations, according to the authors of Human Sigma

A Q&A WITH JOHN H. FLEMING AND JIM ASPLUND, AUTHORS OF HUMAN SIGMA: MANAGING THE EMPLOYEE-CUSTOMER ENCOUNTER

In every company, there are workgroups that outperform the others, sometimes enormously. These groups are more productive, profitable, customer-focused, safer, and more likely to withstand the temptation to go elsewhere. Gallup spent years researching how to replicate their success -- and found that employee engagement is the key to high performance.

In every company, there are customers who outspend the others, sometimes enormously. They visit more often, resist competitive overtures, promote your brand to others, and forgive the occasional service hiccup. Gallup spent years researching how to replicate those customer relationships -- and found that customer engagement is the key to high profitability.

But then the researchers uncovered something puzzling. The data showed that when workgroups with engaged employees served engaged customers, the end result was something more than the sum of its parts. The equation of "engaged employees + engaged customers" produced results far exceeding what the researchers expected. So they dug deeper.

Using meta-analysis to analyze 1,979 business units in 10 different companies, they found that workgroups that score above the median on employee engagement and below the median on customer engagement are 1.7 times more financially effective than units that score below the median on both measures. Results were similar for workgroups that achieved the opposite results: above the median on customer engagement, below the median on employee engagement. But workgroups that scored above the median on both customer and employee engagement were, on average, 3.4 times more financially effective than the units ranking in the bottom half on both measures. They called the management approach developed to measure and manage the human systems in business "HumanSigma." (See graphic "The Impact of HumanSigma.")

It took a few more years to figure out how and why HumanSigma works and how to integrate the science into businesses. In their book Human Sigma: Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter, Gallup researchers John H. Fleming, Ph.D. and Jim Asplund explain HumanSigma and how companies can use it to get the most from their human systems.

In part one of this interview, the authors provide explicit insights for GMJ readers: what companies do to undermine HumanSigma; why people, not products, are the fulcrum of profitability; and why it's tempting to replace workers with machines -- and why you really, really shouldn't.

GMJ: How much of your thinking on HumanSigma is owed to Six Sigma?

Dr. Fleming: My answer to that is "some." Six Sigma offers some good conceptual ideas that help an organization improve itself by improving its processes. But remember that Six Sigma was developed in a manufacturing context, and the role people played in its equation was relatively small.

Once businesses had wrung all the improvements they could from improving their processes, they tried to apply Six Sigma to their human systems. And they failed, because people are hard to "fix." HumanSigma was developed as a response to the lack of effectiveness of Six Sigma methodology to increase productivity from people.

GMJ: Why are people so hard to fix?

Asplund: There are a couple of good reasons. If you buy a tractor or a furnace, you know what you're going to pay for it, how it'll depreciate, what the maintenance costs are likely to be, and roughly when it will quit working. If it pulls a load or melts steel at a given rate today, it'll perform the same or very close to it tomorrow.

But people don't work that way. They're unpredictable, both in ways that you might appreciate and ways that you don't. So because people -- employees and customers -- are much more unpredictable than machines, they can't be managed or directed in prescribed ways.

GMJ: You open the book by discussing "Terminator Management" as a failed way to cope with human unpredictability. Tell me what that is and why you think it's flawed.

Fleming: In the movies, the Terminator is programmed to accomplish a task, and he doesn't know how to do anything other than accomplish that task. He has no discretion, no learning capacity -- he just goes. What we call the "Terminator School of Management" deals with the difficulty of managing people by ignoring or squashing their humanity. We use it as a metaphor of how organizations squeeze human initiative and responsiveness from the service delivery system by scripting the range of behaviors that an employee is allowed to execute.

It's essentially a conventional way of thinking, the idea that "It would be great to get rid of all my employees; I'd be much happier if they were machines." But it's not effective in driving real organic growth and real change.

GMJ: How do you create real organic growth and change?

Fleming: When a company scripts employee behaviors, telling people exactly how to do the job rather than having them focus on the outcomes they should achieve if the job is done well, it creates automatons. It might reduce variability in how the job is done, but it also increases variability in the desired outcome. The result is service with no soul: bland, soulless, and undifferentiated.

The paradox here is that to achieve the desired outcome -- emotional engagement -- companies may actually need to increase the variability in the steps to create it. Executing bland, undifferentiated service will not create engaged customers, and it won't get you organic growth. Customers who buy more and shop more often create organic growth. Engaging them emotionally will create organic growth. Machines may execute tasks flawlessly, but they can't engage customers. And customers want more than transactions; they want relationships. Only people can build those.

GMJ: In your book, you said the employee-customer encounter is the new factory floor. What did you mean by that?

Fleming: If you contrast manufacturing environments with service economy environments, you need a new definition of value creation for a service economy. The definition that we landed on was that value is created when an employee and a customer come together and they interact.

That's different from manufacturing, where you create value by making a product that is ready to be sold. Creating value in a manufacturing context is fairly straightforward -- if you have a lot of broken products, you have problems; if you have no broken products, no poor-quality products, then your business can flourish.

In a service economy business, so much more is riding on the interactions that your employees have with your customers. You need a new set of tools to evaluate how well you're doing.

GMJ: Does HumanSigma apply to employees who don't interact directly with customers?

Asplund: Yes. Think of the guy on the loading dock; he may never talk to a customer. But if he drops a TV before he loads it on the truck or if he takes an extra three days to get it to the store, it affects customers regardless of whether he ever talks to them.

GMJ: You say in the book that companies should manage the employee and customer experience in tandem. But doesn't that require massive reorganization, all new integration of departments, different foci for leadership? How should you do it and why do you say it's worth doing?

Fleming: I'm not sure that bringing those two things together is all that radical a proposition. It doesn't happen very much today, but that doesn't mean it can't. HumanSigma has to be conceptualized and managed holistically. For example, one of the recommendations we make in the book is that if your company is not going to reorganize and create new human systems, the very least it can do is create a steering committee. That group should be responsible for HumanSigma initiatives and include representatives from all areas that are affected by them. Just getting your marketing and operations and human resources departments talking to one another and working together could create fundamental change.

GMJ: You used the word "soul" a lot in Human Sigma, and you emphasize the essential humanity of business. Why is humanity important in business? And how can companies control the emotional reactions of employees and customers?

Asplund: A company can't control people's emotional reactions -- but let me step back for a moment. The reason a company must understand the essential humanity of its customers and employees is because they are people first and customers and employees second. They're living, breathing, real people. Before a business can manage them effectively, it must understand how customers and employees think and how they react; it must understand their psychology and their emotional infrastructure.

Another thing to consider is that most companies treat people as rational in their decision making when they really are not. The vast majority of human decisions aren't made strictly through rational thought processes; they're made in many other ways, including intuitively. Habits and simple rules that developed in cultures thousands of years ago can predispose us to behave in certain ways. More of our reasoning is based on emotions than you would suppose.

Fleming: The employee-customer encounter is fundamentally emotional, and it must be measured and managed locally. We've found tremendous variation in performance and profitability from store to store or from workgroup to workgroup. But you won't see the variation at the business unit level, much less at the individual level, if you examine the operation too broadly. And we've found that telling employees to behave in exactly the same way with customers can actually increase variation.

GMJ: How? Doesn't outlining the procedural steps, essentially telling irrational humans exactly what to do, lead to better outcomes and higher profits?

Fleming: No. If you standardize everything, then everything becomes standard.

GMJ: Well, that's good, right? Standard is better than variation, isn't it?

Fleming: No. It just creates mediocrity. There's a paradox here that is important to recognize. What we're suggesting is that companies that have concentrated on creating consistency of execution have failed to create consistency in the outcomes that execution is intended to produce. Most are trying to control the process through which employees are delivering service by mandating the steps.

We flip that by telling companies to clearly define the outcomes, which include establishing emotional connections with customers. Companies should allow employees a much greater range of flexibility -- within clearly defined boundaries -- to achieve those outcomes and to establish and maintain connections with customers.

GMJ: Because customers aren't engaged by processes but by people.

Fleming: Exactly.

GMJ: But this seems very risky. Most companies are loath to give frontline staff that much responsibility.

Asplund: It's actually less risky than you might think, because your employees are doing it their way anyway, and they're not channeling their efforts effectively. They're people, and they're behaving like people. Trying to control their behavior just won't work.

Fleming: Instead, what you should do is understand their behavior and what makes them tick. Then try to use that understanding to manage them more effectively. Ultimately, that may mean you should exert less control over the execution to achieve more control over the outcome.

GMJ: But ceding control chips away at the power structure, and that's going to be hard for some executives to swallow.

Fleming: I think we're talking more about the control structure than the power structure. Terminator Management is really about a need for control. This approach sacrifices real service quality in favor of the illusion of control.

What we're advocating is for executives to let go of some of that control. You know, it's like the old adage: It's hard to reach for the future when you're holding on to the past. Sometimes you have to open your hands and let go of old ideas in order to grasp new ones.

-- Interviewed by Jennifer Robison

https://bit.ly/3bfe878

New Research: How Employee Engagement Hits the Bottom Line

by 

• Tony Schwartz
• 
  

What would contribute most to your being both happier and more productive at work? How about feeling truly taken care of, appreciated, and trusted by your employer?

More than 100 studies have affirmed the connection between employee engagement and performance, but the Towers Watson 2012 Global Workforce Study — 32,000 employees across 30 countries — makes the most powerful, bottom line case yet for the connection between how we feel at work and how we perform.

This new study concludes that the traditional definition of engagement — the willingness to invest discretionary effort on the job — is no longer sufficient to fuel top performance in a world of relentlessly increasing demand. The problem is that “willing” doesn’t guarantee “able.”

What’s required now is something called “sustainable engagement.” The key factor, the study finds, is a work environment that more fully energizes employees by promoting their physical, emotional and social well-being. I’d add to that mental and spiritual well being — or more specifically, the added energy derived from the capacity for absorbed focus and a strong sense of purpose.

“Many employers are pursuing a variety of wellness efforts, typically focused on giving incentives or penalties to people who embrace healthy behaviors like exercise, good diet or effective management of a chronic illness,” the report concludes. “These are important, but to sustain energy, employers have to go beyond these core programs and embrace the notion of workplace energy on a far broader plane.”

When they do, the consequences are nothing short of staggering.

In a broader analysis of 50 global companies, Towers Watson found that companies with low engagement scores had an average operating margin just under 10 percent. Those with high traditional engagement had a slightly higher margin of 14 percent. Companies with the highest “sustainable engagement” scores had an average one-year operating margin of 27 percent.

Forty percent of employees with low engagement scores said they were likely to leave their employers over the next two years, compared to 24 percent of traditionally engaged employees, and just 18 percent of employees with the highest “sustainable engagement” scores.

So what is energy, exactly? In physics, it’s simply the capacity to do work. In other words “energy” and “capacity” are essentially interchangeable. In simple terms, energy is the fuel in our tanks — what’s required to bring our skill and talent to life. Without sufficient energy, skill is rendered irrelevant. You can’t run on empty and that’s increasingly what employees are being asked to do.

Feelings of overload and burnout are default emotions in today’s organizations. Nor is this likely to change soon. Higher demand and fewer resources are the new normal. Effectively addressing the issue of capacity — energizing the workplace — depends on the willingness of individuals, leaders and organizations to each take responsibility for their roles.

For organizations, the challenge is to shift from their traditional focus on getting more out of people, to investing in meeting people’s core needs so they’re freed, fueled, and inspired to bring more of themselves to work, more sustainably.

Specifically, Towers Watson concludes that organizations must create policies and practices that make it possible for employees to better manage their workload, live more balanced lives and exercise greater autonomy around how, when, and where they get their work done. Policies focused on flexibility and working remotely contribute to a more energized workplace, we’ve found, and so does setting organization-wide boundaries around the length of meetings and the hours during which people are expected to respond to email.

For leaders, the key is to begin thinking of themselves as Chief Energy Officers. Energy is contagious, for better and for worse, and disproportionately so for leaders — by virtue of their influence. “The manager is at the heart of what we might think of as a personal employee ecosystem,” the Towers Watson study concludes, “shaping individual experience … day in and day out.”

Among sustainably engaged employees, for example, 74 percent in the study believed senior leaders had a sincere interest in their well-being. Only 44 percent of traditionally engaged employees felt the same way, while only a miniscule 18 percent of disengaged employees felt their managers genuinely cared about their well-being. No single behavior more viscerally and reliably influences the quality of people’s energy than feeling valued and appreciated by their supervisor.

For individual employees, the challenge is to take a measure of responsibility for their experience, and not allow themselves to default into victim mode. It’s bracing to discover how two people can experience the same workplace, and even the same set of demands, in entirely different ways.

Employees willing to take more responsibility for how they manage and take care of themselves — regardless of the sort of organization and supervisor they work for — end up feeling better and performing better than those who see themselves as victims. The mantra we use is a variation on the Serenity Prayer: “Invest your energy in what you have the power to influence. Don’t invest energy in what you can’t influence, and have the wisdom to know the difference.”

A workplace that really works? It begins with employers and employees truly valuing and investing in one another.

https://bit.ly/3zJYoTi

You may have noticed that these impressive growth numbers aren’t the result of better marketing, sales, or customer service, rather from a culture in which employees are given the opportunity, skills, systems, and trust to be able to commit themselves to offer customers the value they deserve and take full responsibility for it. We call this Customer Excellence.

4.2 - REACTIVE VERSUS PROACTIVE

Author Jan Bommerez is clear about it: if people are allowed to proactively assist customers to help them achieve their objectives, sooner rather than later, employee motivation, passion, pleasure, and trust will rise. However, if employees are only allowed to react to problems, stress will take over and employee motivation, passion, pleasure, and trust will tumble ─ increasing sick leave and employee turnover. The trick is to manage each process from a perspective of a desired future, instead of from a distressed state of problem-solving.

4.3 - SYNERGY IN A COMPLEX SYSTEM

Organizations are complex systems in that they are able to solve things as a whole, that none of its parts is capable of doing by itself. This is called synergy. Swiss mathematician and sociologist Dirk Helbing and his group found that the dynamics of a flock of birds, which can be seen as a typical complex system, can be described using merely three rules:

1. ALIGNMENT ─ Each bird aligns its flight with the average flight direction of the local flock (the part of the flock close to it).
2. COHESION ─ Each bird moves towards the average position of the local flock.
3. SEPARATION ─ Each bird tries to avoid local over-crowding and predators.

The behavior of a flock is part of its strategy: to protect each individual from predators. Within organizations, large groups of individuals are bound to show similar behavior, however, when members are unaware of the mission or don’t understand their part in it, they will become disconnected. You might have heard of the expression ‘Birds of a feather flock together’: people with similar backgrounds will herd into smaller groups ─ creating organizational silos ─ to protect each other while some may even perceive other ‘flocks’ as predators. It isn’t hard to see that those disconnected and unaligned organizations will have a hard time achieving their mission.

"Building a visionary company requires one percent vision and 99 percent alignment."

~ Jim Collins in Built to Last

https://bit.ly/3wM9OTS