воскресенье, 12 июля 2015 г.

9 Awesome Things Entrepreneurs Are Too Nice To Brag About




Successful entrepreneurs make money. Wildly successful entrepreneurs make serious money.
But money isn't the sole reward--or the sole driver.
Every entrepreneur also possesses qualities that don't appear on balance sheets but do make a significant impact on their employees, their industry, their communities... and most importantly, the lives of other people.
Here are nine things you're too modest to brag about:
1. You find happiness in the success of others.
Great business teams win because their most talented members are willing to sacrifice to make others happy. Great teams are made up of employees who help each other, know their roles, set aside personal goals, and value team success over everything else.
Where does that attitude come from?
You.
Every great entrepreneur answers the question, "Can you make the choice that your happiness will come from the success of others?" with a resounding "Yes!"
2. You're incredibly empathetic.
Unless you create something entirely new--which is very hard to do--your business is based on fulfilling an existing need or solving a problem.
It's impossible to identify a need or a problem without the ability to put yourself in another person's shoes; that's the mark of a successful entrepreneur.
But many entrepreneurs go a step farther, regularly putting themselves in the shoes of their employees.
Success isn't a line trending upwards. Success is a circle. No matter how high your business--and your ego--soars, success still comes back to your employees.
3. You relentlessly seek new experiences.
Novelty seeking--getting bored easily and throwing yourself into new pursuits or activities--is often linked to gambling, drug abuse, attention deficit disorder, andleaping out of perfectly good airplanes without a parachute.
But, according to Dr. Robert Cloninger, "Novelty seeking is one of the traits that keeps you healthy and happy and fosters personality growth as you age... if you combine adventurousness and curiosity with persistence and a sense that it's not all about you, then you get the creativity that benefits society as a whole."
As Cloninger says, "To succeed, you want to be able to regulate your impulses while also having the imagination to see what the future would be like if you tried something new."
And that's why you embrace your inner novelty seeker: it makes you healthier, you have more friends, and you'll be generally more satisfied with life.
4. You don't think work/life balance; you just think life.
Symbolic work-life boundaries are almost impossible to maintain. Why? You are your business. Your business is your life, just like your life is your business--which is also true for family, friends, and interests--so there is no separation, because all those things make you who you are.
And that's why you find ways to include your family instead of ways to exclude your work. You find ways to include interests, hobbies, passions, and personal values in your daily business life.
If you can't, you're not living--you're just working.
5. You have something to prove--to yourself.
Many people have a burning desire to prove other people wrong. That's a great motivator.
But you're driven by something deeper and more personal. True drive, commitment, and dedication springs from a desire to prove something to the most important person of all.
You.
6. You ignore the 40-hour workweek hype.
Studies show that working more than 40 hours a week decreases productivity.
Whatever.
Successful business owners work smarter, sure, but they also outwork their competition. (Every successful business owner I know who reads those stories probably thinks, "Cool. Hopefully my competitors will believe that crap.")
Author Richard North Patterson tells a great story about Robert Kennedy. Kennedy was seeking to indict Teamsters head Jimmy Hoffa (who some believe is chilling in Argentina with Elvis and Jim Morrison). One night Kennedy worked on the Hoffa case until about 2 a.m. One his way home he passed the Teamsters building and saw the lights were still on in Hoffa's office, so he turned around and went back to work.
There will always be people who are smarter and more talented than you. And that's okay--because you want it more. You're ruthless, especially with themselves.
You? You work harder. That's the real secret of your success.
7. You see money as a responsibility, not a reward.
Many entrepreneurial cautionary tales involve buying 17 cars, loading up on pricey antiques, importing Christmas trees, and spending $40,000 a year for a personal masseuse.
Wait--maybe that's just ex-Adelphia founder John Rigas.
You don't see money solely as a personal reward; you see money as a way to grow your business, reward and develop employees, give back to the community... in short, not just to make your own lives better but to improve the lives of other people, too.
And most importantly they do so without fanfare, because the true reward is always in the act, not the recognition.
8. You don't think you're special.
In a world of social media everyone can be their own PR agent. It's incredibly easy for of us to blow our own horns and bask in the glow of our insights and accomplishments.
You don't. You accept your success is based on ambition, persistence, and execution... but you also recognize that key mentors, remarkable employees, and a huge dose of luck also played a part.
Instead you reap the rewards of humility by asking questions, seeking advice, recognizing and praising others....
9. You know success is fleeting... but dignity and respect last forever.
Providing employees with higher pay, better benefits, and greater opportunities is certainly important. But no level of pay and benefits can overcome damage to self-esteem and self-worth.

And that's why you do, because you know that when you do... everything else follows.

вторник, 7 июля 2015 г.

3 Ways Leaders Accidentally Undermine Their Teams’ Creativity

JULY 07, 2015
JUL15_07_97069555
There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about where creativity comes from and how to nurture and grow it in a team. As a result, even well-meaning leaders can end up killing the creativity of a team when they need it most.
If your team is in the midst of solving a problem or generating a new product or project idea, you might be killing their creativity without even trying. Here are three of the most common things managers do that have deleterious effects:
1. Spending too much time on brainstorming. There’s an ever-growing body of literature on the benefits and drawbacks of brainstorming, and experts on both sides arguing that it does or doesn’t work. Most of these arguments miss the true point: brainstorming as commonly practiced represents just one step in the large creative process, a step often referred to as divergent thinking. Researchers have developed a variety of different models of creativity, from the Osborn-Parnes creative problem-solving method to design thinking. What all of these methods share are some common stages, of which brainstorming is only one. Before divergent thinking can have any benefit, your team needs to have thoroughly researched the problem and be sure that their brainstorming answers the right question. Afterward, divergent thinking should be followed up with convergent thinking, where ideas are combined and sorted out to find the few answers that might be the best fit so that they can be prototyped, tested, and refined. But if your entire creative method is to get your team into a room and fill up a whiteboard, you are missing out.
2. Fostering too much cohesion. When you’re leading a team, team building is a high priority. The long-standing Tuckman model of group development emphasizes that new teams go through three phases – forming, storming, and norming. It’s easy to look at models like that and think that cohesion and friendliness should be the ultimate goal. But surprisingly, when it comes to creativity, the best teams fight a little (or even a lot). Structured, task-oriented conflict can be a signal that new ideas are being submitted to the group and tested. If you team always agrees, that might suggest that people are self-censoring their ideas, or worse, not generating any new ideas at all. Research suggests that teams that forgo traditional brainstorming rules and debate over ideas as they’re presented end up with more and better ideas. As a leader, it may seem like your job is to break up and fights, but don’t be afraid to act as a referee instead — allowing the fight over ideas to unfold, but making sure it stays fair and doesn’t get personal.
3. Judging ideas before they’ve been tested. In most organizations, once an individual or team has settled on their new idea for a product or project, they prepare to pitch it to whomever they need approval from. Whether the idea only needs you approval as the team leader, or whether it needs to be pitched through the entire hierarchy to win a green light, how new ideas are treated can dramatically and negatively affect creativity. To begin, research shows that we aren’t really that great at judging new ideas. We tend to favor ideas that reinforce the status quo and managers often tend toreject the ideas customers say they want. Compounding the issue is that, once an individual or team presents the idea and is met with rejection, the likelihood of them continuing to “think outside the box” is diminished. The result is the safe, stale ideas our biases favor—the very ones we don’t need. Instead of judging ideas first and then testing them in the marketplace, the best leaders find ways to test ideas first and defer judgment until they have early results. Whether it’s by giving everyone permission to prototype like Adobe’s Kickbox or by selling the product before it actually exists, focus on getting real results to demonstrate proof-of-concept before new ideas need to be pitched.
These ideas may seem counter-intuitive at first. Indeed, these accidental creativity killers actually seem positive on the surface. But there’s a growing body of research and case studies suggesting that underneath the surface, they’re causing more harm than good. So try the inverse and see what affect it has on your team’s creativity.

David Burkus is the author of The Myths of Creativity: The Truth About How Innovative Companies and People Generate Great Ideas. He is also founder of LDRLBand assistant professor of management at Oral Roberts University

The Future of Management Is Teal

Organizations are moving forward along an evolutionary spectrum, toward self-management, wholeness, and a deeper sense of purpose.

Illustration by Martin O’Neill

Many people sense that the way organizations are run today has been stretched to its limits. In survey after survey, businesspeople make it clear that in their view, companies are places of dread and drudgery, not passion or purpose. Organizational disillusionment afflicts government agencies, nonprofits, schools, and hospitals just as much. Further, it applies not just to the powerless at the bottom of the hierarchy. Behind a facade of success, many top leaders are tired of the power games and infighting; despite their desperately overloaded schedules, they feel a vague sense of emptiness. All of us yearn for better ways to work together — for more soulful workplaces where our talents are nurtured and our deepest aspirations are honored.
The premise of this article is that humanity is at a threshold; a new form of organization is emerging into public view. Anthropological research suggests that this is a natural next step in a process that began more than 100,000 years ago. There have been, according to this view, at least five distinct organizational paradigms in human history. Could the current organizational disillusionment be a sign that civilization is outgrowing the current model and getting ready for the next?
A number of pioneering organizations in a wide variety of sectors — profit and nonprofit — are already operating with significantly new structures and management practices. They tend to be successful and purposeful, showing the promise of this emerging organizational model. They show how we can deal with the complexity of our times in wholly new ways, and how work can become a place of personal fulfillment and growth. By contrast, they make most of today’s organizations look painfully outdated.

A History of Organizational Paradigms

In describing the pattern of organizational evolution, I draw on the work of a number of thinkers in a field known as “developmental theory.” One of its basic concepts is the idea that human societies, like individuals, don’t grow in linear fashion, but in stages of increasing maturity, consciousness, and complexity. Various scholars have assigned different names to these stages; philosopher Ken Wilber uses colors to identify them, in a sequence that evokes the light spectrum, from infrared to ultraviolet. I borrow his color scheme as a convenient way to name the successive stages of management evolution (see Exhibit 1).
Around 10,000 years ago, humanity started organizing itself in chiefdoms and proto-empires. With this shift away from small tribes, the meaningful division of labor came into being — a breakthrough invention for its time. With it came the first real organizations, in the form of small conquering armies. These organizations, which in integral theory are labeled Red, are crude, often violent groups. People at this stage of development tend to regard the world as a tough place where only the powerful (or those they protect) get their needs met. This was the origin of command authority. The chief, like the alpha male in a wolf pack, needs to constantly inspire fear to keep underlings in line, and often relies on family members in hopes that they can be trusted. Today’s street gangs, terrorist groups, and crime syndicates are often organized along these lines.
Starting around 4000 BC in Mesopotamia, humanity entered the Amber age of agriculture, state bureaucracies, and organized religion. Psychologically, this leap was enormous: People learned to exercise self-discipline and self-control, internalizing the strong group norms of all agricultural societies. Do what’s right and you will be rewarded, in this life or the next. Do or say the wrong things, and you will be excommunicated from the group.
All agrarian societies are divided into clearly delineated castes. They thrive on order, control, and hierarchy. In organizations, the same principles characterize the Amber stage. The fluid, scheming wolf pack–like Red organizations give way to static, stratified pyramids. The Catholic Church is an archetypal Amber organization, complete with a static organization chart linking all levels of activity in lines and boxes, from the pope at the top to the cardinals below and down to the archbishops, bishops, and priests. Historically, the invention of formal roles and hierarchies was a major breakthrough. It allowed organizations to scale beyond anything Red society could have contemplated. Amber organizations produced the pyramids, irrigation systems, cathedrals, the Great Wall of China, and other structures and feats that were previously unthinkable. They also considerably reduced violence; a priest whose role is defined by a box in an organization chart doesn’t scheme to backstab a bishop who shows a sign of weakness. A second breakthrough was the invention of stable, replicable processes, such as the yearly cycle of planting, growing, and harvest in agriculture.
Today, this hierarchical and process-driven model is visible in large bureaucratic enterprises, many government agencies, and most education and military organizations. In Amber organizations, thinking and execution are strictly separated. People at the bottom must be instructed through command and control. In today’s fast-changing, knowledge-based economy, this static, top-down conception of management has proven to be inefficient; it wastes the talent, creativity, and energy of most people in these organizations.
Starting with the Renaissance, and gaining steam with the Enlightenment and the early Industrial Revolution, a new management concept emerged that challenged its agrarian predecessor. In the Orange paradigm, the world is no longer governed by absolute, God-given rules; it is a complex mechanism that can be understood and exploited through scientific and empirical investigation. Effectiveness replaces morality as the yardstick for decision making: The best decision is the one that begets the highest reward. The goal in an Orange organization is to get ahead, to succeed in socially acceptable ways, and to best play the cards one is dealt. This is arguably the predominant perspective of most leaders in business and politics today.
The leap to Orange coincided with three significant management breakthroughs that gave us the modern corporation. First was the concept of innovation, which brought with it new departments such as R&D, product management, and marketing, as well as project teams and cross-functional initiatives. Second was accountability, which provided leaders with an alternative to commanding people: Give people targets to reach, using freedom and rewards to motivate them. This breakthrough, sometimes called management by objectives, led to the creation of modern HR practices, budgets, KPIs, yearly evaluations, bonus systems, and stock options. Third was meritocracy, the idea that anyone could rise to any position based on his or her qualifications and skills — a radical concept when it appeared.
The transition to Orange brought a new prevailing metaphor. A good organization is not a wolf pack or army, but a machine. Corporate leaders adopted engineering terms to describe their work: they designed the company, using inputs and outputs, information flows, and bottlenecks; they downsized the staff and reengineered their companies. Most large, mainstream publicly listed companies operate with Orange management practices.
In just two and a half centuries, these breakthroughs have generated unprecedented levels of prosperity, added decades to human life expectancy, and dramatically reduced famine and plague in the industrialized world. But as the Orange paradigm grew dominant, it also encouraged short-term thinking, corporate greed, overconsumption, and the reckless exploitation of the planet’s resources and ecosystems. Increasingly, whether we are powerful leaders or low-ranking employees, we feel that this paradigm isn’t sustainable. The heartless and soulless rat race of Orange organizations has us yearning for more.
Postmodernity brought us another world view. The Green stage stresses cooperation over competition and strives for equality, solidarity, and tolerance. Historically, this perspective inspired the fights for the abolition of slavery, and for gender equality, and today it helps combat racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination. Green organizations, which include many nonprofits as well as companies such as Southwest Airlines, Starbucks, and the Container Store, consider social responsibility the core of their mission. They serve not just shareholders but all stakeholders, knowing that this often results in higher costs in the short term, but better returns in the end.
Green leaders have championed the soft aspects of business — investing in organizational culture and values, coaching, mentoring, and teamwork — over the hard aspects of strategy and budgeting so prized in Orange. Family is their metaphor; everyone’s voice should be heard and respected. You can’t treat knowledge workers like cogs in a machine. Empowerment and egalitarian management are among the breakthroughs they introduced.
Practice shows, alas, that empowerment and egalitarian management are hard to sustain. Efforts to make everyone equal often lead to hidden power struggles, dominant actors who coopt the system, and organizational gridlock. Green companies, universities, and organizations that take egalitarianism too far have tended to bog down in debate and factionalism. Successful Green companies maintain a careful balance: taming the traditional hierarchy through constant investment in training and culture; reminding leaders and managers to wield their power carefully; and raising the skills of people on the front lines.
All of these organizational paradigms coexist today. In any major city one can find Red organizations (entities at the fringes of the law), Amber organizations (public schools and other government entities), Orange organizations (Wall Street and Main Street companies), and Green organizations (values-driven businesses and many nonprofits). Look closely at how an organization operates — its structure, leadership style, or any core management process — and you can quickly guess the dominant paradigm. Take compensation, for example: How are people rewarded? In a Red company, the boss shares the spoils as he or she pleases, buying allegiance through reward and punishment. In Amber organizations, salaries are tightly linked to a person’s level in the hierarchy (“same rank, same pay”) and there are no incentives or bonuses. Orange companies offer individual incentives to reward star performers, while Green companies generally award team bonuses to encourage cooperation.
Today, in small but increasing numbers, leaders are growing into the next stage of consciousness, beyond Green. They are mindful, taming the needs and impulses of their ego. They are suspicious of their own desires — to control their environment, to be successful, to look good, or even to accomplish good works. Rejecting fear, they listen to the wisdom of other, deeper parts of themselves. They develop an ethic of mutual trust and assumed abundance. They ground their decision making in an inner measure of integrity. They are ready for the next organizational paradigm. Its color is Teal.

The Nature of Teal

In 2012, I set out to find some examples of Teal organizations and describe the factors that set them apart. To qualify, an organization had to employ a minimum of 100 people and had to have been operating for a minimum of five years in ways that were consistent with the characteristics of a Teal stage of human development.
After screening a great number of organizations, I focused on 12, selecting those that were most advanced in reinventing management structures and practices. (See “Examples of Teal Management,”  where ten are listed; the other two, AES and BSO/Origin, reverted back to more traditional management practices after a change of CEO or ownership). I was struck by the diversity of these organizations. They include publicly held and privately held for-profit corporations along with nonprofits in the consumer products, industrial, healthcare, retail, and education industries. Typically, the leaders of these companies didn’t know about one another. They often thought they were the only ones to be so foolhardy as to rethink their management practices in fundamental ways. Yet, after much trial and error, they came up with strikingly similar approaches to management. It seems that a coherent new organizational model is emerging.

EXAMPLES OF TEAL MANAGEMENT

Buurtzorg: a Netherlands-based healthcare nonprofit, profiled in this article.
ESBZ: a publicly financed school in Berlin, covering grades seven to 12, which has attracted international attention for its innovative curriculum and organizational model.
FAVI: a brass foundry in France, which produces (among other things) gearbox forks for the automotive industry, and has about 500 employees.
Heiligenfeld: a 600-employee mental health hospital system, based in central Germany, which applies a holistic approach to patient care.
Morning Star: a U.S.-based tomato processing company with 400 to 2,400 employees (depending on the season) and a 30 to 40 percent share of the North American market. (If you have eaten pizza or spaghetti sauce in the U.S., you have probably tasted a Morning Star product).
Patagonia: a US$540 million manufacturer of climbing gear and outdoor apparel; based in California and employing 1,300 people, it is dedicated to being a positive influence on the natural environment.
Resources for Human Development (RHD): a 4,000-employee nonprofit social services agency operating in 14 states in the U.S., providing services related to addiction recovery, homelessness, and mental disabilities.
Sounds True: a publisher of multimedia offerings related to spirituality and personal development, with 90 employees in the United States.
Sun Hydraulics: a maker of hydraulic cartridge valves and manifolds, with factories in the U.S., the U.K., Germany, and Korea employing about 900 people.
Holacracy: a management system first developed at the Philadelphia-based software company Ternary, which has been adopted by a few hundred profit- and not-for-profit organizations around the world, most famously by Zappos.
  • Source: Frederic Laloux, Reinventing Organizations (Nelson Parker, 2014)
Like previous leaps to new stages of management, the new model comes with a number of important breakthroughs:
• Self-management. Teal organizations operate effectively, even at a large scale, with a system based on peer relationships. They set up structures and practices in which people have high autonomy in their domain, and are accountable for coordinating with others. Power and control are deeply embedded throughout the organizations, no longer tied to the specific positions of a few top leaders.
• Wholeness. Whereas Orange and Green organizations encourage people to show only their narrow “professional” selves, Teal organizations invite people to reclaim their inner wholeness. They create an environment wherein people feel free to fully express themselves, bringing unprecedented levels of energy, passion, and creativity to work.
• Evolutionary purpose. Teal organizations base their strategies on what they sense the world is asking from them. Agile practices that sense and respond replace the machinery of plans, budgets, targets, and incentives. Paradoxically, by focusing less on the bottom line and shareholder value, they generate financial results that outpace those of competitors.

Changing Paradigms at Buurtzorg

Buurtzorg, a large Dutch nursing care provider, is a good example of an organization running with Teal management structures and practices. Since the 19th century, every neighborhood in the Netherlands has had a local nurse who makes home visits to care for the sick and the elderly. These nurses operated largely autonomously until the early 1990s. Then, to maximize efficiency and reduce costs, the government created incentives for care-giving agencies to merge into larger enterprises.
The new agencies, most of which were private companies, gravitated toward an Orange paradigm. Seeking to minimize downtime and allocate staff flexibly, they set up centralized call centers; instead of calling their nurse personally, clients now had to dial the center. Planners were hired to devise daily visiting schedules that minimized travel times. The agencies instituted time standards: 10 minutes for intravenous injections, 15 minutes for bathing, and 2.5 minutes for changing a compression stocking. Barcode stickers, placed on patients’ front doors, tracked the nurses’ progress so central managers could analyze their efficiency. As these organizations consolidated, they added more layers of management, all with the intention of increasing efficiencies and squeezing out costs.
The outcome has been distressing to patients and nurses alike. Clients, who are often elderly, have to cope with new faces in their home at every visit. They must repeat their medical histories to hurried nurses who have no time allotted for listening. The nurses, for their part, find these working conditions degrading. They know they should spend more time trying to understand the changing conditions of their patients, but they simply can’t. The whole system is prone to errors, conflicts, and complaints.
Buurtzorg (the name means neighborhood care in Dutch) was founded in 2006 by Jos de Blok, who had experienced these problems firsthand, as a nurse for 10 years and then as a manager. His new organization is extraordinarily successful, having grown from four to 9,000 nurses in its first eight years and achieving outstanding levels of care. He set up the company as a self-managing enterprise. Nurses work in teams of 10 to 12, each team serving around 50 patients in a small, well-defined neighborhood.
Buurtzorg has a distinctive outlook on the nature of care. Its purpose is not to give shots and change bandages as efficiently as they can, but to help its patients live, as much as possible, a rich and autonomous life. Nurses regularly sit down for coffee with their patients. They help them structure their own support networks and reach out to families and neighbors. Patients see the same one or two nurses all the time, and often form deep bonds of trust and intimacy with them.
Buurtzorg’s purpose is not to give shots and change bandages efficiently but to help elderly patients live a rich and autonomous life.
Clients and nurses love Buurtzorg. Only eight years after its founding, its market share has reached 60 percent. Financially, the results are stellar, too. One 2009 study found that Buurtzorg requires, on average, only 40 percent of the care hours needed by a more conventional approach, because patients become self-sufficient much faster. Emergency hospital admissions have been cut by a third, and the average hospital stay of a Buurtzorg patient is shorter. It’s estimated that the Dutch social security system would save $2 billion per year if the entire home-care industry adopted Buurtzorg’s operations model.

Self-Management and Its Misconceptions

Buurtzorg’s 9,000 employees operate entirely with self-managing practices. Local teams of 10 to 12 nurses decide which patients to serve, how to allocate tasks, where to rent offices, how to integrate with the local communities, which doctors and pharmacies to work with, and how to collaborate with nearby hospitals. They monitor their own performance and take corrective action if productivity drops. Teams don’t have team leaders; management tasks are spread across the members, all of whom are nurses.
One common misconception about self-management is that everyone is equal and decisions are made by consensus, which requires endless meetings. The truth is very different. Self-management requires a whole set of interlocking structures and practices, so that decision rights and power flow to any individual who has the expertise, interest, or willingness to step in to oversee a situation. Fluid, natural hierarchies replace the fixed power hierarchies of the pyramid. This requires explicit training. At Buurtzorg, all new team members take a course called Solution-Driven Methods of Interaction, learning sophisticated listening and communication skills, techniques for running meetings and making decisions, and methods of coaching one another and providing perspective.
You might assume that all this is managed through staff functions — the source of capability and power in many Orange and Green organizations. But Buurtzorg’s 9,000 nurses are supported by fewer than 50 staff people. The nurses do their own recruiting and purchasing, contracting for specialized medical or legal expertise when needed. They align with the larger organization not through rules and procedures, but through the collaboration methods they learned. A powerful internal social network allows them to draw on guidance and medical expertise from fellow nurses in other parts of the country, many of whom they’ve never met.

The Embrace of Wholeness

In Amber, Orange, and Green organizations, people typically show up wearing a mask: the bishop’s robe, the doctor’s white coat, and the executive’s suit all embody subtle, but real, expectations. Leaders fear that if people brought all of themselves to work — their moods, quirks, deepest aspirations, and uncertainties — things would quickly fall into disorder. Most people adopt an air of resolution and determination, favoring their masculine, rational selves. It feels unsafe to reveal the caring, inquiring, intuitive, and spiritual aspects of the self, or to express a desire for meaning. Many of us end up disowning some fundamental aspects of our selves. When an organization feels lifeless, is it because we bring so little life to work?
Teal organizations start from the premise, resonant with many wisdom traditions, that a person’s deepest calling is to achieve wholeness. These organizations engender vibrant workspaces and practices where trust flourishes. People feel they can truly be themselves. Simple management practices foster a sense of personal connection. At Patagonia’s headquarters in Ventura, Calif., for example, the company maintains a child development center for employees’ preschoolers. Children’s laughter and chatter are regularly heard; kids visit their parents’ desks, join adults for lunch at the cafeteria, and run around in the playground outside. One sometimes sees a mother nursing her child during a meeting. At another Teal company, Sounds True, people regularly bring their dogs to work. Meetings often take place with two or three dogs lying at people’s feet. Having children and animals present tends to reconnect people with deeper parts of themselves; they see one another not only as colleagues, but as part of a common humanity.
One harbinger of the rise of consciousness in the business world is the support given to contemplative practices. It’s becoming fashionable, even in Wall Street banks, to offer meditation classes. But these are often treated as add-ons, separate from the real work. At the Heiligenfeld hospital chain inner work is woven deeply into daily life. Every week, colleagues from their five hospitals come together for 75 minutes of intensive, reflective dialogue about a theme such as dealing with risks or learning from mistakes. Heiligenfeld also devotes four days per year to silence. The staff speaks only when needed, in whispers; patients engage in forms of therapy that require no words, such as walks in the woods or painting sessions. People learn to interact from a deep place when words are not at hand.
The quest for wholeness can also be seen on the factory floor. At FAVI, a French automotive supplier, all engineers and administrative workers are trained to operate at least one assembly-line machine. When orders must be rushed out, white-collar workers come in to run the machines for a few hours. It’s a wonderful community-building practice. People in engineering and administrative roles work under the guidance of the machine operators. They see for themselves how hard the work on the machines can be and how much skill it involves.
FAVI also has an in-depth onboarding process that ends with new teammates writing an open letter to the colleagues they have joined. The letters often describe how, perhaps for the first time in their career as a machine operator, their voice counts at work and they are considered worthy of trust and appreciation.

Evolutionary Purpose

Most organizations define a purpose for themselves in the form of a mission statement, which is typically engraved on a plaque in the headquarters lobby. Most of these statements, of course, sound hollow. The espoused purpose can’t compete with the pursuit of profits or competitive advantage.
Buurtzorg’s purpose, as discussed above, is to help sick and elderly patients live a rich and autonomous life. Its competitive advantage is the way it fulfills that purpose, with self-organization and wholeness. If it were a more traditional organization, it would try to keep this competitive advantage secret, and gain market share accordingly. Founder de Blok did the opposite. He wrote a book (Buurtzorg: Menselijkheid Boven Bureaucratie, [Boom Lemma uitgevers, 2010], coauthored with Aart Pool, whose title translates as “Humanity above Bureaucracy”) in which he documented Buurtzorg’s revolutionary ways of operating in great detail. He accepts all invitations from competitors to explain his methods, and acts as an advisor for two direct competitors without compensation.
“The whole notion of competition makes no sense,” says de Blok. “If you share knowledge and information, things will change more quickly.”
Making purpose the cornerstone of an organization has profound consequences for leadership. In today’s dominant management paradigm (Orange), leaders are supposed to define a winning strategy and then marshal the organization to execute it, like the human programmer of a machine who controls what it will do. In the Teal paradigm, founders and leaders view the organization as a living entity, with its own energy, sense of direction, and calling to manifest something in the world. They don’t force a course of action; they try to listen to where the organization is naturally called to go. None of the organizations I researched has a strategy document. Gone are the often dreaded strategy formulation exercises, and much of the machinery of midterm plans, yearly budgets, cascaded KPIs, and individual targets. Instead of trying to predict and control, they aim to sense and respond.
FAVI uses a metaphor to explain this. Other companies look five years ahead and make plans for the next year. They prefer to think like farmers: Look 20 years ahead, and plan only for the next day. A farmer must look far out when deciding which fruit trees to plant or which crops to grow. But it makes no sense to plan a precise date for the harvest. One cannot control the weather, the crops, the soil; they all have a life of their own. Sticking rigidly to plan, instead of sensing and adjusting to reality, leads to having the harvest go to waste, which too often happens in organizations.
Practices based on sensing and responding, combined with self-management, lead to high levels of innovation. Two nurses on a Buurtzorg team found themselves pondering the fact that elderly people, when they fall, often break their hips. Could Buurtzorg help prevent this? Their team created a partnership with a physiotherapist and an occupational therapist from their neighborhood. They advised patients on small changes they could bring to their home interiors, and changes of habit that would minimize the risk of falling. Happy with their success, they approached de Blok to suggest turning “Buurtzorg+” (Buurtzorg + prevention) into a national program.
Had de Blok been a traditional CEO, he might have analyzed the idea and, if he approved it, assigned a team in headquarters to develop a comprehensive implementation plan. His actual answer was much humbler: Why should he, rather than the system itself, decide if this was a wise thing to do? He suggested that the same team of nurses package their approach and disseminate the idea on the company’s internal social network. Hundreds of teams showed interest and the idea quickly caught on. Within a year, almost all teams had incorporated prevention into their work using that model.
In a self-managing, purpose-driven organization, change can come from any person who senses that change is needed. This is how change has occurred in nature for millions of years. Innovation doesn’t happen centrally, according to plan, but at the edges, when some organism senses a change in the environment and experiments to find an appropriate response. Some attempts fail to catch on; others rapidly spread to all corners of the ecosystem.

Becoming a Teal Organization

Some companies, like Buurtzorg, are advanced on all three Teal breakthroughs: self-management, wholeness, and evolutionary purpose. Others are more advanced in one area than others — FAVI in self-management, Heiligenfeld in wholeness. None of the Teal companies I have identified have the scale of the largest Orange companies (such as Walmart) or Green ones (such as Southwest Airlines). This is still the dawn of the Teal paradigm. However, its promise is suggested by the success these organizations are having.
Every stage of organizational evolution is more mature and effective than the previous stage, because of the inherent attitude toward power. A Red leader asks, How can I use my power to dominate? An Amber leader asks, How can I use it to enforce the status quo? An Orange leader asks, How can we win? A Green leader asks, How can we empower more people? A Teal leader asks, How can everyone most powerfully pursue a purpose that transcends us all?
Research suggests that there are two — and only two — necessary conditions for developing a Teal organization.
1. Top leadership. The chief executive must have an integrated world view and psychological development consistent with the Teal paradigm. It is helpful if a few close colleagues share this perspective.
2. Ownership. Owners of the organization must also understand and embrace Teal world views. Board members who don’t get it, experience shows, can temporarily give a Teal leader free rein. But when the organization hits a rough patch or faces a critical choice, owners will want to regain control in the only way that makes sense to them: appointing a CEO who exerts top-down, hierarchical authority.
What about businesses, nonprofits, schools, hospitals, government agencies, and other institutions where these conditions are not in place? Can a middle manager hope to influence an entire enterprise by showcasing Teal practices locally? As much as I would like to believe this is possible, my hopes are not high. Experience shows that it takes more than a successful local example to catalyze this sort of system-wide change.
However, as a middle or senior manager, you can introduce some elements of the new paradigm for your own benefit and that of your colleagues. Practices that encourage people to show more of their true selves might come across as unusual, but are unlikely to raise red flags with top leadership. Some elements of self-management can be introduced; for example, instead of imposing new targets, ask team members to determine, in a peer-based process, which targets could be changed. If the team functions well, don’t attend the meeting. Let them come up with the best solution on their own so the targets will be theirs. Or when it’s time to appoint someone to report to you, don’t do it yourself. Let the team one level below write up the job description, interview candidates, and select their boss. Executives who have tried this find that subordinates take choosing their boss very seriously, and the process gives the boss a much stronger working relationship with the team.
The full benefit, of course, accrues to those organizations that fully embrace the new paradigm. When I spent a day with de Blok in the small headquarters of Buurtzorg, I was struck by how much simpler work life could be. Buurtzorg is a 9,000-person organization growing at breakneck speed. But after several hours of conversation, I realized we hadn’t been interrupted once. No urgent phone calls; no assistant coming in to whisper in the CEO’s ear that something had come up. Work in Teal organizations seems to unfold so easily it sometimes verges on the magical. Control and self-correction is embedded in the system, and no longer requires leaders to be on top of everything at all times.
In the past, with every change in consciousness (from Red to Amber to Orange and to Green), more powerful and life-enhancing forms of management have emerged. After the full emergence of the Teal paradigm, we will probably look back and find the organizational forms and practices of the late 20th and early 21st century alienating and unfulfilling. Already, it’s clear that we can create radically more productive, soulful, and purposeful businesses and nonprofits, schools, and hospitals. We are at an inflection point: a moment in history where it’s time to stop trying to fix the old model and instead make the leap to the next one. It will be better suited to the complexity and challenges of our times, and to the yearning in our hearts. 
Frederic Laloux is the author of Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness (Nelson Parker, 2014), from which this article is adapted with permission.

воскресенье, 5 июля 2015 г.

How to Set the Right Goals and Make Them Work for You





Are you starting to lose focus on your goals? If so, you’re not alone. This is the time of year a lot of people lose their focus.
The problem is that annual goal-setting doesn’t work. You can’t plan an entire year and know in advance all the goals you will need to achieve. It’s likely that many of your goals are no longer motivating and many no longer make sense.
If goal-setting hasn’t been working for you, here’s how to set the right goals that will get you where you want to go:
1. Always keep your vision in mind while choosing goals.
The point of setting goals is to support you in moving toward your vision. Without a clear vision, your goals might not take you where you want to go.
There’s a big difference between a vision and a goal. Vision is your destination. Goals are the milestones that mark your journey. They quantify and define the steps you take along the way.
Where your vision is broad and big, goals are tangible and specific. They answer questions like “when?’ and “how?” and “how much?”  SMART goals are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound. Here are three guidelines to keep in mind when choosing goals:
  • Look for high-leverage goals – those that will allow you to leapfrog forward.
  • Consider goals that will have a long-term payoff, even at a short-term price. For example, you might choose some inexperienced high potential players for your team, with a plan to help them gain the skills and experience.
  • Look for goals that will give you some quick wins. This will help you see progress and stay motivated.
2. Be willing to reset your goals.
Don’t get so focused on your goals that you forget about your vision. Change is inevitable. It is said it takes 1001 mid-course corrections to reach the moon.
The trick is to stay focused on your vision, and, as in sailing, “tack” to your destination. Change your course depending on the winds and other conditions.
3. Revisit your vision frequently.
Sometimes teams drift off course without realizing it. And so can individuals. To avoid waking up one day wondering how you got so far off course, revisit your goals frequently and use them as an early warning system to detect when you are off course.
4. Set up systems and practices that support your goals.
On a personal level – what structures and routines do you need to set up to develop the habits that will support your vision? – regular exercise time?
For a team, look at your formal and informal ways of working together. Consider processes for communication, accountability, training and rewards. For example, if teamwork is one of your goals– are there rewards for team performance or is the focus on individual contributions? Systems that are not aligned with your vision and goals will derail you and your team.
5. Set goals for relationships as well as tasks.
The journey is as important as the destination. Are your actions consistent with your values and where you want to go? Make sure you have a good feedback system in order to know.
6. Set goals as you go.
Vision is about COURAGE.  Goals are about TAKING ACTION.
As soon as you identify your vision, start to live it.  You can’t create a vision for a healthy life and continue a diet of junk food. As a leader, not only must you say what’s important, you need to demonstrate it – consistently. People watch what you do more closely than what you say.
Taking action means not waiting for all the details to be worked out. When you are clear about where you’re going, and have set goals for the next steps, the entire path does not be clear. As long as you keep your vision in mind, the next steps will become clear as you accomplish your goals.

6 TIPS TO SET GOALS THAT WILL GET YOU WHERE YOU WANT TO GO

Here’s a more in-depth explanation of the relationship between vision and goals and how to make your goals work for you.


Measuring customer effort: Is it time we moved on from Net Promoter Score?



CORMAC TWOMEY 

If customer satisfaction is directly linked to minismising effort, is NPS still a valid metric?

For many years, Net Promoter Score (NPS) has been a core metric for businesses, to quantify and monitor customer satisfaction levels and understand how this affects future behaviour. However, as with any metric the measurement is, by itself, just a means to an end. It is vital that brands are using NPS in the right way in order to deliver the most value to the business.
Ultimately, NPS measures brand loyalty, and is based on the fundamental perspective that every company’s customers can be divided into three categories: Promoters, Passives, and Detractors.  The percentage of detractors is then deducted from the percentage of promoters to give the organisation its Net Promoter Score.
Effort equals experience
It is important to remember, in many scenarios, customers end up calling contact centres after failing to get the resolution they seek in-store, online or through other self-service options. This leaves the contact centre staff to face the brunt of the customers’ dissatisfaction, and having to rely on their professionalism, systems and efficiency to allay customer frustrations before turning a challenging situation into a positive experience.
NPS is undoubtedly a useful metric, but by its very nature, leads organisations into focusing their resources on delighting the customer by exceeding their expectations. This message has been emphasised for years: delight the customer and they will become your brand advocate and an asset that will help to secure potential future customers and growth. While this may be true, investing all your resources on creating more promoters could leave you vulnerable to the negative effects detractors can have on your brand.
Recent studies have shown that the impact of promoters and detractors is not equal, suggesting that one promoter will not make up for the damage one detractor can cause. A recent Convergys study found that eight in ten dissatisfied customers told others about their recent interaction, compared with just five in ten extremely satisfied customers. 
With many contact centres now measuring Transactional Net Promoter Score (tNPS), whereby customers are invited to rate their last interaction or transaction and not the whole brand experience, a wealth of valuable data is being captured that can be transformed into actionable insight to pinpoint root causes and drive improvements that will help to minimise the number of detractors.
When customers are asked why they are not satisfied with a recent interaction, the biggest drivers of their dissatisfaction were related to effort: had to repeat myself; had to call multiple times; took too long to resolve, etc. And the majority of top answers to what is important when receiving customer service also relate to customer effort – that is, how easy is it to resolve a question or issue or conduct a transaction using a service channel. This begs the question, are we using the right metrics in order to drive the improvements that will minimise customer effort?
Expectations are rising
This damage that detractors can do to your business is increasing as consumer expectations around customer service continue to rise, making the margin for creating dissatisfied customers larger. The increased use of technology and social media is a key factor. Customers now expect a different type of service and quite often organisations are falling short. In the Convergys survey, 20% of consumers reported that they started on a company’s website, but were dissatisfied and abandoned it, with 38% trying the web again and 23% switching to the phone. When digital deployment is dysfunctional, consumers often switch channels to get resolution, which could increase the number of interactions without reducing effort or improving satisfaction.
This means that service is expected through multiple channels and traditional channels such as the call centre are now being avoided. In fact, 47% of customers say they will do anything to avoid calling a contact centre.People are looking for a seamless service experience and brands that can solve their problems quickly with a minimum of fuss.
The focus for brands should therefore be on ‘closing-the-loop’ and identifying where the root causes of customer dissatisfaction lie. Often, the real drivers of customer effort sit upstream from the agents in poorly optimised self-service channels, policies that make it hard to do business, and siloed technology.  It is important that organisations have the technology and skills to deliver an efficient personalised experience, as this is critical to minimising effort by resolving customer issues as quickly and efficiently as possible in their channel of choice.
Prioritise to maximise ROI
While NPS will remain an essential tool for measuring loyalty, brands should consider how they are allocating resources in order to have the best possible impact on the bottom line. Given the ever-increasing expectation for multichannel communication and the larger influence of the detractor, a smarter approach to NPS might be required.
Delighting customers will always be the ideal, however, with detractors 60% more likely to talk about your brand than promoters, the penalty for not meeting expectations is greater – and is only likely to increase.  Often, the best way to add value to the business will be to focus on minimising customer effort, which should lead to a drop in the number of detractors. Conversely, placing a greater emphasis on the number of detractors will enable you to gauge how well you are achieving this
As brands and customer service teams look to adapt to the new realities of this multichannel world, they must make sure they are factoring these trends into their metrics. After all, as the saying goes, what gets measured gets done!

суббота, 4 июля 2015 г.

Brands and Retailers Should Team Up in Emerging Markets


When companies “share the shelf,” everyone wins.
by Nikhil Bhandare, Pali Tripathi, and Aparajita Kapoor





Illustration by Benoit Tardif




Consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies and retailers are natural allies. They have many of the same objectives — increased sales, cost savings, optimized processes and systems, and happy customers — and already work together in many parts of the world. But in emerging economies, such collaboration has yet to take off. In a recent survey of 500 leading CPG firms and retailers in India, Strategy& and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry found that although 91 percent of respondents had participated in at least one collaboration initiative, most of these ventures were one-offs rather than sustained relationships. Only 15 to 20 percent of respondents reported that these collaborative projects had met their objectives.

It’s a huge lost opportunity. Across Asia, Latin America, and, increasingly, Africa, sales channels are proliferating, demographics are shifting, and individuals are gaining greater access to online information about companies and their products. These trends have taken their toll on revenue growth and profits. In India, for example, sales growth has leveled off since 2010; operating margins in both the CPG and retail industries are holding steady at best. Working alone, frankly, is not really working.

Collaboration, however, could yield quick wins and short-term benefits — and could ultimately transform the complex and fragmented consumer landscapes of many emerging economies into more sustainable, more efficient business environments. Even limited cases of collaboration between CPG companies and retailers have led to positive, enduring industry-level changes. In 2007, consumer giant Unilever joined forces with Migros, one of Turkey’s largest retailers. Through an in-store survey, the firms learned that shoppers perceived hair conditioner as unnecessary and expensive. Unilever and Migros set up price promotions and reorganized shelf space to put conditioners next to shampoos, encouraging shoppers to view conditioner as an essential companion product. Migros’s overall hair conditioner revenue grew by 25 percent, and Unilever’s by 36 percent.

When collaboration expands to include the automated sharing of point-of-sale (POS) data, the results can be even more dramatic. In 2012, Godrej Consumer Products of India set up electronic data interchange (EDI) interfaces to automate the exchange of such data with retailers. The company reported that revenues earned through these trade channels grew 28 percent during the second half of that year.

Although the benefits may seem obvious, setting up and sustaining these partnerships is difficult in practice. To make the process more manageable, CPG companies and retailers need to create the circumstances that will enable effective collaboration, and to establish robust and transparent systems that allow collaboration to endure. Of course, none of that will matter if both sides cannot see at the outset why they should be open with each other. This is no small matter: Lack of trust was the leading cause reported by our survey respondents of their firms’ avoiding or terminating collaborative initiatives.

That’s why the most significant collaborations are deliberately designed to foster trust, often by tackling daunting challenges — and demonstrating what each side can gain. For example, although retailers typically view e-commerce as a competing channel, it can also boost in-store trade if it’s designed to do so. Consider the “bloggers club” collaboration between Indian electronics retailer Croma and Toronto-based e-book publisher/tablet maker Kobo. This club invites Indian bloggers to post reviews of Croma products and outlets. It is designed to forestall complaints, provide customer support, and promote Croma through contests for Kobo merchandise.

The use of real-time POS data, in particular, can reshape how CPG and retail companies make decisions. A company might use such data to choose where to expand activity, or to manage product availability in a different way so that consumers are more likely to find the products they want in their local community. Better access to data from inventory tracking and demand planning can help remove bottlenecks in the supply chain, direct R&D investment, improve marketing, and maximize supply chain efficiency, all of which work toward increasing profits for both manufacturer and retailer.

Data-driven collaboration often includes sharing insights on market trends and consumer buying behavior. Our survey respondents said such sharing leads to better idea generation involving products and trade promotions, savvier use of e-commerce platforms, and more effective workplace management. The most useful technologies for gathering this data are those that enable direct interaction with consumers: customer relationship management systems, Web 3.0 (which uses natural language search, data mining, and artificial intelligence technologies), online applications such as digital media campaigns, and contests on social networking sites such as Facebook.

Collaboration on demand planning enables CPG firms and retailers to set realistic targets, meet market demand, and minimize stockouts. For example, when one U.K. retailer and a global market leader in oral care initiated a joint business planning pilot several years ago, they took certain steps to foster their relationship. The enterprises’ leadership teams met monthly to discuss short- and long-term opportunities. They reviewed the performance against forecasts, planned the next month’s assignments and developed new forecasts, and agreed on changes such as promotions. The initiative has led to improved delivery rates, increased on-shelf availability, new targeted promotions, better margins, reductions in inventory levels, and streamlined agreement on other collaborative initiatives.

Finally, co-branded advertisements enable CPG firms and retailers to visibly market products together. For instance, Indian e-commerce retailer Flipkart and Motorola recently splashed marketing campaigns across television and print media for the joint launch of the Moto G phone. Collaborative advertising may be extended to include distributors as well: Apple in India co-brands its iPhone advertisements with pan-India distributors Redington and Ingram Micro. By outsourcing its advertising this way, Apple saves on costs and engages more actively with distributors. The distributors in turn benefit from association with Apple’s brand along with the higher margins they can earn on its smartphones.

If your company is considering a collaboration initiative, this may all seem daunting. But if both you and your partner have the right mind-set and process, collaboration can be successful. The foundation of any partnership has to be a shared vision of opportunities and challenges. The CPG company and retailer need to lock in specific agreements and expectations about targets, responsibilities, and accountabilities at the outset. A retailer, for instance, would likely be unwilling to share category-level data with a CPG firm unless the firm promised something in return, such as assistance in optimizing the retailer’s product mix to increase category sales.

Both companies need to find sponsors at the top leadership level. CEO and chairman–level endorsement is a key element, positioning you and your partner company to achieve common strategic goals and establish accountability. Further down the hierarchy, you’ll need to set up cross-functional teams, led by a key account manager. These teams could be organization-specific or cross-organizational, depending on the depth of the collaborative relationship. Members should come from the supply chain, logistics, marketing, and IT functions. If you are pursuing multiple initiatives with a target partner, to avoid ambiguous reporting lines or conflicting commitments, ensure that each initiative has a clear set of owners and a governance body, such as a steering committee or a higher-level council comprising CEOs of the two partners plus key members from both sides.

Wherever possible, set up common processes and technologies, with the goal of seamless integration, the incorporation of mobile devices, and a shared view of data. These can include common IT systems and back-end processes such as robust inventory tracking systems, to streamline the order-flow process and manage distribution information. You may also wish to align other systems such as those dedicated to billing, labeling, and EDI to enable real-time updates, the sharing of financial data, and the cross-management of logistics.

The collaboration can now begin, but the work is far from over. It is critical that both companies be able to track and measure progress as the project unfolds, using key performance indicators established by a joint team. Link them to performance of the joint account team members, so they serve as incentives for variable pay.

You’ll also need to ensure that you have the right talent in place as the partnership activities progress. In India, CPG manufacturing companies such as Coca-Cola, Dabur, Hindustan Unilever, ITC, and Marico have heavily invested in developing programs to help traditional retailers train their employees in specialized skills, such as operating credit card machines, maintaining inventory logs, and creating attractive merchandise displays. The goal is to create a dialogue with traditional stores, which make up 90 percent of India’s retail landscape. Thanks to such initiatives, these CPG companies have reached thousands of traditional retailers throughout the country. Intermediaries such as distributors, systems integrators, and resellers can also play a role in training and overseeing the retail staff. Through its Panasonic Partners program, the electronics company Panasonic introduces intermediaries to new products, business opportunities, and special commercial offers. These intermediaries use that knowledge to push sales independently with retailers, enabling Panasonic to build its channel community.

Finally, remember that trust in your relationship is something you will need to continually maintain. The importance of transparency with your partner company and adherence to agreed-on processes should be clear to everyone involved. Building trust should begin with your own organization’s behavior, not just what you expect from others. In fact, knowing yourself is a critical part of this process. Many companies are tempted to use collaboration to make up for gaps in their own capabilities. In practice, however, the most successful partnerships build on strengths rather than compensating for weaknesses. The best way to view collaboration is as a joint growth opportunity — a chance to develop more distinctive, stronger capabilities together.