Some new clients easily take to new strategy development and execution. They experience fewer difficulties that most in obtaining support from their team members when it comes to implementation.
Others struggle. Why?
Planning is the easy part. Execution is the difficult part – and when it comes to execution few leaders lead well, even if they are brilliant. Why do they experience difficulties?
Leaders fall into mental traps. What are they? Robert H Schaffer in an article Four Mistakes Leaders Make in the Harvard Business Review (September 2010) provides valuable insights on this topic.
Schaffer states that four behaviours deeply rooted in the management psyche block organisational change. He observes that these “traps are extremely difficult to recognize because they are almost always mechanisms for avoiding anxiety. They serve to protect egos and prevent discomfort.” Here they are:
1. “Failing to set proper expectations”.
Leaders announce major directional changes without spelling out specifics and without saying who’s accountable. My examples of not being specific:
• We are going to focus on upgrading our services and improve the customer’s experience.
• We are going to solve this quality problem.
MDs get upset by mistakes which are repeatedly made. They reprimand the GM and the staff – without setting specific goals or explicit action plans for fixing the problem.
Another common mistake is to describe what must be done and then signal “if you possibly can do it” – thus offering an excuse.
Why do managers act in this manner? Schaffer observes: “…being clear requires considerable thought and it is much more difficult to be clear”.
2. “Excusing subordinates from the pursuit of overall goals”.
MDs and managers allow employees to focus narrowly on their work in their silos, and so the responsibility for company-wide performance is, in fact, “delegated” upwards.
MDs hear how managers and others counter calls to action from the top by stating that they need to focus on the critical problems or work loads; that they are unable to deal with demands for executing on company-wide strategy. Often the MD is the only person who has an overview and who feels personally accountable for overall results. Every division focuses on own performance. A joint focus is lacking. Why does the MD accept this? “Having to play nursemaid to so many activities saps executives’ time and energy. Yet very few seem willing to assign a subordinate full responsibility for achieving results that will require substantial inputs from peers”.
3. “Inadvertently colluding with staff experts and with consultants”.
Managers permit in-house and external experts to propose solutions without assuming responsibility for outcomes. MDs and managers (and consultants) should pinpoint very specifically what is expected, by whom and when – and they should include themselves.
MDs should hold the staff experts accountable for outcomes of their work. Why do MDs fail to do so? Well, specifying sharp, measurable objectives and gains for a project puts their own reputations on the line.
MDs have to play a much more active role in a project’s design and implementation. However, it’s safer psychologically to place the initiative in a staff expert’s or consultant’s hands and hope for the best.
4. “Waiting while associates prepare, prepare, prepare”.
Endless preparation gives the illusion of progress, but nothing really happens. Management often believes in the notion that the first step in improving performance is finding a new programme to produce needed gains.
MDs and managers seldom try to find improvement within existing systems and structures – possibly as managers want to believe they are already doing the best they can with available resources. “To safeguard their egos, they conclude they can’t achieve better results without adding something new.”
How to overcome these behaviour traps? MDs and managers should institute small specific experiments that minimise risk and offer early results.
Leaders, start with yourself. First identify recent events where you as MD or manager encountered any of the behaviours. Then start pushing yourself outside your comfort zone, experiment with more effective methods and enjoy the results. Small, personal experiences tend to be the most liberating.
Tackle small experiments or projects that meet three criteria: They rapidly produce tangible results, incur very little risk of failure, and demonstrate a clear link between experimental behaviour and the outcome.
The seven deadly sins of setting demands, as formulated by Schaffer:
1. Establishing too many goals.
2. Not requiring a plan for how and when goals will be achieved.
3. Failing to push for significant improvement for fear that people are already overwhelmed.
4. Not assigning clear one-person accountability for each key goal.
5. Signalling an unspoken ‘if you possibly can’ at the end of a statement of expectation.
6. Accepting reverse assignments. (My comment: You subordinate asks for your input before finalizing the task – and then waits. You’re snookered.)
7. Stating goals in ways that may not be definable or measurable.
On reading this, did you recognise your mental traps and deadly sins? If you address them, you will accelerate the process of achieving results.
Albert
PS I trust that this brief summary will inspire you to obtain a copy of the article. Please visit http://www.rhsa.com/ and read RHSA’s recently launched first newsletter which starts with the article. Download it via their website. You could also download an RHSA assessment based on the four traps or mistakes – which you and your colleagues could complete.
Filed under: leadership Tagged: | change management, effectiveness, leadership, mental traps, organisation, strategy of execution
Interesting article. I would like to comment on the first point Failing to set proper expectations”. It is correct that sometimes other people think managing is all about saying what must be done. The correct approach to allow team spirit to be facilitated is asking “What you think must be done and how?” It so happen that some GMs don’t even understand what a manager deals with. But when you inquire one gets an insight as to what would work best to accomodate all parties.
On the 3rd note “Inadvertently colluding with staff experts and with consultants”. I believe that consultants are very good source of identifing short falls in any organisation. Managers should be responsible for measuring to what extent extenal experts should propose solutions. There is also a danger in external experts that, at time they might fall short of understanding the position that the company is at. The position of the company and manpower it has determines how fast or slow change can be executed.
Thank you.
Yandi – I’m delighted with your comment! And I agree with the points you make.
What is always necessary concerning both your points is that there should be a healthy exchange of ideas. It always hinges around the question which you identified: “What do you think?”
You are so right in that the internal situation in a company or organisation determines how fast or slow change can be executed.
Albert