It might seem like a basic character building block to
most, but the premise of doing what you say you will
do often goes out the window in many organizations,
replaced by a host of mechanisms that drain the
effectiveness and directional ability of the company.
How can leadership spot the problems, and what is
the corrective plan? The best way to differentiate your
organization may be to simply deliver on this
promise: "We will do what we say we will do."
Often senior management cannot understand why
an important initiative or project does not deliver. The
opportunity and investment were there, the people and
technology were there, and certainly the commitment
of the senior management staff was
present—so what happened? Why can't we
turn this ship? Why did we lose our biggest account?
How did that newcomer get so big in our market? Can
your organization spot the failures in doing what you
say you will do?
There are several ways this insidious problem
manifests itself. One is through a catastrophic failure
of a key component to deliver. Another is through a
gradual decomposition of the intended goal, which
falls behind or fails. Yet another is that a goal is
parsed and then regrouped to end up in a different
direction than originally intended. Some organizations
may complete all high-profile initiatives, but their
yields are unknown, watered down, or drowned out by
new initiatives.
There are preventions and remedies, of course.
The old saying that "It starts at the top" is true. If
people at the top do not communicate effectively, are
indecisive, or do not hold people accountable, their
behavior permeates down through the organization
and can kill organizational effectiveness. The remedy
for this is to make short, clear communications a
priority. Carefully think through your direction and
strategy before communicating it. Insist on consistent
messaging by senior staff and hold them accountable
for results. Do not drown out the main message with
unnecessary detail.
A potential cure for catastrophic failures is better,
more intense risk management at all levels, including
the board and C-level staff. Risk management
programs are designed to identify, measure, and
remedy the risks of the organization not reaching its
goal. Risk management programs prevent
catastrophic risks by addressing these potential
failures early in the process, when preventive steps
are most effective.
Correct organizational design issues to curtail
breakdowns and the failure to execute. The era of
horizontal organizational charts resulted in many more
decision-making points as teams replaced
management hierarchy. Teams increase the potential
for failure when they make decisions that change the
intended outcome, no matter how small the change.
Obtaining approval from a peer is always easier than
going up the ladder, so teams tend to approve each
other's changes. Often, results of extremely horizontal
organizations have little relationship to the concept
originally put forth by senior staff, which is perplexing
and frustrating. There are steps within a horizontal
structure that help correct this situation, such as
stronger project management and governance;
however, a more hierarchical organization with good
leadership is sometimes more effective.
The nature of business organizations necessarily
creates needs for self-protection, self-improvement,
and control by the people working there. These are
human characteristics that cannot be avoided, but if
unmanaged, they can completely nullify an
organization's effectiveness. A fearful environment
often encourages sandbagging at budget time. Or,
you'll hear people say, "I want to under-promise and
over-deliver on this."
Sandbagging at budget time is feathering the nest
by locking up capital. The practice is done out of fear
that resources will not be given if needed or that some
form of punishment will occur if a budget is not met. A
budget is supposed to be the best estimate of
resources needed to accomplish the goals of the
organization. Managers should be rewarded for their
forecast accuracy rather than how far under budget
they can be at year-end. Dealing with this noise in the
budget makes decision-making harder, riskier, and
less effective at the corporate level. Preventing
managers from needlessly locking up capital frees up
money that can be better deployed in growth,
development, or margin-producing activity.
"Under-promising and over-delivering" is a
euphemism for taking control. Here is the breakdown:
I'll deliberately underestimate my ability to deliver to
the point where I can easily perform the initiative in
order to look like a hero at the end. Obviously, this
can kill organizational effectiveness, because the
organization never truly knows its capabilities.
Capability is hidden behind management's desire to
not take risk. What businesses need is honesty in
forecasting in terms of finances and ability to perform.
Business organizations reflect the values of their
leadership. Incorporating the simple value of "We do
what we say we will do" is a good premise in
improving your organization's effectiveness.