Obviously not, but you would be surprised at how often the obvious is ignored.
A carefully crafted vision statement is agreed at an annual senior executive retreat, and out away until the review next year. Nonsense.
You need to live it, create alignment, and ensure the activites that occur spring from a set of core values that dictate the way you, and those around you, behave, and all contribute to the journey articulated.
People stress over money, how much they have, how hard it is to make it, what others make, how much the house is worth, how much the share portfolio has tanked, and so on.
The reality is that money is just a scorecard, an entirely one dimensional method of comparing one of the many forms of wealth across individuals and institutions.
What of the other forms of “wealth”?
Friendship, good health, respect, time to follow a passion, reciprocated love, intelligent conversation, access to great books, the list goes on.
Pre-occupation with the one dimensional scoring mechanism is counter to the way humans evolved, where community, mutual assistance, and sharing were the driving forces. Our wealth of money seems to have eroded our wealth in all other respects, for all but the lucky few, or is it just the few who recognise the dilemma and work on it?.
Perhaps coincidentally, great leaders, those who appeal to our emotions, who inspire us, open our minds, and persuade by their actions, appear to have little use for money beyond satisfying the basic needs of life.
“Values” is a widely misused term, one that is often a key break out subject at the annual senior management off site session, subject to sage pronouncements, then usually ignored.
Having participated, and more recently facilitated many of these sessions over the years, I have seen a few words that emerge, and that have actually evolved to mean something to the businesses concerned once the bull session is over:
The words used differ from place to place, but the presence of these four in some form appears to be a basic recipe for success.
Straying from my usual “beat” I read the Rolling Stone article that caused the downfall of General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan.
It seems to me that he was fired, not because he was insubordinate, but because he failed to manage the politics surrounding the adventure in Afghanistan.
The article is a revealing, and fascinating narrative of an innovative, unconventional manager who got things done by ignoring the weight of the status quo, and its proponents. The parallels in management are everywhere, to be different, take closely considered risks, apply the unconventional, take information from the “front line” and argue with authority, all are traits necessary in a leader who is successful, and particularly successful at implementing innovative solutions to seemingly intractable problems.
Afghanistan has been a problem for every army since Alexander that has sought to place its stamp on the place, the US is no different. Engagement there screams for the unconventional, as the conventional has never worked, but conventional leaders cannot deliver unconventional solutions.
Many more will die, and more billions spent before the US and its “allies” including Australia wake up, but it is hard to admit you are wrong.
Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, the worlds largest manufacturing company recently made some unflattering remarks about the Chinese and US leadership, and has been widely pilloried.
What happened to freedom of speech?
We seem to have become immune to the facts, or one persons version of the facts, to the extent that when they are voiced, and we disagree, we are made sufficiently uncomfortable to attack the person, not the underlying assumptions that led to the view in the first place.
The words of public figures are so widely seen as spin, that we dismiss everything said publicly as tainted by self interest, but by muzzling the views of a bloke like Immelt, one of the most powerful, sensible, successful and outspoken figures in the commercial world, we risk losing a voice from which we can learn much.
Many businesses offer cash for suggestions, put a suggestion box near the canteen, and wonder why most of the suggestions are physically impossible, morally debatable, and often both.
In the end, successful suggestion programs offer the reward of personal satisfaction and recognition to those making them, any financial incentive is usually secondary. The $50 in the paypacket for a successful suggestion is nice, usually appreciated, but not the reason the suggestion was made.
People who are members of a “community” and a workplace is a community, normally want to contribute to that community, unless it is dysfunctional in some fundamental way, and those contributions build connections and mutual obligations, that are the glue of any community.
Many suggestions will be worthless, but offering recognition and feedback to all offerings creates a sense of personal connection. Create that, and the suggestions will increase in value progressively, and ultimately, very few will have anything to do with deviant behavior, and you will quickly be able to do away with the anonymous box, and have the feedback directly, person to person.