The key to good management is knowing what's fundamental to success and what's not.
"Companies with effective employees and good products usually do well."
That might seem like a blinding flash of the obvious, but look around your company and see how many activities are at least one level removed from something that improves either the effectiveness of the people or the quality of the product. When I refer to product, I mean the entire product experience from the customer's perspective including the delivery, image and channel.
Any activity that is one level removed from your people or your product will ultimately fail or have little benefit. It won't seem like that when you're doing it, but it is a consistent pattern.
It's hard to define what I mean by being "one level removed" but you know it when you see it. Examples help:
- If you are writing code for a new software release, that's fundamental, because you're improving the product. But if you're creating a policy about writing then you're one level removed.
- If you're testing a better way to assemble a product, that's fundamental. But if you're working on a task force to develop a suggestion system then you're one level removed.
- If you're talking to a customer, that's fundamental. If you're talking about customers you're probably one level removed.
- If you're involved in anything in the list below, you're one level removed from the fundamentals of your company and you will not be missed if you are abducted by aliens.
Not fundamental
- Quality Faire
- Process Improvement Team
- Recognition committee
- Employee satisfaction survey
- Suggestion system
- ISO 9000
- Standards
- Policy improvement
- Reorganization
- Budget process
- Writing vision statements
- Writing mission statements
- Writing an "approved equipment list"
These "one off" activities are irresistible. You can make a convincing argument for all of them. You couldn't run a company, for example, without a budget process. I'm not suggesting you try. But I think you can focus more of your energy on the fundamentals (people and product) by following a simple rule for all the "one off" activities.
Rule for "one off" activities: consistency. Resist the urge to tinker. It's always tempting to "improve " the organization structure, or to rewrite the company policy to address a new situation, or to create committees to improve company morale. Individually, all those things seem to make sense. But experience shows that you generally end up with something that is no more effective than what you started with.
For example, companies tinker endlessly with the formula for employee compensation. Rarely does this result in happiness and more productive employees. The employees redirect their energies toward griping and preparing resumes, the managers redirect their energies toward explaining and justifying the new system.
The rule of consistency would direct you toward keeping your current compensation plan- warts and all- unless it is a true abomination. The company that focuses on fundamentals will generate enough income to make any compensation plan seem adequate.
The best example of a fruitless, "one off" activity that seems like a good idea is the reorganization. Have you seen an internal company reorganization that dramatically improved either the effectiveness of the employees or the quality of the product?
Sometimes there are indirect benefits because reorganization is a good excuse for weeding out the ninnies, but that hardly justifies the disruption. The rule of consistency would say it's best to keep the organization as it is, unless there's a fundamental shift in the business. Add or subtract people as needed, but leave the framework alone. Let the employees spend time on something besides reordering business cards.
Many of the " one off" activities start taking care of themselves if you're doing a good job with your people and your products. A Company with a good product rarely needs a Mission Statement. Effective employees will suggest improvements without being on a quality team. Nobody will miss the Employee recognition Committee if the managers are effective and routinely recognize good performance. The budget process will suddenly look very simple if you're making money (by focussing on your products).
As far as consistency goes, I would make an exception for changes that are radical enough for "reengineering" a process. It is the fiddling I object to, not elimination or major streamlining.
Out at Five
