A630.9.4.RB_Hiring and Recruiting_Wathen_Sandra

A630.9.4.RB_Hiring and Recruiting_Wathen_Sandra

Ref:  Eric Schmidt on Business Culture, Technology and Social Issues (Hiring and Recruiting Segment)

Hiring and Recruiting:  This video clip’s segment with respect to Google’s strategies for hiring is quite unique.  It is quite obvious that Google has an unusual way of bringing people to the organization.  The thought processes for how they manage all those who come into the organization; at each and every level.  They put a lot of energy into who’s going to be hired into the company.

The comparison to academic and management books is something that is so true.  What good is it if nobody does it?  Developing a culture is so important in that it will foster the environment for people to apply their knowledge and skills, and leadership/management only there to assist when necessary.

The belief that it becomes personally driven because of passion and in turn becomes something they want to do and inspired to do and only asking for help when needed. To me, that shows that leadership has done their job effectively.  These people are the type that you want in an organization and it is up to leadership to find ways to foster this type of environment. 

From the outside looking in, Google’s impression by others might be that they are not doing a good job of managing.  In reality, they have already done the job, and done it right, because they have established the environment and culture and it is leading the company in a self-sustaining mode. 

They know that even once they get the right people in the right spot that the job doesn’t end there since  there are still areas that will need some nurturing due to people’s inability to work as a team player.  It may require Google to provide team building training to those individuals for developing those skills.

The overall strategies in their recruiting include: seeing if they are compatible with others; recognizing that people are different and some are not good at being a team player.  By keeping these factors  for consideration when hiring employees, it will provide them with a well-rounded workforce that can work in harmony.

Also, it is important to figure out and understand all the interpersonal similarities and differences because people are needed to do the job regardless. But, by using this methodology when recruiting provides for a higher probability to obtain the right person that will fit in best with the current workforce.

In addition, it was brought up that disagreement in a meeting is a good thing.  If everyone agrees then there are no innovative ideas or areas of improvement generated.  Google encourages interjection of controversy in order to develop some type of controversy in conversation; flares a discussion.  This persuades those that are quiet to speak up during a meeting which then in turn, generates a more interactive discussion.  They believe that a certain level of discord need to be part of meetings, otherwise the meeting had no purpose, nor consensus.

Therefore, their thinking for a positive meeting that consensus needs to be the goal of a meeting.   The reason for this is that Google believes this is the ultimate approach for getting the best outcome with respect to business judgment.  In order to get consensus, they believe that you need a deadline – plus, discord.  Deadline and discord provide the elements to obtain a qualitative outcome for a meeting.

Google allows 10% of employee’s time to be able to do whatever they want to with that time.  Typically that time is spent on adjacent business which is still part of the skills required for their hired position.  This is interesting because employees are looked at their work by a 70-20-10 allocation rule with 70 percent for core business, 20 percent on adjacent business, and 10% on other things as described by Eric Schmidt.  It was interesting to find out that when employees applied their 10% they found themselves still performing the adjacent work. 

They use this as a business strategy in that it becomes a strong recruiting tool and takes some pressure off the employee; especially if they have a poor manager.  However, it also benefits Google since they are getting that 10% back in some form for the most part when employees are working on the adjacent work.  In essence, they really are getting what a normal 100% would be – they just used a recruiting strategy to make it seem that an employee can get up to 30% to do other than core business type of work, but in reality the employees are not taking advantage of the 10% for working on other things.

Another area was mentioned about not allowing managers to hire friends.  Enforce using a recruiting team to bring employees on.

In addition, in the past Google would allow people to be interviewed up to 17 times; and then do not bring them on board.  Google reduced this down to 8 and has proven that you can get a probability of getting a correct outcome around 5 interviews.   They feel strongly that if you can have 5 people during an interview process that the group should be able to make a decision as to whether to hire or not.

Does Schmidt's description of the Google Culture make sense to you?   Yes, Google’s Culture makes lots of sense.  In reality, they are thinking outside the box in their approach and it has created a win/win situation for the employee and the organization. 

Is this a reasonable way to view the work that most people are doing in your workplace? Yes, I think the 70-20-10 of how work is to be allocated is very ingenious.  If you really think about it,  most people if they are at the office and have opportunity to work some things other than the core business they will work something that is relevant to their work which also adds value to the organization.  Most people are not going to use their 10% to do whatever they want; especially people who are committed and loyal to the company; more so with good business ethics.  Most of them will still be doing things that fall in that 20% mode of adjacent business efforts.  It is a win/win situation.  Basically, they are allowing for something that will not be fully utilized and works to their benefit.

As a leader, does it take courage to have and to implement this point of view? I don’t think it is as much courage as it is the creativity and forward thinking that is involved with how they approached their hiring and recruiting program.  Although, there may be some courage and also some risks involved with breaking the paradigm from typical traditional methods for hiring and recruiting which puts Google in some unprecedented areas.

Could this approach backfire? Yes, it could.  The 10% could unexpectedly end up going in the direction with the individual doing - what they want to do rather than actually doing adjacent activities that the company benefits from currently. 

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?  I think the biggest takeaway is that there are many different strategies that a company can use in their hiring and recruiting process.  This example is one that I think benefits both the organization and the individuals being hired to the company.  I would like to talk with our VP and share some of Google’s approaches and see if they could be applied or at least do a trial period to give it an opportunity for possible implementation.

A630.8.4.RB_Build a Tower_Build a Team_Wathen_Sandra

       A630.8.4.RB_Build a Tower_Build a Team_Wathen_Sandra

   Ref:  TED Talk by Tom Wujec – Ideas Worth Spreading…

This was an interesting video clip on how an individual design challenge using marshmallow can show the importance of the thinking processes required for quick collaboration.  There were four teams challenged to develop a free standing structure with a marshmallow on top.  The material included 26 spaghetti noodles, 1 yard of tape, 1 yard of string, and 1 marshmallow.

The task was to build the tallest, free standing structure with the marshmallow on top.

Although it may seem simple, it is actually hard to conduct quick collaboration to solve problems amongst a team.  In this particular challenge, the groups were very diverse – those from graduate schools, lawyers, CEOs, Architects/Engineers, and Kindergartens. 

It was interesting to see the results as the children from Kindergarten actually did better than most.  The reason was that they did so well was that their thinking was not cluttered by self perceived, nor outside obstacles and their un-tampered minds were open to think naturally from a prototyping perspective; making them the highest success group during first challenge.  Basically, they did not have hidden assumptions cluttering their thinking.  Also, they were successful because their approach was an iterative prototyping method in how they were designing to the requirements.

Tom explained his theory - the other functional categories have been trained to go for the very best and then deal with crisis; basically do lots of planning then run out of time and put something together quickly.  Mr. Wujec explained it as, when the “Ta Da’s become the Uh Oh’s”.    

One thing that was also mentioned that adding a person to the team that understands the processes and can facilitate will make the outcome more successful.  Mr. Wujec used an example of adding an executive assistant to the team and it caused the results to be more positive.  He explained the reasoning is that a person who understands the processes and who can facilitate will add value to the success.

What typically happens is that when faced with a requirement for a quick collaboration there is so much time trying to orient one another to the group, trying to layout the plan, that the time runs out and the product gets put together haphazardly.    There tends to be so many distractions at first with the thought processes. 

This particular challenge provided insight to the importance of identifying hidden assumptions, sharing experiences and common goals.  This group collaboration challenge is also an example of how prototyping is essential in that it allows for an iterative process and provides time to fix things along the way.   Tom also mentioned that high stakes will tend to have strong impacts.   In addition, the having specialized skills along with the facilitating skills are essential to derive success.  So, in reality the value of prototyping is: Incentives +  High Skills (both Specialized and Facilitating) = SUCCESS!

Design is a truly a contact sport in that it demands that we bring all of our senses to the task -- all of our senses to the tasks, applying the best of thinking and feelings, and our doing -- with some prototyping which can give us a “Ta Dah” instead of an “Uh Oh” moment as stated by Tom Wujec.

   Do you agree with Tom Wujec's analysis of why kindergarteners perform better on the Spaghetti Challenge than MBA students? 

   Yes, I can understand why kindergarteners can perform better than MBA students for this challenge.  Their thought processes have not been “cluttered” with things to distract them with their task.  They come very open-minded.  As Tom mentioned that kids don’t have to jockey for power; they can be themselves.

   Can you think of any other reasons why kids might perform better?   

I think also that children are very quizative at that age.  Their minds are full of creativity, curiosity and they get excited over small successes.  They also do not realize pressure like adults; therefore can think differently when given a task.

In your view, why do CEOs with an executive assistant perform better than a group of CEOs alone?  

   Because they are looking at things from a different perspective.  The CEO will be expert - looking at the big picture, vision, and tasks to complete.  The Executive assistant will be familiar with the processes and the areas needed for facilitating.  They will complement one another in that they bring different skills for collaboration.  A group of CEOs alone will be missing one of the essential group functions needed for success; that of the facilitator/process insight.

        

   If you were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop, how could you relate the video to process intervention skills?

   This video provides insight on the importance of having the right skills for success.   Based on the statistics, it is proven that processes intervention skills combined with specialized skills provide the roadmap to success.  This video is a basis for promoting the importance of understanding processes and the ability to facilitate on a team is just as important as the specialized/technical skills.

        

  What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

   From a career standpoint, I am already trying to find ways to use this video or at least the marshmallow challenge within our organization.  It seems to be a fun way to re-emphasize how important it is to think differently, understand the importance of what makes success, and more so to encourage a methodology to include prototyping in the approach to finding solutions.

A630.7.4.RB_Mastering the Art of Corporate Reinvention_Wathen_Sandra

A630.7.4.RB_Mastering the Art of Corporate Reinvention_Wathen_Sandra

CEO Exchange - Mastering the Art of Corporate Reinvention…

I would like to first summarize the video as a whole with respect to mastering the art of corporate reinvention (Bethune and Bonsignore).

It was discussed during this video that there are two masters of corporate reinvention, Chairman and CEO Gordon Bethune and Michael Bonsignore, Chairman and CEO of Honeywell.  Both are on the road of grand tomorrow.  They both are considered innovators, big thinkers, great leaders and the ones’ who push when others pull.  They also are the ones’ to many inspire new generations and achieving success through their CEO exchange.

It is their challenging job to convince others that there will be a healthy company for months ahead and it will be corporate survival to make that happen.  They have different personalities but have similar goals.  They known each other for a short while, and took over companies at times when company’s where on a rocky road.  One of the questions during the session was, “is bigger really better?”

Both of their jobs are to combine/merge corporate cultures into one. 

Detailed Summary of Bethune’s Perspective and Style.  Bethune used bottom up approach, he works the crowd and keeps a familiar presence to the workers.  On occasion, he even checks out the equipment.  His management style is to reward employees for good work.  He gives employees bonuses for good ratings.  Examples are that he will have employee drawings for vehicles, or bonuses for perfect attendance, etc.  He believes that employee happiness and customer satisfaction have a direct correlation.  They have achieved record profits, ranked first in customer satisfaction in the last five years; doing a few things right; make people happy and make customers satisfied.   In the 90’s Continental had the lowest ratings and almost claimed bankruptcy.  Bethune mentioned that it is a two-way street with employees and CEO. 

It is easier to motivate people when they know they are a part of the organization; openly appreciate them.  It is easier to motivate employees when they feel they are a part of the organization.  He also mentioned that men and women at the top of the organization need to remember how they got there.  How he turned it around – recognized that the men and women who are flying need to design the flight schedule; made a representation and basically, “you tell us what you can do and promote that, and pay them extra.”  Get paid extra for doing a job well and for what they said they could do. 

This set up a motto of: help us, and we will help you.  In concept, it is about how to solve problems and reward people for it.  He also expressed that you can’t take people for granted; appreciate them.  Bethune also mentioned that the customer drives their schedules.  In addition, technology has allowed them to open doors to new opportunities.  In some of Bethune’s last comments, he stated the importance of listening to the public, for what they want and give that to them.

Serving the customer is essential –What do customers want and what they will pay for? And they get fair value for that - measure for success; customer feedback as driving factor; link with customer.

Detailed Summary of Bonsignore’s Perspective.   Bonsignore is considered a good leader with an excellent global vision and global expansion is a priority for Honeywell.  Bosignore graduated from the Annapolis Naval Academy and served some in the military before going to Honeywell.  Employees commented that he is always accessible. 

Honeywell products are used on Continental Airlines.  Honeywell provides products such as; aerospace and commercial, electronics, chemicals, etc.  40% of their sales come from services.  Honeywell also provides high tech products such as panels for cell phones, etc. 

Bonsignore visits the sites for observations at least once a week.  He mentions that they have been upstream since the merger.  Some called it the Merger made in heaven, but behind the scenes he has been running into choppy waters, missed earnings and downward in stock price.  One of his mistakes is that he missed the mark and didn’t know it; which in turn aggravated the stock market.  He mentioned that this was a difficult merger and the he needed to regain the golden touch. 

He was with the company 18 years before going to corporate headquarters and was part of the colonial beginnings and adapted to corporate culture before going corporate.  He mentioned the challenges, yet the importance of developing working relationships with peers – adaptable despite of circumstances in the corporate world to still get the job done.  Succession battles – how do you retain obligations to customers, employees, etc. and still get job done? 

When he got the job as CEO with company that he has been with 30 years, he immediately established clear messages and visions.  Stretched goals and compensated people with achieving goals.  He was once known as the darling of Wall Street; however, this summer he had a bump, shortfall in earnings.  Wall Street was not happy with him and he needed to quickly start turning the company around.  Last summer, he went before them and explained to them that they were over anxious and over estimated the task.  However, Bosignore took too long to inform Wall Street of the problems.

He mentioned that things are moving fast in technology and he was even having a hard time keeping up with the dynamics of change.  It was also mentioned that he was going to establish a new culture and punish those who don’t conform.  Then he went on to say how important communication and truth is like town meetings to keep employees involved. 

He also mentioned that technology has depersonalized the business because of not having a direct link with the company to the customer such has having electronic voice responses rather than talking to a “real” person.  He uses his personal experiences to improve their own company. 

When answering some of the business leader’s questions taken from the audience…..Bosignore answered: One has to have a sense of future state; vision and how to stay on course; being adaptable.  Relate with employees and have good communication and interpersonal skills; personal creditability. He also mentioned that part of the job is to be a little ruthless like the move to relocate headquarters and employees.  However, Gordon doesn’t think of it as being ruthless but having to do what you need to do; cannot let personal feelings drive things.  Bonsignore --Differentiate between leadership/management – leadership doing the right thing and management doing things right.  In contrast, Gordon believes it is about concentrating on how to get there. 

Bonsignore mentioned that organizations need to know what is expected of it; he has developed lots of plans for employees to have a roadmap.  Also has created intangibles to fill in the space and sense of culture and direction. 

The both together have the ability to execute with confidence and have great appreciation of central business issues.  They also have essential organizational skills and the awareness of the requirements for merging cultures.

Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell, states that Honeywell will not be an extension of the old Honeywell or Allied Signal.  He is creating a new culture that blends the best of the merged companies of Honeywell and Allied Signal.  He says that Honeywell will compensate and reward people that look for best practices from both companies in creating a new corporate culture and punish those who do not.  Do you predict Honeywell will be successful?

My opinion, I think that Michael Bonsignore will have to find an alternative to his theory of punishment for those that do not conform to his vision for blending the new culture.  In watching this video, he seems to have all the key components except that he needs to find a more systematic approach for resolving any disparity of those not conforming to best practices of the new corporate culture. 

He may need to find a way to carry out the structural and behavioral changes, as well as intervention techniques needed to gain the trust of those that have not grasped the new and merging culture.  I think that he will be successful, but I think he could be more successful if he finds ways to gain followers naturally, rather than putting fear into those individuals for non-conformance. 

In reality, he doesn’t have room to talk in that he just provoked Wall Street by not communicating the downward decline of stock issues with them.  I am sure those that are watching him have mixed signals, both from a trust factor as well as “walking the talk”.

What Barriers do you see based on what you observed in the video? 

From a merge perspective, I think there will be challenges between both Bonsignore and Bethune.  Although they are both well respected and have similar leadership qualities, I think there will be conflict between them as time goes on.  Bethune seems very genuine.  I got mixed signals from Bonsignore.  It seems that Bethune has grasped the integration of change strategies in theory and application, whereas Bonsignore does not seem to be walking the talk.   He has grasped the Technological Strategies well, but really cannot see where he is looking at all from a sociotechnical-systems approach and integration based on their interdependencies. 

What critical success factors should Honeywell consider as it crafts it organizational strategies around a new culture? 

Bonsignore really needs to consider a fully integrated approach to change management.  He should find ways to change attitudes and values rather than force them into the culture.  When a leader threatens in any form as to conformance, I feel that there is a problem with leadership’s ability to persuade and influence change.  It some ways, I feel it is the easy way out.  Leadership then does not have to spend any energy with the behavioral strategies since it just responds by removing a person due to nonconformance rather than making changes which require a systematic intervention and a little more time and energy of the corporate leaders.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career? 

This exercise has given first hand insight on how important the integration of the strategies is to the successful implementation of organizational development programs.  When you sit back and watch a video of this nature with the intent to critique from an integration of change strategies perspective, it provides such a different view of leadership as a whole.  I believe it has given me the knowledge of the importance for understanding the intricacies of the integration of change strategies and also their dependencies amongst one another and how leadership style is affected by this skill.

A630.6.4.RB_50 Reasons Not to Change: The Tribes We Lead_Wathen_Sandra

Re: Ted.Com video; Ideas worth spreading with guest speaker Seth Godin.

It is interesting how a person reacts to another person’s excuses for not wanting to make change.  While others will also eventually fall into that same trap; I personally get very frustrated – sometimes angry.  I believe in change and I understand the importance of continuous change as it is required to maintain a level of success in today’s quick paced, high-tech, and dynamic environment.  I have to admit though, it has required me to change in the way that I think as far as seeing beyond today and planning for the future.  It is human nature to not want to change things, and change is all about how you think.  When you think deeply on this subject; change is the only way to progress.

Establishing groups or also known by Seth Godin as “Tribes” can be one of the biggest ways to implement change since it inspires large advocate groups.  Although Seth describes these as tribes; I think of them as common interest groups.  Either way, they are people that are connecting their ideas through their respective group.  These groups can change the world through their movements.  However, always know who you are connecting with and also know who you are leading, as this will impact the success levels from the group with which you plan to inspire.

When change is made, it is okay that someone is upset.  It is normal to have resistance to change.  However, finding ways to develop “Tribes” allows the followers to accept change rather than be forced to change; less people upset - instead have personal interest. 

You can overcome the way you think by changing your thinking that creates those types of responses to change – you can do this by being willing to challenge status quo; find ways with your group to change the culture by connecting people. 

Commit to people and the cause.  Once you have captured the followers, they will become like your disciples; professing your word.  See the process below for how to make change through establishing tribes - based on how you tell your stories.

Internet has given us a unique social ability; a human, social unit.  It is essential to understand the power of the cyber world in that it provides a new and profound way of making your ideas turn into tremendous change; maybe even change the world; dependent on the nature of the change.  Sharing ideas give tribes (groups of ordinary people) power to lead and make change. This now becomes a great power, as it provides for followers the necessary and collaborative strength sufficient for success.   So, let’s start making change!

As far as my career, I plan to continue to build coalition groups to support my cause.  It is like anything, if you get the support you need, you can move mountains.  I will try to implement Seth’s methodology with respect to the “Tribes” in my work environment.  This perspective seems to have a unique way of approaching groups to gain them as followers.

A630.5.4.RB.NASA Culture Change_Wathen_Sandra

A630.5.4.RB.NASA Culture Change_Wathen_Sandra

Re:  April 13, 2004 (C-SPAN2)

Why did NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe address NASA employees to describe the plan to bring about proposed changes to NASA’s culture?

NASA Leadership member and NASA Administrator, Sean O’Keefe addressed NASA employees on the plan for NASA to bring about proposed changes to NASA’s culture  based on the CAIB investigation and to also explain the reason for selecting a highly experienced outside practitioner to assist NASA with the implementation plan. 

 The purpose was to provide the NASA vision, as well as to gain buy-in during the session of his audience for how to improve and instill this thinking into the culture.  It was also to “softly” translate the results of the survey to them and also to diplomatically explain the reasoning for obtaining an external practitioner to conduct an additional assessment of the NASA culture and develop an implementation plan for way forward.

Important areas that were discussed included how to create a climate for people to speak up when something isn’t looking right (heard, joined and resolved and encourage).  Make these measurable results based on metrics – accountability, feeling a sense of responsibility is the first step.  

Mr. Okeefe was very diplomatic in his words and how he expressed the two areas that he felt stands out.  For one, he continued to reiterate that NASA is a good organization – however, he explained that respect for each other in a professional capacity for carrying tasks was essential.  He then mentioned that he didn’t think it was as strong as it needs to be based on the survey.  

He also discussed the results of the findings which showed that NASA is strong in many professional areas, however; as an institution, the leadership is not as good as it needs to be - he believes that NASA can do much better.  One of the questions he asked his audience was what should “we do” for ourselves to enhance our professional work?  And followed up by saying that how “we” conduct ourselves is also extremely important.

 Mr. Okeefe also mentioned that the NASA challenge is how to communicate with each other, and that was one of the areas NASA failed by not recognizing the signals.  Sean also mentioned that they were not as thorough with their examination and those that raised issues were not followed up with by management; in turn had negative consequences.  Another question to the audience was, “What do “we” think “we” should do to improve?”  He went on to say that this is another opportunity for NASA to develop as people and professionals - NASA has the respect but needs to extend that better based on the survey. 

Another important area was that in concept NASA supports safety practices and the matrix clearly shows that, but it is not nearly good enough.  It is a fundamental requisite and needs to be embedded in the NASA foundation –it’s on the survey but not acted out in the same way it is said.  Mr. Okeefe spoke frequently about NASA’s great triumph and great tragedy, and the way to mitigate it is by being mindful of it - to do things responsibly and carry it out properly. 

Cultural mindset was brought up as being important; having a cultural mindset in how we treat each other.  If we begin with having the mindset with our answer being – yes, what if, instead of no, because.  We ought to do this if we can and as a result, will be able to build on success as the successes materialize.  Success can come from positive responses –can it be achieved or overcome the obstacles?  That one single shift in thinking can get NASA down the road a little farther and much quicker.

Another positive norm to instill as part of the corporate culture is to have leadership make a commitment to get up and walk around to see what everyone is doing; communicate with everyone to make it work as a team.  One of the challenges is that it puts a demand on time.   However, with this commitment NASA can be on its way to fulfilling those elements of being a number one organization.

Respect for each other is essential but it is also extremely important to ensure that NASA has the resources to carry out priorities, budget and the things needed to do to achieve objectives.  Another important area of interest for NASA employees is to understand that someone notices (both positive and negative); someone is always watching.  

It was reiterated that NASA is one of the highest rated organization in many perspectives – best in the federal government.  There is every indication that NASA is right on the edge of being on the top.  These types of comments were strategically placed by Sean to build the audiences’ confidence in NASA as an organization and to give them hope for a bright future by implementing this plan as a result of the investigation.  

Was he believable?  Is it important whether he appeared to be believable? 

Sean was extremely believable and it was of utmost importance for him to appear believable.  This was his first time to meet with those who will be the ones’ to follow his leadership and vision to turn NASA back around.  His methods and encouragement to “Unleash all the power of NASA as an organization and see how great it will be” was powerful.

Why did he talk about NASA values? 
He talked about NASA’s values because the audience he was speaking to, was the very group of people that he needed to adopt his way of thinking and integrate those values into the NASA culture.  They are also the same people that need to build the integrity and instill behaviors consistent with NASA values and desired culture.  Additionally, they are the same individuals that were addressed in the survey as those needing improvement – Leadership and Management.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career? 

There are many different elements that are critical in how we think as leaders.  Effective communication is one of the most important elements to success.  Another important element is to walk the talk; leading by example.  Also, for success - action plans are required to ensure issues are being worked and followed-up with assessments based on metrics.  Core values should drive the vision and re-evaluate core values periodically to ensure for integrity.  When evaluating them, ensure that they are achievable and that can be embraced by everyone.  Otherwise make some changes to make it a better organization.  Also, it is important for management to avoid micro-management; remove management interference which is a mindset that has to be continually worked upon.

A630.4.4RB.Companies Can Make Better Decisions_Wathen_Sandra

    A630.4.4RB.Companies Can Make Better Decisions_Wathen_Sandra

         

Decision effectivess correleates positively with employee engagement and organizational performance...

Decisions are the basic steps to improve organizations and these decisions drive performance.  However, there are some impediments that drive good decision making.  This is especially true for the more complex and larger companies since organizational structures have changed due to the dynamics of the world of business today.

In years past, an organizational chart would clearly identify who within the hierarchy of the organization was the key decision maker.  In today’s business approaches, organizations are structured differently and it is not as clear as to who is actually making the decisions.  This creates impediments since it creates uncertainty of who is making the decisions and are they making the decisions that really matter. 

Also, there are other impediments which include information flow.  This relates to essential and/or the right information NOT getting to those individuals for making sound decisions.  In addition, other areas such as leadership’s negative behaviors, as well as, not having the right talent in key roles for decision making create impediments.  Basically, what are the decisions?  Who is making the decisions? Do the decisions really matter?

        

   There are four elements of good decisions:  quality (Q), speed (S), yield (Y), and effort (E).

Q - Is considered; intuitive.  Is it a good decision?

S - How quick do we make important decisions?

Y - How well did we execute this decision?

E – Did we use the right amount of effort to make the decision? Execution and costs.

I would add one more element; being the first element to address - priority (P). 

P – Is this one of my top priority areas of concern for my organization?

There are 5 key processes for decision making:

• Metrics - Understanding how well you are doing on making decisions, bench mark them and see how they stack up.  This allows you to see how well you are doing and how to improve; basically an assessment. An example is that you may be doing very well as a company with respect to quality and execution, but not so good at speed.  By doing metrics to see the health of how you are doing will allow you to see where you can improve.  This is part of the decision effectiveness process and determines organizational barriers. It will also allow you to put a process in place to improve, as well as, transform the decision making process capabilities to deliver.
• Prioritization of Decisions - Identify the critical decisions, what matters the most, use a methodology to work through the decisions; both from a strategic and operational perspective; prioritizing them.   This will help to realize critical decisions and the next steps to determine solutions. When determining the prioritization of decisions, it is also important to look at all factors to include the cumulative effect on decisions – decision architecture that lay out the requirements and then prioritize.  Include the cumulative value within the scope of prioritization of changes as part of the improvement potential – get top 20-25 decisions that are needed. 
• The - who, what, how and when – framework for the decisions.  These are key elements for decision making since there needs to be an assignment to each.  What is the decision to be made?  Who is the decision authority?  How will we make this change?  When is this change required?
• Another important step in the process is to make sure the rest of the organization business areas can support the decisions such as the culture, talent, skills, etc.

 In summary, business decisions are correlated with financial performance.  Having a high success at all the elements combined will provide a higher level of business performance.  In addition, as a company it will also allow you to see competitor's performance against yours, and areas of improvement with own organization.  It is important to understand the methods for determining the priorities, criteria for making the decisions, current organizations architecture and culture.  For organizations to improve, they need to make sound decisions both strategically and operationally.

        

In my current position, I plan to use these elements and processes to take a different look at how I can implement and improve areas of decision making.  This will include metrics management of how well we are doing and areas of improvement.