Follow Us Twitter Link | Email Us email us | 1.888.745.2520

Archive for the ‘company culture’ Category

Kotter’s 8 Steps to Real and Lasting Organizational Change

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

By William Seidman

It’s amazing to me how much insight into today’s organizations’ problems retired Harvard professor John Kotter had nearly fifteen years ago, when he published “Leading Change: Why Transformational Efforts Fail.” Looked at it another way – how little things have changed.  One of Kotter’s most important points is that transformation is a process, not an event.

Kotter lists the biggest errors organizations make, and then the antidotes – his 8 steps to successful change.

  1. Create urgency
  2. Form a powerful guiding coalition
  3. Create a vision for change
  4. Communicate the vision
  5. Empower others to act on the vision by removing obstacles
  6. Create short-term wins
  7. Don’t declare victory too early; build on the change
  8. Anchor the changes in corporate culture

We’re very much in line with Kotter’s approach, and benefit from the addition of recent breakthroughs in the neuroscience of learning. The leaders we work with understand these now-classic 8 Steps to Change,  but managers have a harder time with them.  It’s our challenge to convey the importance of each step.

The Difference Between Management and Leadership

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

By William Seidman

John Kotter’s now-classic article, “What Leaders Really Do,” was published by the Harvard Business Review some years ago. Its message rang true then, and it does today. Kotter makes the distinction between leadership and management: leadership is about guiding an organization through change. Management, on the other hand, is about facilitating and inspiring the daily efficient execution of the change. Organizations need both but, in a misguided effort, spend most of their time and energy on management. The need for great leadership, and for support of great leaders, is often given short shrift.

At Cerebyte we’ve noticed a decline in leadership during the recession – as if people are fearful of making a change, and so are almost hiding.  As understandable as this response might be, it’s of little use to organizations; in fact it dooms them.

Our work seeks to support and reinforce leadership so that, during this recession and beyond it, companies and organizations can thrive.

Cerebyte Partners With The Berry Company

Monday, August 2nd, 2010

By William Seidman

We’re excited about working with The Berry Company LLC , a leading local search services provider, to support Berry’s transformation from a legacy print publisher to a multi-platform lead generator for small and medium-sized businesses. Using our TRANSFORM process, we’ll be using the talents of Berry’s top sales consultants to ensure that its entire workforce is equipped to meet the local search needs of clients in the digital age.

The Cerebyte TRANSFORM process, which applies scientific theories regarding human behavior and the importance of modeling best practices after top-performing employees (those “positive deviants” I talk about so often) will improve the way Berry sells, fulfills, and provides its services, which includes digital products. Berry has a legacy of a strong and vibrant sales organization, which has made it easy for us to identify star performers who will help ensure that the entire workforce becomes local-search lead experts.

Already implemented in nine of Berry’s 10 regions, this comprehensive approach made possible the rollout of  “BerryLeads,”  a new business model designed to simplify local search campaigns by providing multi-platform solutions that are effective, affordable and measurable.

Linda Martin, Berry’s chief operating officer, has said, “With Cerebyte’s help, our organization is trained, equipped and ready to meet the evolving search needs of today’s clients. Our clients are now able to benefit from local search capabilities in multiple platforms — print, online and mobile — at any location — at home or on-the-go.”

How to Set the Bar for Better Performance in Your Organization

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

By William Seidman

Positive deviants model the ethical attitudes and best practices that others should achieve. They are the primary creators and preservers of an organization’s ethics. These individuals are motivated by a commitment to create a “social good” for their customers and for their organization: they are the ideal candidates to set the bar within your company’s culture.

Use your organization’s positive deviants to establish a clear, specific standard of ethical values, attitudes and behaviors. This is one of the most effective ways you can create change in your organization.

In this video I explain how to set the bar to create a useful picture of the results you want:

Leaders and Managers, Change Initiatives, and Learning from the Exit Interview : More Questions from Robert Morris

Monday, July 26th, 2010

By William Seidman

Several weeks ago Robert Morris interviewed me at length for the “First Friday Book Synopsis,” and I’ve been sharing parts of that interview here. Today: developing effective leaders and managers, how to lead change initiatives that “stick,” and the useful truths that sometimes emerge during the exit interview.


Morris: At Cerebyte, how are effective leaders and managers developed at all levels and in all areas?


Seidman: We use our Wisdom Discovery process with “positive deviants” (or star employees) from several organizations to define what it means to be a great leader and how to become this type of leader. These best practices are put into our persuasive technology to guide users through a series of learning activities that develop their leadership capabilities. It is just amazing to watch how people grow in these programs. They speak differently, act differently and even stand with more confidence. It is a great feeling to help people move into the leadership realm.

Morris: Most change initiatives either fail or fall far short of original expectations. In your opinion, what are the most formidable behaviors to change and how best to overcome them?

Seidman: The single biggest barrier to change is revealed when an organization’s leadership is insufficiently committed to the change, to seeing it through to success. Many executives seem to want the benefit of a change without being willing to do the work required or handle the resistance. This shows up generally in an organization’s unwillingness to allocate the time and resources required to learn the new capabilities, and most acutely, at the end of a quarter when there are financial pressures and all change initiatives are dropped to make the numbers. In our terminology, transactional pressures undermine transformational initiatives. In most people’s language, the change is just a “fad of the week.” There just isn’t a twitter version of change or performance improvement, no matter how much people want one.


Morris: During exit interviews of highly-valued employees who have accepted a position elsewhere, most of the reasons for leaving are associated with their supervisor. In your opinion, how best to respond to quite legitimate complaints?


Seidman: The best way to fix any turnover problem caused by supervisors is to improve the supervisors’ leadership capabilities. Using our approach, even in very high turnover environments such as fast food, turnover drops drastically and satisfaction with management increases. This happens because we separate the supervisor’s role as content expert from their role as supportive leader. In most cases, supervisors don’t know when they should be telling someone something versus encouraging exploration and growth. As a result, supervisors increasingly become “tellers” of information, which turns out to be very dictatorial and discouraging for employees.
By having the expert knowledge supplied from the positive deviants and provided through the persuasive technology, we can reduce the load on the supervisor, enabling them to learn a few — very focused and effective — support tools. We also help the supervisor become consistently more transformational by guiding them to be more effective at understanding and managing the conflict between their daily transactional role that tends to drive employees away and the transformational role that tends to grow employee loyalty.

Answering Some Thoughtful Questions from Management Consultant Robert Morris

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

By William Seidman

I was recently interviewed by management consultant Robert Morris. Our conversation was posted on the  First Friday Book Synopsis,  part of ”The Employee Engagement Network.” I’ll be sharing some of the highlights (some edited for brevity) here.

Today: What I know now that I wish I’d known when I founded Cerebyte, the major challenges our clients face, and the difference between leadership and management..

Morris: What do you know now that you wish you had known when you founded Cerebyte?

Seidman: Our most valuable insight is this: how hard it is to establish an innovative product and process even if everyone says they want it and even if it has incredibly strong proof points to support it. More specifically, we thought there would be an openness to innovation in the area of performance improvement because almost every organization talked about the need to improve performance and there was widespread agreement about the ineffectiveness of the available approaches (e.g. training classes) at improving performance. However, there was actually a tremendous amount of resistance to change, even if everyone thought it was a good thing to do. It was only when the science actually caught up with what we had been doing, and became widely accepted that the resistance to change decreased.

Morris: Although there is great diversity among Cerebyte clients, in terms of both size and nature of business, which major challenge do all of them face? How specifically does Cerebyte help them to respond effectively to that challenge?

Seidman: They are serious about making the changes in their organization required to significantly improve performance, usually in a particular focus area. In many cases, it is a “change or die” situation for them so motivation and disillusionment with traditional approaches are high. We help organizations improve performance, faster, more completely, more predictably and at less expense than has previously been possible.

Morris: Do you differentiate leadership from management?

Seidman: Yes, though primarily in the leadership programs we develop for our customers. To us, leadership is much more about creating a compelling vision and providing the support and resources that enable the team to achieve the vision (in our terminology, it is about guiding “transformation”) while management is much more about the administration of the business (i.e. “transactions”). We find that this difference is most important when there are significant challenges to the organization. Managers retreat from performance improvements to a survival mode – Did I make my numbers today? -whereas leaders look at the challenges as an opportunity to drive the organization forward, even if it means taking some significant risks.

In addition, we know that “operational excellence,” which is the focus of management, is a subset of leadership —  so if you have great leadership, you get the best of both worlds. It doesn’t work the other way though. Managers, even good ones, literally think differently than great leaders and need extensive education to become leaders.

Four Steps to a More Ethical Organization

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

Ethix is an excellent online publication of the Center for Integrity in Business in the School of Business and Economics at Seattle Pacific University. The magazine’s editors provide illustrations of business ethics challenges through positive examples of best practices and exemplary leadership.

We were delighted to share our ideas on creating ethical organizations with readers of “Ethix,” in which our article recently appeared:

FOUR STEPS TO A MORE ETHICAL ORGANIZATION

By William Seidman and Michael McCauley

Do you consider your organization to be ethical? Many organizations have a moral foundation that enables them to make ethically sound decisions even when faced with adverse short-term consequences. However, as has recently been seen on Wall Street and in other places (e.g., Toyota) too many organizations are quick to put immediate economic gain before ethics. While the unethical actions may be expedient, they ultimately contaminate both the employees and the organization. Maintaining high ethical standards is the only way to produce sustainable success.

Do you want your organization to be consistently ethical? Using recent scientific breakthroughs, it is now possible to efficiently enhance the ethics of almost any organization. A simple process of setting a goal and then motivating, sustaining, and scaling ethical behaviors has produced numerous success stories like these:
• Pharmacy managers in a large retail chain think of themselves as “a critical part of the family emergency response system,” going out of their way to ensure that their patients get the correct medicines and care (instead of just selling prescriptions).

• Sales people in an advertising firm that serves small and medium businesses see themselves as “helping customers achieve their personal life goals” (instead of just selling advertising).

So how can an organization create the ethical foundation that inspires this type of response?

1. Set the Bar
First, use your organization’s “positive deviants” to establish a clear, specific standard of ethical values, attitudes and behaviors. Positive deviants are highly respected individuals who are consistent top performers and can typically be identified simply by asking management who stands out. They model the ideal ethical attitudes and best practices all others should achieve and are therefore the primary creators and preservers of an organization’s ethics. Positive deviants are motivated by a commitment to ethically creating a “social good” for their customers and for their organization.

2. Motivate Ethics
Second, guide all personnel to firmly embrace the goal of ethically achieving the positive deviant’s social good. When a positive deviant’s social good, or the inspiration behind their work, is presented to others in an empowering manner, it can be contagious for an organization. It naturally and organically spreads the commitment to the social good, and its ethical foundation, quickly and efficiently.

More specifically, once a strong understanding of the positive deviants’ social good has been established, it can be packaged into a short, emotionally powerful statement that excites and empowers other employees. To be successful, the social good must be presented in a way that creates a sense of honor and dignity (i.e., fair process). It must also cause people to naturally visualize themselves as having the same personal standards and commitment as the positive deviants (i.e., positive visualization). When these occur, people quickly embrace the positive deviants’ perspectives, improving the ethics of the entire organization.

3. Sustain Ethics
Next, ensure that the commitment to ethics is sustainable, even in the face of contrary pressures. True ethical behavior is profound and long term. It is a way of doing business that is so engrained in the organization that people cannot imagine functioning any other way.
The most effective means of generating this depth of commitment comes from the neuroscience principle “neurons that fire together wire together.” All profound learning is a change to the underlying neural structure of the brain that occurs when neurons fire together around consistent concepts. If the concepts are focused around the positive deviant ethics, new learning occurs that can be so complete that people do not even recognize they were ever any other way.

What makes neurons fire together? The key to achieve this organizational depth is simple — practice, practice, practice. Everything the organization does needs to exercise and reinforce the mental commitment to ethics.

4. Scale Ethics
Finally, engage a critical mass of the organization quickly to ensure that ethics pervades all aspects of the organization and becomes a true reflection of the organization as a whole. At the same time, individuals must display ethical behaviors in ways that are unique to their function and personality.

Persuasive technology — technology designed to “change what people believe and do” — that incorporates the principle of mass customization can facilitate widespread commitment to an organization’s ethics. Because this type of technology can touch many people simultaneously, individuals function more ethically and the organization as a whole builds a lasting foundation for ethical behavior.

Contributing to Success
The notion of an ethical organization may seem abstract, yet people who work in an organization with healthy ethics absolutely know it. They love their work, and they ultimately create better, more successful institutions.

Are Your Managers Planning, or Are They Pedaling as Fast as They Can? Think Again.

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

By William Seidman

 

I’ve recently read two very good books: The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen and and The Knowing-Doing Gap by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton.

 

Christensen and Pfeffer and Sutton each tell the truth about what happens when organizations try to change – and why it is so hard to change.

 

Christensen describes how institutions develop infrastructure that is focused, to the exclusion of all else, on today,  emphasizing current issues over planning for the future. These hidden biases and barriers to thinking ahead tend to be the factors that most undermine change.

 

It makes sense that a company’s daily pressures to make short-term numbers demand quick action, and that this be done in ways that have worked before.  But it doesn’t help with tomorrow’s challenges — not one bit.

 

Vitally important changes are all but impossible to accomplish when managers are preoccupied with filling orders regardless of what might lie ahead.  I think of the bumper sticker I used to see, “DON’T HONK. I’M PEDALING AS FAST AS I CAN!”

Pfeffer and Sutton take this idea a step farther,  showing how management teams know about these issues and even know what they should do —  but don’t do it because, again,  of pressure to satisfy immediate needs.

 

An exasperated colleague said to me the other day, “Sometimes you just want to shake people!”

 

We try to break down these barriers by using existing leadership and showing, convincingly, that there’s a lot more to sustained success than “pedaling as fast as you can.”

 

Steps to Courageous Leadership

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

By William Seidman

What are we really recommending when we talk to executives about “courageous leadership”?

Commit to a vision. Believe in your vision  — and the fact that it will require some disruption to achieve –in order to get others to commit to it.  Courageous executives have the courage of their own convictions.

Try new approaches and new ideas. Have the courage to actually allocate resources to learning and becoming good at the new idea. There’s often huge pressure to continue to do the old thing. Willingness to push toward an often undefined outcome is essential to my definition of “courage.”

Wholeheartedly pursue the goal. It’s human nature to fear change. Someone in your organization is likely to resist, and we’ve seen many executives abandon their initiatives as soon as anyone pushes back. This isn’t conviction! Persistence in the face of resistance is essential.

Combine these attributes and you have a courageous, forward-looking executive leading an organization that’s likely to vastly outperform the competition.

Courageous Leadership and Unresponsive Organizations: A Difficult Marriage

Monday, May 24th, 2010

By William Seidman 

Cerebyte did a session on courageous leadership at ISPI (International Society for Performance Improvement)‘s recent conference that got really good reviews. Here is the gist of the session:

We told executives that we will guarantee that their vision gets implemented.

We asked the attendees at the session if they thought such a guarantee was a good thing or a bad thing. After some serious thought, they said that it was a good thing, but that it might not be credible.

We shared that in our experience working with executives, that such a guarantee was actually a bad thing.

Attend carefully to the wording of the guarantee: “We will guarantee that their vision gets implemented.”

Whose vision are we guaranteeing? Who is now accountable for the quality and impact of the vision? They are, and many don’t like the idea.

Many executives are used to having an unresponsive organization which gives them a reason — some would say an excuse – for the ineffectiveness of their vision.

Guaranteeing that their vision gets implemented scares many executives.

 
Better Tag Cloud