One thing that has always been fascinating to me, not to say
fancy, is how to intend standpoints. From every single angle, in each and every
topic, under every lens you look, you can give an interpretation of facts based
on a different standpoint. I still remember, back in 1978: it was me, my
brother, my mother and our friend and neighbor Lina, sitting in a cinema
watching the first Star Wars movie. “Luke, you're going to find that many of
the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view…”.
A real revelation, to such a point that from that moment on,
I have been thinking that there is no absolute truth. Everything is based on
own impressions, on ways of interpreting things, on points of view, better
still on perspectives.
My convincement has been reinforces throughout all my life, even
further by studying Business Administration, Management and Organizational
Development.
You can actually give your interpretation of how to lead,
manage and organize a company depending on what perspective you are
strategically keen to observe.
What would you add to the following list?
Engagement – the
life and success of a company largely depends upon the level of engagement of
its employees. Most of the time it works, but it is scientifically impossible
to determine a direct cause-effect relation between the two, just a strong positive
correlation has been reported. And how explain those successful companies where
people are intentionally kept strongly disengaged?
Performance – it is
all about performance when it comes to discerning what the real essence of
corporation success is. Performance means almost everything and can be related
to any entity working in a business, from people, to financials, to operations.
But isn’t it too much of a broad standpoint? And if we try to narrow it down to
one or a few of the multiple fields where “performance” has a connotation, such
as just finance, or just people, or just production, or just anything else, doesn’t
it easily become too narrow? How many times in business history people
performance has not turned into corporate performance?
Leadership –
corporations are leaders’ job. Influence, thrive, inspire and succeed. Very
linked to both engagement and performance. Oh I forgot, when things go well.
Right, because when things doesn’t go well, leadership and leaders are the
first to blame. When a football team fails, the coach is the first to be fired.
And, actually, what could the first and easy choice other than this be?
Total Reward –
give and take, just that. Whatever I give you in terms of development, growth,
training, exposure, prestige, joy, fun, and of course money, I expect you
revert to me. Raise your hand if you have seen this working in more than 3
corporations in your life…
Organization
structure – dear Mr. Mintzberg, you really seduced me when I studied your essays
at the University. Everything was so clear, every single aspect in its proper
place, all towels in order, tidy desks and easy minds. First day of work, a
mess. Henry, now I understand. Your idea is what you tend towards, not what you
find in the real corporate world.
Potential –
corporate blood shed for potential… what experience do you have to share? Maybe
less if you are young, but as an early practitioner I have seen the last
companies failing in applying the potential based approach. Beautiful on paper,
intriguing in theory, engaging at the beginning of the implementation, it would
turn to hell once the best potentials came out as underperforming gurus and
self-conceived primadonnas. Sad but true.
Competency-based
– same as above, just less tasty and more pragmatic, but with similar results.
You may have as many potentials and competences as you want, but if it all does
not come up with something productive, it is just useless.
Budgeting – a
different perspective that, if played in conjunction with others, is able to
give great value and thoroughly improve sustainability, business focus and
financial results. As usual, if you think you can completely rely upon a
budget, figures may be initially happy but people aren’t really.
Financial outcome
– it’s air and water for all businesses. Almost all businesses. In many
cultures, striving just for the moneys is impolite, sometimes rude, short-term
orientated indeed and very western. Sustainability, progress and social
responsibilities lie elsewhere. You tell me whether is good or bad.
Growth and
development – the flipside of financial outcome. Beautiful for some eastern
marketplaces like Japan, definitely more in line with the idea of a corporation
which pays a lot of attention to its employees, their wellness and social life.
In some European countries it still represent a fascinating experiment that
some companies love to flaunt, sometimes because they truly believe in that,
more frequently just to show off or as mean to an end (taking out as much as
possible from people making money). Usually those companies are also successful
in terms of financial outcomes, way too easy to speak about growth, then!
