Concurrent perspectives in corporations

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!