I've been reflecting on organisations and their structures and how so many organisations, despite endless policies, systems and layers of management and people, still end up with so many people-related problems, such as personnel, regardless of role, with difficulties identifying problems when they first appear and acting on them; having difficulties with remaining on task for the entire time they're at work (avoidance of the boring bits of their work or the difficult work stuff or the inherited problems that are truly ghastly) or having difficulties delivering what's required. I'm wondering if hierarchical structures can support some personnel in taking little personal responsibility for doing what they're actually responsible for and for easily going off task, because there's generally someone else in the system above or around them to take issues to or to give problems over to; or to complain to about all the reasons why something hasn't occurred. And some of this can be easily supported by an organisational culture that tolerates missed deadlines, poor performers, and some staff mucking about and coming to work only to eat their lunch. By way of contrast, contractors are expected to deliver what was asked for, on time, every time, in the manner expected. They are personally responsible for their work. They are required to remain on task until their work is complete. If they don't deliver according to expectations, it is likely they won't be used again. Perhaps we need more contractors in some workplaces and less employees?
The art of procrastination is something some people develop into an art form and they may confess to a marked reluctance to change their ways. Typically, it's because it works well in the short term however, the down side is that it may cause some mental stress when people worry about what they know they're avoiding - typically, avoidance lists get bigger and bigger, until there is a missed deadline or a deadline that is finally, right in their face. How can procrastination be eliminated? Self awareness: individuals need to know themselves well and identify the reasons why they procrastinate - i.e. boredom, a lack of knowledge, a so called lack of time; individuals need to get to a point where they recognise the habit no longer works for them or they are holding up others' work and creating a bottleneck or they realise they are role modelling a habit that they don't appreciate in others. Time management: individuals need to adopt good time management practices, such as prioritising work, chunking and labelling it into their diaries, making themselves unavailable for periods of time, having bring up systems and most importantly, being self disciplined (time management is, after all, about self management and self discipline). Create lists: documenting all the pieces of work that need to be done, how long they've been on the to-do list and prioritising each item. Get into gear: worrying about what hasn't been done is wasted energy and that energy needs to be converted into positive action by doing what needs to be done.
I've been thinking of this recently, as I came across http://www.schoolofthinking.com/ and signed on for 10 free lessons on thinking. Every day for the last 10 days, an email has arrived with a link to a key question and a forum to post replies. I've worked through three questions to date and haven't yet replied to the fourth, as I'm still contemplating it. Through the lessons and website, there's access to interesting articles on brain wiring and other associated topics...so far, it's interesting and definitely something to think about!
I've been reminded this week of how easy it is to get bogged down. Some months ago I was asked to develop and deliver a one hour seminar on a particular topic. The client urgently needed the seminar because there were things happening in his store he wanted to change. I was asked to give some suggested dates, did so and waited weeks for a response. When I was able to get him on the phone, he told me he was so busy he doesn't any time to check emails or respond to things. He asked me to give another range of dates, which I did and here it is again, weeks later, no response and I've called again and heard the same reason - bogged down, all his time spent on operational issues. And the urgent issue he needed the seminar for? Yes, it's still happening, causing problems and costing him money.
Business owners (and any manager for that matter) need to be able to move between working on strategic, big picture stuff to operational stuff and back again. Time spent working only in one area will cause organisational problems, as one area co-exists with the other - it's not an optional extra, it's a necessity.
If you haven't yet discovered the Harvard Business Review Weekly Hotlist that delivers great blogs and great business ideas, then go to http://hbr.org/ and sign on. Some great names regularly appear, including Harvard University professor Elizabeth Moss Kantor.
Some time ago I facilitated a workshop with, as I quickly discovered, a group of very unwilling participants. Their unwillingness made itself clear right at the beginning - they arrived late to the training room and some only got there because a colleague rounded them up; some, once in the room, left again, to have a quick smoke outside; and once the session got underway, most refused to contribute in any meaningful way. Despite all efforts to get some people to engage, they wouldn't and consciously or unconsciously, they worked to sabotage the session. As I discovered later, their resistance had nothing to do with me but everything to do with a number of disgruntled staff who were anti their employer, anti their manager and anti any attempts to manage them. The session was a good illustration that disgruntled or unhappy staff can have a huge, ongoing negative impact on their workmates and on a workplace; that disgruntled or unhappy staff need support and input to resolve their concerns or to help them move on in some way; that people-related issues, left unresolved, will fester for years and become part of the cultural norm of a workplace; that unhappy staff may have little awareness of how they communicate verbally and non-verbally with others and the impact their attitudes or behaviours may have on others; that some staff have little understanding or awareness of what being 'professional' means on a day to day basis, in a workplace.
It's a bold claim but one I'm prepared to make. Large organisations have layers of management, numerous divisions and teams, countless individuals and policies and practices for Africa. Decision making tends to be slow, making changes even slower, productivity average and all in all, are places where individual creativity and passion is most likely to be eventually stifled because of the weight of the structure and the weight and complexity of its internal processes. They are sick places, as their full potential (and the potential of people within them) can never be realised. They are structures that are ill equipped to deal with our world today and the needs of today - organisations that are fluid and flexible enough to make rapid change, to throw out the notions of how things have always been done to create new ways of viewing and doing things; to only engage people with passion and personal energy and drive and an ability to think outside the square; to have a light touch with structures and infrastructure, so they too are flexible and adaptable to changing needs. The old way, the traditional way, isn't working anymore. RIP.
There is a world of difference between the symptom of a problem and a core problem and sometimes it's a challenge to know which is which. For example, a staff member may be experienced by colleagues as constantly obstructive. They may think the person is deliberately being difficult to annoy their colleagues or stop organisational change occurring. Yet, the obstructiveness may be symptomatic of different problems altogether, such as: the person may not have all the relevant information on some issues in order to make an informed decision; they may have been excluded from some information, so they don't know about changes that may be planned; they may have been given clear instructions from one manager to do something yet that instruction isn't known by other managers. At the heart of most symptoms of organisational confusion and misunderstandings amongst staff, the following core issues are likely to be found: poor communications, erratic use of required processes, unclear roles and boundaries between roles, a high tolerance level to poor performance, staff in roles they may not have all the skill sets for and systematic management failure - that is, known problems have been left to fester, for years.
The concept of fast failures is an interesting one. It is where an organisation, section or team has an operating norm that sees mistakes as an inevitable workplace practice. Then, when a mistake occurs, it is analysed by the people concerned, the learnings found from the experience, necessary changes are made where they need to be made, and everyone moves on. I like it. This approach enables the workplace to be a supportive, learning organisation and a place where calculated risks, seizing opportunities and trying new things can easily occur.