Transparency + Clarity: Information Dumps Don't Work

Lately, we hear a great deal about the value of radical transparency.  Consultants argue that leaders need to share information broadly with members of their organization.  They argue that radical transparency builds buy-in, trust, and commitment.  Sounds sensible, right?  Is there a downside though?  What risks does this approach create?

Martin Gutmann and Antoni Lacinai examine this issue in a new Fast Company article.  They contend that transparency only works when coupled with clarity.  They write:

Transparency in a company setting typically means more dashboards, more all-hands, and more context. It feels responsible—especially in uncertain moments—because it signals you aren’t hiding anything.  But facts don’t organize themselves. People still have to decide what matters, what they need to ignore, and what to do next. When leaders don’t provide that structure, they leave teams confused, and teams will fill in the blanks with rumor and gossip. In the end, this leads to more insecurity and more internal politics.

Gutmann and Lacinai argue that leaders need to explain why information is important, and then they must provide clear direction to their team members.  They have be wary of creating cognitive overload and overwhelming their employees with information.  People need to know what the priorities are and how to interpret key data.  

For me, any attempt to add clarity begins with leaders stepping into their employees' shoes.  They need to try to see things from their team members' perspectives.  How will they interpret information?  What might confuse them?  How might they be unsettled by certain data?  Stepping into their shoes will help leaders frame their messages, anticipate challenges, and develop strategies for reducing stress and anxiety among workers.  

Coping with Changing Priorities

Every employee has been frustrated at times by changing organizational priorities.  They thought the understand this year's primary goals and objectives, but then, senior leaders threw them a curveball.   They shifted the priorities.  Even worse, sometimes leaders seem to simply add priorities to an already lengthy and challenging list.  Employees wonder what really matters most. Can it really be a "priority" if it is among a list of nine or ten goals, all of which seem to be deemed equally important?  

Here are four practical questions that can guide our actions when executives confront us with changing priorities. 

1.  What clarifying questions should I ask? 

Before one starts reallocating resources and taking decisive action in a new direction, a few clarifying questions might be illuminating.  Don't just act without making sure you understand clearly what you are being asked to do differently.  One question that I love:  Is this a change in destination or just a change in our flight path?  In other words, are we really aiming at a different outcome, or are we simply adjusting how we intend to arrive at that result?  

2.  Is this change a threat or an opportunity?

Many of us might naturally frame this type of shift in direction as a threat.  If we do so, we may be subject to what scholars call "threat rigidity."  In short, we tend to adopt well-established behavioral routines when framing an event as a threat.  We tend to be more open and innovative if we frame a change as an opportunity.  

3.  What tradeoffs am I willing to make?  What tradeoffs must I make?

We have to recognize that not all goals are equally important, and that we will have to make tradeoffs if we adding new priorities to an already lengthy list of goals and objectives.  Being clear about those tradeoffs is essential.  Moreover, we have to determine what criteria we should be using to make those tradeoffs.

4.  Why might others resist the change?

Before we ask our employees to shift their behavior, we must put ourselves in their shoes. Why might they resist this change?  What are their personal goals, motivations, and incentives?  Why might this change in their daily routines or allocation of time be unsettling?  By putting ourselves in their shoes, we can determine how to address this resistance.  

Five Priorities Is Probably Too Many

Willie Pietersen, retired CEO of businesses Lever Foods, Seagram USA, and Tropicana has written a column for Fortune in which he argues that many leaders proclaim too many priorities.  The article is titled, "You can’t have 5 priorities—even Steve Jobs and Bob Iger couldn’t."  He writes:

During my 20 years as the CEO of various enterprises, I developed an ingrained habit. Recognizing that the core responsibility of a leader is to unify an organization behind a clear strategic direction, I followed conventional wisdom and developed five key priorities for the business, and asked each function and business unit to follow suit.  However, at progress review meetings I saw that executives were often trudging through these priorities mechanically like a project checklist, without connecting them to a central strategic thrust or inspiring story.

Pietersen cites research by Don Sull and his co-authors, in which they find that many middle managers can't recall the priorities established by the senior leadership team.  Sull and his co-authors write,

The CEO of a large technology company (let’s call it Generex) recently reviewed the results of her company’s annual employee engagement survey and was delighted that strategic alignment emerged as an area of strength.  Among the senior leaders surveyed, 97% said they had a clear understanding of the company’s priorities and how their work contributed to corporate objectives. Based on these scores, the CEO was confident that the company’s five strategic priorities — which had not changed over the past two years and which she communicated regularly — were well understood by the leaders responsible for executing them.

We then asked those same managers to list the company’s strategic priorities. Using a machine-learning algorithm and human coders, we classified their answers to assess how well their responses aligned with the official strategic priorities. The CEO was shocked at the results. Only one-quarter of the managers surveyed could list three of the company’s five strategic priorities. Even worse, one-third of the leaders charged with implementing the company’s strategy could not list even one.

These results are typical not just in the technology industry, but across a range of companies we have studied. Most organizations fall far short when it comes to strategic alignment: Our analysis of 124 organizations revealed that only 28% of executives and middle managers responsible for executing strategy could list three of their company’s strategic priorities.  

In short, creating a list of five priorities or more often leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and a lack of organizational alignment.  For me, the lesson is clear.  Leaders need to have a coherent strategic story.  What's the overall direction?  What is the firm's desired competitive position, and how is that distinct from the competition?  Then, with that coherent story established and communicated, leaders need to make clear what matters most.  Perhaps there are five important goals, but are they truly equally important? Which ones are more critical than others?  It is very difficult to answer that final question, but it must be done.  Moreover, leaders need to communicate that overall strategic perspective over and over, through multiple channels and using multiple forums and media.  Then, most importantly, leaders need to take the pulse of the organization.  They have to test whether the message got through to lower levels of the organization.  Leaders have to do that through direct conversation with those at lower levels, through both formal and informal opportunities for communication and conversation.  

Self-Reflection: How Am I Spending My Time?

Many people complain about their daily or weekly schedule.  Too many meetings.   Too much time spent fighting fires.  Not enough opportunities to interact with customers and other external constituents.  While these complaints may be justified, many of us don't take the opportunity to periodically engage in serious self-reflection about how we allocate our time.  Leaders at all levels should make it a regular habit to examine their calendar and ask themselves a few questions:

1. What types of activities are taking up most of my time?
2. Are there some important activities that are not receiving sufficient attention?
3. Who in the organization or outside the organization should I be spending more time with in the coming weeks and months?
4. How can I build in some time into my calendar for broader strategic and long term thinking/planning?
5. What activities do I need to reduce or even eliminate so as to make time for other important matters?
6. Where in my schedule will I build in an opportunity for systematic, routine self-reflection, not just about the allocation of my time, but about other important aspects of my professional and personal life?

In short, let's all stop complaining about our schedule and start doing something about it.  Carve out the time needed to conduct critical work.   Question 5, though, will be the most difficult one.  We can't make time for crucial activities without taking some things off our plate.  We have to give up some activities to make time for others.  

How about Building a "To-Don't List" for Yourself?

Source: ideas.ted.com

Diana Shi has written an article for Fast Company in which she describes how she tried to craft a "to-don't list" as a means of improving her effectiveness while working remotely. She defines it as follows: "In essence, the list is a curated collection of activities that can derail your energy and motivation. They’re often alluring but end up creating a distracting spiral, sapping you of your most productive hours."   Shi began by reflecting on her daily activities and trying to identify those that derailed her and lowered her effectiveness and personal satisfaction.   Shi discovered that the list helped her in several important ways:

1.  The list offered helped her establish some personal accountability by providing a visible reminder of the actions that distracted her or prevented her from maintaining her energy and focus.  Her list included items such as not sitting in one place for more than an hour,  drinking too much caffeine, or engaging in a specific inefficient work practice to which she had become accustomed.  

2. The list helped her spot unhealthy patterns in her daily routine.  She identified the times and the activities during which she had high energy and productivity, as well as the practices that were not as effective. She quotes time management coach Elizabeth Grace Saunders: " “I think a to-don’t list is helpful if you’re working remotely.  A lot of times our minds wander because we’re simply bored and seeking stimulation. Knowing what your unhealthy patterns may be when you’re bored, and preemptively limiting them, can help you to make better choices in the moment."

3.  Finally, the list helped her feel a sense of accomplishment, just in a  different way that a traditional to-do list.  She writes, "Something can be said for being able to look over your list of “to-don’t’s” and not crossing them off, but congratulating yourself on the self-control needed to follow them. I felt less defeated, since I didn’t have an entire collection of tasks to address by late-afternoon. Moreover, my “to-don’t” bulletin made me aware of why it was I hit a wall."

What Should We NOT be doing?

Source:  Flickr

During the current COVID-19 crisis, many organizations have had to be very clear about their priorities.  With tremendous pressure on the business, and limited resources, companies often have moved quite nimbly to focus time, attention, and money on only the most important initiatives and activities.  Leaders have been able to push less important or urgent issues aside.   The crisis has really made organizations focus on what is truly most critical to achieving the mission, maintaining viability, and serving customers effectively.   

When the crisis subsides, companies should not forget the lessons learned during these trying times.   It will be only natural as some semblance of normalcy returns for initiatives and activities which did not receive attention or resources to return to the agenda post-crisis.  However, leaders should proceed with caution in that regard.  Every organization should continue to ask at that moment:  What should we NOT be doing?  In other words, are some activities simply not value-adding or do they not deserve to return to the agenda?   Being disciplined about priority-setting post-crisis will be essential to recovery and success.  It's easy to lose that discipline when the urgency of a crisis subsides.  The best organizations will not lose that sense of focus around resource allocation moving forward.  

Making Time for Big Picture Thinking

Adrian Granzella Larssen has written a terrific Fast Company article titled, "How to get out of the weeds and make time for big-picture thinking."  Larssen introduces executive coach Melody Whiting's perspective on why we often overload our schedules.  Whiting argues that a busy schedule reinforces our self-perceptions.  Here's an excerpt:

Source: Wikipedia

Everyone’s busy, and that’s not exactly by accident. Wilding’s take is something that might be uncomfortable to hear: “It makes us feel useful and wanted, and especially for people who are leaders or traditionally high achievers, that’s how they source their self-worth—via accomplishments and what they get done.”

Larssen has some good suggestions for how to rethink the way we manage our time, so that we can have more time for strategic thinking and reflection.   I highly recommend the article.  Among other things, Larssen reminds us of the value of the Eisenhower Matrix, a simple diagnostic tool that the former president and military leader recommended for setting the right priorities.  

Clarifying Information Priorities to Make Better Decisions

Source:  flickr

Former Army Colonel Robert Hughes, now a professor at the Kellogg School, has some great advice for leaders facing tough decisions. In a feature for Kellogg Insight, he argues that you have to identify and clarify your information priorities. According to Hughes, "This means determining the most important information they will need in order to decide—as early as possible—whether the plan is moving forward as intended, or whether it might need to be adjusted." He goes on to explain, "“The leader’s role is to define what success looks like for each operation. Then you think about what essential information is needed throughout the plan to achieve success.”

Establishing your information priorities is only a first step though. Hughes argues that you have to link those information priorities to decision points that you anticipate will occur moving forward. In other words, you have to anticipate key choices you will have to make and roughly when you might need to make them, and identify the data you will need to make those decisions effectively. 

Finally, Hughes argues that you have to communicate your information priorities clearly and concisely to your team. You have to encourage people to share key data, including problems or unexpected issues that arise. Moreover, you have to be willing to adjust your plans and priorities when things don't work out as planned.

Hughes' advice is terrific. I love the notion of anticipating the information you may need to make good decisions as you execute a plan of action. In addition, I think it's critically important to anticipate key decisions that you might have to make, and preparing yourself to make those choices as much as possible. Mountaineer David Breashears once told me that he played out many scenarios in his mind before beginning to climb a mountain. Moreover, he thought carefully about the types of tough decisions he might face, including whether to turn around himself or to direct a team member to return to base camp. Breashears argued that thinking carefully about the "exit decision" before you launch is critically important to helping make that challenging decision. He also argued that you have to discuss those issues with your team before you begin your journey. His advice is very consistent with Hughes' approach to planning and execution. Both men have offered good lessons applicable to business leaders.

Problems with Priorities

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/
160866001@N07/46537652121

As I observe many different leaders struggle with strategy execution, I notice that priority-setting tends to be at the root of the problem.   How do leaders struggle with establishing and communicating priorities?  Here are four patterns of dysfunction that I have observed:

1.  Leaders change their priorities quite often.  Members of the organization think to themselves, "This too shall pass" as they observe the latest "flavor of the month" or "management fad" being championed from the top.   Alternatively, employees simply find themselves confused as to what they should be doing. 

2.  Members of the organization do not agree with the priorities established by the leader.  In some cases, leaders do not recognize the disenchantment.  In other cases, they convince themselves that the employees simply "don't get it" and don't have the strategic vision necessary to chart the organization's path as well as those at the top.   This type of "leader knows best" thinking can be dangerous though.  Moreover, employee engagement falls, and therefore, productivity decreases when employees do not believe that the leader's priorities match their values.  

3.  Leaders do not communicate their priorities clearly.   Too often, the leadership team assumes that employees throughout the organization understand the goals and objectives, when in fact, people are somewhat confused or unclear about the strategic direction and priorities.  

4.  Leaders set too many priorities.  At this point, employees perceive everything as urgent and important.  In some sense, if everything is crucial, then nothing is really crucial.  People do not know how to allocate their time and effort properly in these situations.  

Scattered Priorities

Author and consultant Ron Carucci wrote an article recently for Harvard Business Review, and he described how some leadership teams struggle with scattered priorities. He writes:

One study, done by the consulting firm RHR International, showed that among high-performing leadership teams, 93% are able to prioritize the most important issues and 96% focus on the right issues. By contrast, in low-performing leadership teams, only 62% prioritize well and 53% are seen as being focused on the right issues. The implications for an organization whose leadership team is poorly focused are serious: Wasted resources, wasted effort, and widespread confusion become the norm.

Why do leadership teams find themselves exhibiting scattered priorities?   Here are a few reasons based on my own work with various organizations:

Source: Juan Martinez via Flickr

1.  Top executives engage in reactionary behavior based on a recent event or trendy topic that struck a chord with them.   

2.  Executives don't want to make the hard choices.  Therefore, they spread resources around to too many initiatives, in part because they don't want to disappoint key managers.   Conflict avoidance plays a role here too. 

3. Leadership teams always add items to the strategic agenda, but never step back and consider removing key initiatives.  Thus, the breadth of the agenda grows larger and larger over time.  

4.  Executives make the mistake of thinking that they will grow revenue more quickly if they simply expand their product and service offerings.   They expand and diversify because it seems the easy route to growth, rather than thinking about how to deepen their existing competitive position as a means of achieving growth objectives.

5.  Top leaders assume that declaring issues as priorities is motivating for employees.  They don't realize that employees actually become demotivated if they experience confusion about the strategic agenda, and if they feel stressed and torn in different directions.