Management Category
“Best Practices” are like fingernails on a blackboard. I’m physically uncomfortable when I hear people blindly promoting best practices. And we’d all be better off if it made everyone uncomfortable. There are two major difficulties with the idea of Best Practices.
Who says what’s best?
Who is the authority and by what standard does anyone say what’s “best”? Who can say what’s best: in the world; in the world for all time; for our small local organization at this point in time; in what culture? Best for what, who, when, where?
David Creelman, writing in PeopleTalk magazine says, “Outstanding companies often have unorthodox HR practices.” Best to be unorthodox? Not in all cases I’m sure. But it’s certainly not an not an argument for “same”.
In 2005, Vancouver cardiologist John Webb developed a procedure for replacing defective heart valves with a catheter rather than with open heart surgery. Best Practice in 2004 was no longer best in 2005. What will be best practice next?
Which leads us to the second issue.
We’re OK, we’re following best practices
“Betterment is a perpetual labor”, says surgeon Atul Gawande in his book, Better. In October, 2010 The Globe and Mail encourages workplaces to try out “a single new idea”; to experiment “with just one idea”.
The idea that there is a Best Practice tempts us to relax while continuing to develop is exactly what’s called for.
Best Practice? Get rid of the idea of best practices. It’s more like, best-we’ve-seen-for-us-so-far-at-this-point-in-time-and-we’re-continuing-to-experiment practices.
Here are a couple of great comments generated by my earlier post on coaching.
Derek writes:
This is a great article that hits on some very real issues. I agree that while not everyone wants to do what it takes to change the game, there are some managers that want to change the game and may even be willing to put their ass on the line for it but don’t see a realistic way of achieving it. For example, I come across managers on a regular basis that have passion for raising the game of their direct reports, but see it only achievable as a trade-off… “I would love to have the time to be able to put my ass on the line, but I have a job to do as well.” They think that it would be easy to double someone’s effectiveness if that was ‘all’ they had to do. In these cases the challenge comes not from a lack of willingness but from a place of misunderstanding where managers do not see their primary responsibilities as ensuring the success of their direct reports. They do not live in a way where it is already their job, with their asses already on the line to have the “work” as the opportunity to engage, inspire, and light-up their direct reports. To live as, “if my staff fail, it is impossible for me to succeed” level of commitment.
This is not surprising as most managers do not and did not have “coaches” that have provided this for them. It is now time to live this understanding (and)… to make this commitment… we have just never been accountable to ourselves and others for doing our real jobs.
Mike writes:
Interesting, but I think there are some other angles. What about the other side, the employee has to want and to be willing to commit to improve an equal degree or the manager is pushing an awful big rock uphill?
And what about employees who really are performing well, and the status quo is good for the employee and the company? Perhaps this steady state is the best thing ; the employee may find that suits them, and the company needs that role filled on a perpetual basis. It’s similar to the general business rule that if your company is not growing, it’s dying. I disagree, there are definitely situations where steady-state is the best state.
However, your description of assessments and how they happen is bang on (where I work). Its a hidden system in that the process is shrouded and secretive, and it’s unclear often how evaluations are done. Its unclear if they have any value at all . I think they don’t; I’ve never got anything out of them in the last three years.
Photo: istock
Stop making the wrong mistakes; start making more of the right ones.
There are two types of mistakes. You think something won’t work but it will; you think something will work but it won’t.
When you think it won’t work, you are unwilling to give it a try. Worse still, won’t let others try it either. I can hear it now, “We’ve tried it before; you can’t do that around here; you’d never get anyone to agree with that; it’s a waste of time and money; people aren’t ready for that yet.” (Which ones did I miss?).
But what if you are, (Gasp!), wrong? What if it would work? What if others could make it work in a way that you don’t see? Imaging that, like WD 40, it took 40 tries to get it right but when you did it was home run?
This mistake is enormously costly. Initiative is suppressed so people just wait for what you say. You’ve missed the opportunity to develop others to keep leading things to the next level. And you sit contemplating an “employee engagement” program.
With the second type of mistake, you think that something will work, yet it won’t. This is what people are really trying to avoid. They are so worried about avoiding mistakes that they unwilling to risk small bets to see what’s possible beyond what they think.
It makes sense to avoid big bets that could cripple the organization but not trying is a failure by itself. You’re so worried about big bets that might fail that you won’t take the small bets. You inadvertently discourage people from trying things (or even suggesting trying things) and you miss the accumulated incremental improvement.
You think the risk is big bets that fail and sink the company. The real risk is the accumulated effect of suppressing people’s desire to contribute to making things better; and the missed accumulated incremental improvement. But then, you could always start an employee engagement program.
The previous post, Are you destroying enough? was about clearing out the old to make room for the new. Maybe it could have been titled, Are you protecting too much? Or, Are you protecting what no longer serves you well?
I was surprised when I started reading Peter Drucker’s, Managing the Nonprofit Organization today. Amazing coincidence of timing. Here are a few things he has to say…
“…managers have to build in review, revision and organized abandonment.”
“As you add on, you have to abandon. But you also have to think though which are the few things we can accomplish that will do the most for us, and which are the things that contribute either marginally or are no longer of great significance.”
“Where can we, with the limited resources we have – and I don’t just mean people and money, but also competence – really make a difference, really set a new standard? One sets the standard by doing something and doing it well. You create a new dimension of performance.”
“I have never seen anything being done well unless people were committed.”
“And so one asks first, what are the opportunities, the needs? Then, do they fit us? Are we likely to do a decent job? Are we competent? Do they match our strengths? Do we really believe in this?”
All this in the first 8 pages!
Next time we’ll address how to determine whether you’re making your best contribution.
Kevin and I had lunch a few weeks ago. I always enjoy getting together with Kevin because he thinks about things most people don’t think about and he thinks about them differently. So it’s always interesting. This time the creative juices started flowing about what conference workshop we’d most like to attend but have never seen offered.
I’m not sure what we’d call it. Maybe something like: creative destruction; eliminating the extra; decommissioning the dumb; stopping the silliness; terminating the terrible; out damn spot!
Organizations are enamoured with initiating, starting, beginning, installing: new projects, practices, or processes. The issue isn’t that something new is starting – the problem is continuously starting something new without clearing out the old to make room for it. Neither people nor organizations have infinite capacity. Sooner or later you need to clear out the old, outdated policies, practices and perspectives that are no longer fitting, to make room for the new.
All things natural have some kind of elimination function: trees drop leaves, dogs shed their coat, dead grass composts. You wouldn’t last long if your body didn’t keep eliminating what no longer served you well. Organizations don’t have an equivalent elimination function. They become bloated and constipated and the whole system becomes sluggish.
I think there’s a new C-suite job here; the CCEO (Chief Crap Elimination Officer). The key measure for the job is to keep the ratio of Initiation/Elimination close to 1. When initiation gets too far ahead of elimination the system bogs down. On the other hand, too much elimination and insufficient initiation renders an organization degenerating into chaos and stuck in the past.
Do you have a CCEO? Do you need one?
Do you know what a high I/E is costing you?
