Listen Now

In business, we talk extensively about value, specifically how we can create it. But more often than not, in our quest to find new ways to develop value, we have many overlooked opportunities to unleash existing value and underlying things in our organizations that kill it.

One of the traditional steps in developing a strategy begins with a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis. The results are usually unremarkable, highlighting the same things year after year, and failing to reveal any new, unique ways for the organization to compete. So can a SWOT really form the foundation of an effective strategy?

We've all been in the hospital waiting room. You sometimes seem to sit there forever. You see people come and go, and maybe you see your appointment time come and go. You don't know whether they're running behind, forgot you, or simply have an emergency to deal with. While a changing schedule flow is understandable, it doesn't bode well for the proverbial customer experience. But transparency can make all the difference.

We all have worked for dysfunctional companies at one time or another. Most of the time, we view them through the lens of people - whether it be domineering bosses, hostile work environments, or sweat-shop-like circumstances. However, there are three common behaviors that can permeate a company and create dysfunction, even if the people and teams are the nicest on the planet.

We've heard it before. A new initiative or focus is announced to the organization. There's an explanation as to why it's important, and why the company is addressing it. Then crickets. Or worse, a few superficial, window-dressing activities are conducted before it goes radio silent. Why? Why bother with starting something that's just going to get brushed under the rug? Is it bad leadership? Lack of resources? In reality, sometimes the reasons are more mundane than we'd like to believe.

During the 1980s, top executives were judged on their ability to restructure, declutter, and de-layer their corporations. This often translated into overly flat and overly lean organizations, where remaining staff worked longer and harder with less. While the approach benefitted the bottom line, it didn't increase organizational efficiency, effectiveness, or productivity. Now, leaders are examining how to improve business operations, but often overlook the fundamentals. They cling to the flawed mindset that technology, more meetings, and more documentation will fix it. Instead, we need to get back to the basics.

As a leader, one of the jobs you have is to identify organizational gaps. Whether it be operational, resource-based, process-centric, or sales-driven. But what happens when you overlook or completely dismiss gaps that you know exist? Some might say that's negligence, but the real question is, what's the cause of that negligence? Is it laziness? Ignorance? Or avoidance?

We all know when two employees have a conflict, there are countless articles on how to coach and mitigate the situation. But what happens when departments have conflicts? In virtually every organization, there are teams that don't work well together. It may be a rub between marketing and sales, or operations and production. No matter the departments, this rub impacts morale, culture, communication, productivity, and in the end - profits.

When the strategy doesn't deliver on anticipated expectations, the strategy-execution gap is the scapegoat. In fact, thousands of articles have been written on this phenomenon. For example, here's one of the top results from a quick Google search: "What causes execution gaps? There are numerous potential causes of execution gaps, such as goals and timelines that are too ambitious, little to no clarity about the vision or goals, and even a lack of buy-in from key players. One of the biggest causes relates to your resources." However, this actually isn't the problem. Yes, these components can influence the success or failure of a strategy, but they're not the cause of the strategy-execution gap.

Strategy is a hard concept to digest, especially for stayed institutions that have seen past success but have reached a growth plateau. New competitors are coming in, the organization has started to move slower, and sales are anything but impressive. They're surviving, but not flourishing. Often, the first step is to refresh the "organizational strategy". This comes in the form of a series of meetings, where high-level, lofty aspirations are put to paper, and then delivered to the rest of the organization. Then - well, not much other than a series of new initiatives, which barely move the needle. The problem is, we misunderstand what strategy is. Today, we're going to give you an easy example to use.

A tenured employee is someone who has worked for a company or organization for a number of years. Employees that have worked for a company for more than five years are considered long-tenured employees, while those that have worked for a company for less than five years are considered short-tenured employees. Employees with tenure usually have more expertise in their positions than others. But often, this expertise isn't what we think it is. Does someone have 20 years of experience or one year of experience repeated 20 times?

Executives often spend months (sometimes years) putting together a strategy to grow their organization. However, these strategies are often abandoned, changed, or lose momentum within a year or less. Why? How is it that we spend so much time, money, resources, and effort in creating a strategy, which becomes proverbially obsolete once the rubber actually meets the road? Here are the top 6 reasons why it happens.

I recently had a conversation with a C-suite leader of a company that has 6,000+ employees who were implementing a significant organizational structure change to build in more accountability and ownership across 50 interconnected departments. The goal was to create an umbrella team who would be in charge of ensuring there was more transparency and communication between each department. This layer would aggregate and disseminate information, along with being the one point of reporting to upper management. On the surface, this may sound good, but it's actually a terrible idea.

Differentiation; by definition, is what branding is. Which is precisely why I’m so baffled by blanding. Blanding is the copy-paste model of consumer product development and brand marketing that follows repetitive patterns in the name of modernity but at the expense of authenticity and originality. With results that are, in a word, bland.

We can't be all things to all people, though as companies, we often try. Take a hospital. You try to provide superior care, ensure patient safety, manage insurance claims, recruit top-tier staff, maintain excellent facilities - the list goes on. It's a daunting task, and it's hard to say that any one of those items listed sits at the top of the proverbial importance pyramid. But if you don't have a clear north star set, the customer experience will oscillate.

Typically, taking your car to the shop isn't a pleasurable experience. Even if you roll in for a simple oil change, there's always something else that needs to be addressed. Often customers are skeptical about a shop's recommendations and have a perception they're being upsold on unnecessary repairs. You could attempt to change that perception with advertising, and push the message that your shop is the "most honest", but is this really getting at the heart of the issue?

Sandbagging is a strategy of lowering the expectations of a company or an individual's strengths and core competencies in order to produce relatively greater-than-anticipated results. Unlike Quiet Quitting, which focuses on stopping the completion of any tasks not explicitly stated in the job description, Sandbagging fundamentally drags down overall company performance. We've all seen it, experienced it, or maybe have done it ourselves. But why does Sandbagging happen, and why do we allow it to occur? There are a few behavioral reasons, beginning with what we let happen.

Change is uncomfortable. Inherently so because it's different. It's unfamiliar. It's new. It's unknown. Yet, most changes in organizations aren't changes at all. They are the reshuffle of existing deck chairs. They are so soft and subtle as not to burden or worry the masses. They are often minuscule. It's no wonder that organizations that seek change and enact their soft modifications are disappointed in the results.

Many leaders want their organizations to be more innovative and strategic. (In fact, there are tens of thousands of articles out there on fostering innovation and making teams more strategic.) Often this gets translated into directives, initiatives, or organizational values around these principles. And of course, those directives and initiatives never manifest into action, no matter how many goals and objectives are established to support them. Why?

I was at a brewery around 9:00 pm when a group of cyclists rolled up. There were around 7 of them, of varying ages ranging from their early '30s to late '40s. It was a beautiful, slightly cool Thursday evening, with a light and comfortable breeze. They parked their bicycles, dumped their gear, and proceeded to order multiple pints. Clustering around a single, small table with additional chairs pulled up next to it, they proceeded to have an animated discussion for the next hour or so. Some of them I recognized, and knew had spouses and young children.