|
None of the typical jargon of the management consulting
|
|
|
|
|
"Most consultants are hired to solve
problems, yet creativity is not really about
problems; it is about seeing opportunity. It
is not about “fixing” this world; it is about
envisioning whole new worlds–seeking
the new and unknown." |
industry really works for us. We cannot call ourselves “business
strategists,” at least not in the left-brained, analytical, process-driven
sense that the Big Six and the Mckinsey’s of the world use the
term. And not being deeply attached to a particular psychological
or academic theory, we feel uncomfortable with the label “organizational
development” consultants. Many of our colleagues and friends are
traditional “OD” types, but our common sense approach often strikes
them as naive. Even “human resources” consulting doesn’t work,
because what most people think of as “HR” feels too restrictive,
too one-dimensional, with its focus on admini- strative tasks
and processes often far from the heart of the business. No, these
are all inadequate.
Instead, we find ourselves offering up a new phrase which feels
more appropriate to us: “people strategists.” Problem is, few
people have ever heard such a name, and even fewer really know
what we are talking about. Hence, we often fall back on a combination
of the “known” jargon, above. Yet, “people strategy” really is
a better and much more precise description of what we do. Surprisingly,
the distinction we wish to make is quite simple: we want to get
behind the “business strategy,” to dig underneath the “HR issues,”
to dive below the “organization chart” and find out what’s really
going on. To this end, it becomes crucial to focus, not on strategy,
or HR, or structure, but on people. Real people.
It sounds so basic. Almost rudimentary. Yet, it is amazing how
often business executives–and by default, their consultants–go
about re-engineering, or strategizing, or re-structuring, or whatever,
without paying more than passing attention to WHO is doing the
work, WHO will be impacted, WHO is supposed to buy their decisions.
Most consultants view businesses in the abstract–as corporations,
organizations, projects, processes, departments, hierarchies,
teams. But these are all concepts, symbols which stand for something
else. Do they really mean anything? Can you touch a hierarchy?
Can you “see” an organization? Can you feel a department? Even
a team–which you may actually get all in one room–as a tangible
“thing”–is often a theoretical construct, an arbitrary label.
Consider this: you walk down a hallway at some big corporation.
You see two conference rooms. You glance into each and see a group
of people talking. Are they teams? Is one and not the other? How
could you know which is a team and which is not? You have to carry
some rather abstract assumptions into those rooms, no? OR perhaps
actually know the people involved!
On the other hand, what can we REALLY KNOW about a business? We
can know that all of the above are symbols for something that
will always be comprised of people. And not just “people,” in
the abstract, but INDIVIDUALS. Real people create real businesses.
In fact, real people–that is, one individual at a time–are ALL
that make up a business. Everything else is just a construct.
So here is why we want to introduce the term “people strategy”
into the
day-to-day business language: to remind everyone, including us,
that before you can define a business strategy, you must have
people. People come first–not just in the abstract, but in reality.
Just try carrying out a business strategy without them. Even the
smallest business–a sole proprietor–is a PERSON, who may have
a business strategy, yet even this is made up of PERSON-AL vision,
PERSON-AL decisions, PERSON-AL desires, and PERSON-AL hard work.
No person: no business.
Now this may all begin to sound rather mundane, even obvious.
Yet let’s look at three examples where paying attention to the
people, to the INDIVIDUALS, in a business, might make all the
difference in achieving superior performance. First, we’ll examine
something that every business desperately needs more of–and often
hires consultants to help foster: innovation.
Innovation is considered to be a key element in the continued
success of both service and product based industries. To get ahead
of the competition, a business must always be creating and developing
new services, new products, new ways to entice the customer. Most
consultants, and most business leaders for that matter, think
of innovation as the practical result of a new idea. They expend
a great deal of time, money and energy, studying the processes,
the investment dollars, the cost structures and the organization
structures of product/service development departments or “R &
D” groups. They look to answer questions like: “how can we shorten
the time to market for new products?” or “how can we ensure that
our R & D investments pay off in the marketplace?”
These are good questions. It is helpful to look at how dollars
are being spent and how long things take to
manufacture and test. Yet, neither of these questions looks at
what is really going on when so-called “innovation” happens: what
about the “new idea” that was mentioned in passing above? Where
does this “new idea” come from? New ideas are not “manufactured”
nor can they be “structured” or correlated
to investment.
New ideas come from individuals. They spring forth from a process we know more readily as “creativity.”
Creativity is what goes on behind the “process” of innovation.
Yet, creativity is not a concept like “innovation”; it is not
just a theoretical idea, it is an experience. Creativity is elusive
and cannot easily be programmed or processed or organized. Under
the right circumstances, in the right environment, with the right
individuals, it just happens.
This is one reason why consultants like to focus on innovation
and avoid working in the dark depths of creativity. Creativity
is messy. It is chaotic. The power of creativity is supremely
human, yet more often than not defies human intervention or control.
To nurture creativity, we must find creative individuals (which
in truth includes everyone), provide what they need, then leave
them alone. Not a particularly profitable enterprise.
Most consultants are hired to solve problems, yet creativity is
not really about problems; it is about seeing opportunity. It
is not about “fixing” this world; it is about envisioning whole
new worlds–seeking the new and unknown.
Pascal and I are not particularly interested in innovation, but
we are interested in creativity. It is not a topic for business
strategy, but rather lies behind it, in the realm of people strategy.
People strategists ask a different set of questions when the issue
is creativity. Questions like, “How do you support the flow of
creativity from EVERYONE, not just the few ‘creative’ types? Does
the business environment nurture and support creative endeavor?
Are people encouraged to try out ideas? To take risks? What is
the definition of failure? Is time, energy, and money spent on
nurturing new ideas or just new products and services?”
Let’s take another example: organization structure. How many times
has the structure of your organization been changed, let’s say,
in the past five years? Dozens? How many times have consultants
been hired to “help” implement a new structure, most likely of
the bosses’ design? Re-structuring is so common that it has become
laughable–behind closed doors at most consulting firms–how often
a business in trouble will try to “solve” their problems with
an organizational makeover. We all know that applying make-up
can mask wrinkles on a woman or man, at least for the moment.
But do cosmetics change the reality of aging? Organization structures
are like the lines on your face: you may cover them up or alter
their appearance, but you are not fundamentally touching the flow
of life underneath.
|
|
|
 |
Take the organization chart, draw dotted lines on it, and create
a “matrix” structure. There now, that should get people to work
better together, yes? Or better yet, go all the way and turn the
chart upside down. No more bosses, no more employees–the new organization
chart will be a circle that places the customer in the center
and puts all the staff–top to bottom–floating in the doughy part
of the donut around them. Yeah, right. Traditional consultants
love playing with these new-fangled org charts. They are out to
answer the almighty question: what is the “perfect” or “optimal”
or “fill-in-the-blank with-the-latest-buzzword” organization structure
to keep this business humming along at peak performance?
People strategists say: don’t waste your money. There is no such
thing as an optimal organization structure. There are, in fact,
many hundreds of them–formal ones on the wall, and informal ones
in the washroom, on the golf course, in the dining rooms. Every
time you put two people in a room together some sort of structure
will form within about ten seconds. Who is in charge? If no one,
then what does “equal” mean? How will we operate together? The
chart on the wall rarely, if ever, answers these questions for
two people, let alone ten thousand.
No, what is really hidden behind the organization structure is
again, just a group of people, trying to RELATE to each other
for a period of time, with a specific purpose in mind. It is all
made up in the moment. All temporary. All in constant flux. If
the connection between people ‘works,’ even for a few days, well
then, you have yourself an “optimal” organization. But don’t hold
your breath. It will change.
What is really crucial in growing a business is not the “organization
structure” per se but whether people build relationships that serve the business and meet their own needs. The structure
is at best, an abstraction, and at worst –costing many thousands
of dollars in “restructuring fees”–a distraction. What counts
is the relationships between
people–one at a time. So, when it comes to organization structure,
people strategists start with a different set of questions: do
you have the right
people, in the right place, at the right time, all committed to
accomplishing
the same goal? If yes, then get out of the way and let ’em have
it. If no, is
the structure getting in the way? (Most likely.) Does the structure
serve the needs of the people or the other way around? What do
you pay attention to–the needs of people, or the “beauty” and
“symmetry” and “constancy” of the structure? If your structure
is beautiful and symmetrical and constant, it won’t work for long.
Guaranteed.
Now a third case: leadership. A great deal of consulting, training
and HR work is being done these days in the name of developing
better leaders. On the surface, this is all for the good. The
sad paradox, however, is that for all the time, energy and money
spent on training leaders, there is still only room for a tiny
few to actually run things in most businesses. In fact, while
the consultants “train” more and more leaders, the press decries
the lack of leadership in business, and all the power still rests
with the top dog. All eyes are on the CEO. How can this be true?
Where are all these newly trained leaders? The sad truth is that
most of what passes for “leadership training” is really just “followership
training” in disguise. Consider the military model: What are all
the “leaders” below General really expected to do? Lead? Not.
They are expected to follow orders. As if their lives depended
on it. So it is in most businesses.
Ultimately, we have yet to reconcile the fact that even in the
world’s most successful democracy, most businesses are still run
like feudal estates. Power is all about “power over” others. How
many businesses can you name that are run “by the people and for
the people”? Leadership is a great idea whose time, in most big
companies, has yet to come. When selling the services of “leadership
consulting,” most consultants ask questions like these: have you
identified the high potential leaders in the organization? (Assumption:
there are only a select few to be found.) Are you training leaders
to follow the company values? (As if they are different from their
own values...) Are you showing newly minted leaders how to “handle”
a variety of business situations? (As if they wouldn’t know how
to “handle” them on their own, in their own way...)
People strategists see this issue of leadership in a slightly
different way. For example, if you are truly a leader in a company,
why would you need to be “trained” in company values? Wouldn’t
the values of the company have been created by you? Wouldn’t they
be yours to begin with? And the same goes for “handling” situations.
If you were truly a leader, wouldn’t you want to “handle” things
the way you feel was appropriate?
In a truly “leaderful” business environment, things would get
messy, chaotic, energized, and creative. People would ALL be expected
to exert leadership: leadership of self first, and others when
and if appropriate. The “right” way to handle a given situation
would always be open to a new–and potentially creative–interpretation.
Leaders would constantly experiment. Instead of accumulating power,
they would give it away. Leadership would be passed around according
to the needs of the situation. The key, in fact, to developing
real leadership in people–in everyone–is to encourage active,
on-going dialogue about who should lead, follow, and get out of
the way. Real leaders do all three, in conscious choice.
Developing leaders in business is a key element of people strategy.
But people strategists ask different kinds of questions: What
are the values of this company and who determined them? Are they
the values of all, or just a select few at the top? What does
“participation” really mean in the context of making business
decisions? Which carries more power: the person or the position?
Is the potential to lead being developed in everyone? How much
of your leadership training is devoted to developing self-awareness?
People strategists hold up a mirror to the leaders of today’s
business and ask radical questions: Do you believe you are really in charge? Are you willing to let go? Can you state unflinchingly
that how you lead your business is how you lead your life? With
whose permission do you lead? For whom? Why?
At the end of the day, the only true leadership–is leadership
of self.
Innovation, organization structure, leadership. They are all fun
concepts, ripe for analysis, study, and assessment. Good business
strategists grapple endlessly with all three–and rake in big fees!
Creativity, relationships, self-awareness. These are the foundation
stones of people strategy. Being creative, building relationships,
nurturing self-awareness. . .these are what people actually do!
They are so basic, so real, so simple, that for the most part,
they do not require a high-paid consultant to show people how
to do them. YET, WITHOUT THEM, conscious, talented, growing people
don’t stay with an organization for long (or they stay for the
wrong reasons), and–contrary to what the stock market likes to
promote–a business without people will die.
People strategy is really about remembering. Remembering that
every single business was started by a person with an idea. . . Before there is a business strategy there is always a people strategy,
even if it is a strategy for one. Businesses today say they want
to be “more entrepreneurial”; they want to bring out the “intrapreneurs”
and “act like a start-up.” Well, to do this they would benefit
most from remembering their roots. Their very existence flowed
out of the spirit, the creativity, the relationships and the leadership
of maybe one–or a few–original pioneers.
As good consultants, Pascal and I do like to get paid for our
work. But more importantly, as people strategists, we know that
our real job is simple: to dig behind the “business” and uncover
what our clients–and we–already know: that in each and every one
of us lies an entrepreneur. Just waiting to be set free. |
|
