Your Transparency Is Showing

Whether you know it or not, your actions and motivations are more transparent today than ever before.  Those around you observe and note, not just how you respond to things you are directly responsible for, but for those you have a less defined but still important relationship to as well.  Stakeholders, both internal and external are observing, forming perceptions and opinions, and acting. 

In today’s era of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) we are held to a different standard of engagement.  Co-workers, leadership, and customers expect us to take a broader view of our responsibilities and the wider reach of decisions and actions.  They expect us to be accountable not just for the details and bottom line of our job, but for the effect of our efforts beyond the parameters of this year’s performance goals.  They expect us to care about the effects of what we do.  This is not a new phenomenon.  None other than Peter Drucker connected the dots between our actions and our responsibility for them on a broader scale.

“One is responsible for one’s impacts, whether they are intended or not.  This is the first rule.  There is no doubt regarding management’s responsibility for the social impacts of its organization.”

Sometimes knowing what we should feel responsible for and how to act are not always easy.  The old adage “do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons” is a good place to start.  Adopting that principle as a foundation simplifies what can become a complicated equation at times.  When individuals and organizations operate from this perspective transparency illuminates motivations and increases acceptance and support for good efforts.

In today’s world increased visibility and instant communication platforms foster instant judgment making and perception decisions, often without the benefit of the full story or proper diligence.  Society generally expects us to be aware and accountable.  The degree to which we are perceived as being good or bad actors on the societal stage is important to us as individuals and organizations.

Parallel development of increased awareness of actions, improved access to large amounts of data and the ability to analyze it, and enhanced sensitivity of stakeholder communities combine to increase transparency.  The question is not “Am I transparent?”  The real question is, “How will I act to assure my transparency is a positive force?”

Many companies today are actively engaged in CSR efforts.  Some are large scale and visible, and get press because of the corporate logo they are associated with.  Some are small but no less important, undertaken in a “everyone do what they can” spirit. Some of these are important and beneficial, changing the lives and future of workers in distant parts of the world we never thought of or cared about before.  I wonder, however, how many CSR programs amount to little more than “CSR-washing” (to borrow a phrase from the Green world).  As is often the case in life, I suspect that the difference between substantive programs and those which seek primarily to bolster marketing efforts is one of motivation.

In the HBR article “Leadership in the Age of Transparency,” Christopher Meyer and Julia Kirby set out guiding principles for acting responsibly.

Take ownership of the things you are directly responsible for.  With increased communication, measurement and analytic systems we can today understand the effects of our decisions and actions in ways we could not before.  That fact alone brings accountability for the extended impacts we create. 

Take action even when the impact cannot be precisely measured.  When we understand or learn that harm is occurring on our behalf we have a responsibility to act even if we are not directly causing the harm.  A good example of this would be taking the initiative to train supply chain partners producing products in a way that is detrimental to workers or the environment. 

Take interest in those things that we may not be directly or indirectly involved in but which have a connection to our activities.  In the article Meyer and Kirby use the example of an oil company that is helping to develop an affordable and clean-burning alternative to cookstoves uses widely in undeveloped regions of the world.

The issue of responsibility, whether corporate or personal, is really an issue of integrity.  I am not suggesting that each of us is responsible for everything we see and know.  I am suggesting that we are responsible for those things that we are involved in and for which we have the capability to affect or influence.

Transparency, responsibility, and integrity are linked in a way that cannot be broken.  It is not about an agenda or cause.  It is not about a current trend or market share.  It is about....

Doing the right thing        The right way       For the right reasons

Business Agility: A Model for Improving Responsiveness – Pt. 2

This post concludes the series on business agility which I first explored in the March 25 post.

AGILITY IN PRACTICE

Rely on A Good Compass, Not Maps

Today’s business environment changes too rapidly for a detailed and rigid business construct to remain viable for very long.  No matter how detailed you try to make a business map it will eventually mislead you.  Developing a “compass,” however, allows you to navigate territory with a sense of direction, purpose, and by using currently available intelligence and resources to create a path forward. Here again, emphasis is placed on organic strategy, one that anticipates changing opportunities and risks, is purposely alert for their signals, and which allows for mid-course corrections. 

Cultivate Resilience Instead of Strength

Organizations that try to resist failure at all costs view doing so as a strength, often touting that this preserves resources and improves efficiency.  That may indeed be true, but it also limits the amount of experimentation constituents feel empowered to undertake, which in turn can limit the acquisition of knowledge and discovery of opportunities.  There is also the issue of speed.  High intolerance to risk requires than any new initiative or idea be thoroughly vetted by all levels of the organization before approval to proceed is granted, thereby delaying benefits of the initiative (assuming it does not die on the vine in the process).  Entrepreneurial organizations take a different approach entirely.  Here, “failing early and often” is viewed as a learning process that increases knowledge and contributes to future success.  While no one would suggest that all organizations should be entrepreneurial in nature, it is fair to suggest that those which are strongly oriented in the risk averse direction consider the costs of their stance.  Focusing on organizational structures and governance that improve resiliency provides the ability to accept reasonable risk with the assurance the organization can recover when needed.  This generally means a less autocratic structure with “check, plan, communicate, act” systems in place to speed response at the tactical level.

Pull Instead of Push

One common attribute of agile organizations is that they invariably share robust networks.  Social connections among participants provide access to intelligence and resources.  Affect networks are based in shared motives, expectation and business or operational norms.  Cognitive networks focus on shared understanding, common definitions of work, and supportive systems for doing the work.  These networks do not act alone.  While each has its own core there is significant overlap, allowing each type of network to influence the others.  Information, resources, strategies, and operational norms are all shared with trusted partners making resources outside the “home” organization available.  Leveraging these networks can provide opportunities for increasing flexibility and better aligning resources with the need of the hour.  For example, a company may choose not to fully staff and thereby consume labor resource funds when work is fluid and requirements shift.  In this case a company may choose instead to maintain a funding pool which allows it to procure specific skill sets and knowledge on an as-needed basis exactly when the need exists.

Business agility strives to create an environment at all three levels (strategic, operational, episodic) that promotes responsiveness to changing business conditions while avoiding the chaos and trauma that can paralyze an organization undergoing change.  Making increased sensitivity to conditions and robust responsiveness characteristic creates an environment where change is expected and less threatening.  In today’s shifting landscape those are valuable traits, especially in the FM arena.

Connecting the Dots - Why Economic News Matters to FM's

It is never a safe or necessarily wise thing to try to predict the future, and I am not.  Make no mistake about that.  But all of us should maintain an awareness of the world around us as we plan our personal and business lives.  I am generally an optimist and pragmatic, believing that trends are cyclical; when it's bad it is bound to get better, and when it is good a healthy dose of realism when planning is prudent.  That said, I also recognize that some highs are higher, and some lows are lower.
As I listen to the voices around me and filter them through my own biases and experience, some resonate.  A couple of information "dots" that I am now connecting give pause. 

Bill McBride over at the Calculated Risk blog is one of the best I see at giving us hard data coupled with objective information.  If you track his history over the last few years you will quickly understand why he is respected as one of the best in the area of simplifying economic information (why I appreciate him so much) for greater understanding.  He gives us this reality check as it relates to employment numbers.  We all know it has been a rough road.  Looking at this graph makes it clear that this has been a very deep and wide trench.  It is good that we have begun to claw our way up, but last week's employment numbers amplify that we have a long way to go.


Robert Zoellick, departing president of the World Bank offers a sobering summary of world wide economic fragility in this recent Wall Street Journal interview.  The list is long...Europe's issues, lackluster U.S. job growth, general lack of political will to make necessary choices, the impending "cliff" facing the U.S. economy, escalating difficulties in developing nations as they struggle with trickle down effects and their own issues all combine to form a daunting image of the months and year(s) ahead. 


The Conference Board offers supporting albeit more positive analysis, including the following statement on the outlook for advanced economies.  


"Advanced economy growth is expected to slow down from an already meager 1.6 percent in 2011 to 1.3 percent in 2012. For 2013-2016, the outlook suggests some recovery in advanced economies, bringing these countries back to the pre-recession growth trend of a little more than 2 percent."


I am not suggesting doom and gloom here and I note again that I am not a trained or even amateur economist.  However, I do pay attention to the data points as those who are expert talk.  From all accounts this will continue to be a period of increased risk and fragility.  This month and the rest of the summer will be important as Europe makes decisions that will affect all of us for decades.  Those dots have connected and will continue to do so.  They bear watching, closely.


As FM leaders we share a responsibility to guide our organizations through the future.  Keeping our eyes and ears attuned to the outside world as it changes and adapts economically is an important function in forming strategy and capital development plans.  

How Can You Lead When You Don’t Agree With Your Leader?

Leading can be messy business.  It has its rewards but challenges are never in short supply it seems.  Partly I think leading is complicated because it is relationship based and relationships are always in flux. It is easy when the person you look to for leadership is aligned perfectly with you and the same is true of your relationship with those you lead.  But that doesn’t happen very often.  In a large sense, successful leadership is defined in our ability to be effective in spite of these mis-alignments.  Yes, one of a leader’s most important functions is to improve alignment, but when alignment is a goal and not the reality a leader and those he or she leads must still be effective.

Understanding the other person’s perspective is a key for me when I am in this misaligned state.  To understand I must listen, pay attention, synthesize, evaluate and reach conclusions on why the other person has the perspective they do, its validity and importantly its motivation. 

An interesting thing happens here.  I cannot understand without information.  In order to get the information I need to ask open questions and listen honestly.  I must probe to find out what the other leader believes, why he or she believes it, what experiences or data has led them in this particular direction, and I must be willing to accept that they may be correct.  I must engage our relationship in open dialogue which in turn engenders mutual respect, transparency, and trust.  In the end I may not necessarily agree with their conclusions or they with mine, but if I can understand their process and reasoning I can make an informed decision to support them anyway or continue the dialogue to press my perspective. 

It’s that relationship thing again.  By nurturing it through rough spots I help strengthen it.  By abandoning the effort I weaken it.  By leaving it I lose my voice.

This is not an unimportant point.  People sometimes flee positions because of misalignment conflict, robbing themselves of an opportunity to contribute and mature.  These are conditions that will be repeated often throughout a career.  Fleeing such a situation now does nothing to prepare you for the next.

The value of visible conflict resolution should not be underestimated in its effect on others.  When these types of leadership conflicts exist in organizations it makes people nervous.  There will probably those who are aligned with each side for a variety of reasons, but everyone will know that the leadership tension exists, and that will make people nervous.  Some may even begin postulating negative repercussions of the conflict and then begin to act on those concerns, creating another set of issues that must be overcome.  But, just as everyone will know there is a conflict among leadership they will also know how it is being processed.  They will see when you are honestly looking for ways to make it work, and that fact alone will build their trust in your leadership.  Why?  Because they will see that you take it seriously, are willing to listen and learn, and that you conduct yourself respectfully – all traits that people value in leaders.

Asking yourself what you need to learn about a particular conflict is possibly the most important step when beginning to face a conflict in leadership.  This internal question sets the tone for how you will engage the other leader.  Often you will find that the most important things you have to learn are about yourself.  What is this situation trying to teach me?  What deficiencies do I have in dealing with this situation and how can I improve them?  How can I approach the other leader in a way that encourages transparency?  What is my responsibility to those I lead and the larger organization in this circumstance?  What is really at stake here?  All of these are important questions to ask as you begin to seek information that will contribute to resolution.

Leading really is a relationship thing.  Paying attention to your relationship with other leaders should be a purposed and principled behavior.  Expecting that you will be in perfect alignment with them at all times is not reasonable.  Seeking to fairly understand, communicating and leading effectively as you work to resolve misalignment issues is absolutely expected of you – by those you lead, other leaders, and I hope by you.

Relationship Management Is Key to Strategic Business Alignment

When working to strengthen FM strategic alignment with the business do not overlook the importance of a strong relationship management program.  “Program” implies that this effort is intentional, as it should be.  Too many FM’s make the mistake of concentrating solely on the immediate project or task and do not pay enough attention to purposefully managing stakeholder relationships.  Relationship management, however, is a critical element of FM success, especially at the leadership level.

• A close relationship between functional leadership and customers ranked fourth among enablers that help increase strategic alignment.  (Luftman and Brier)

• Conversely, lack of a close relationship ranked first out of fourteen identified alignment inhibitors. (Luftman and Brier)

• Business executives repeatedly downplayed the value of formal organizational structure, but frequently emphasized the critical role of relationships in achieving strategic alignment. (Chan)

The best relationship management programs are not only intentional but also multi-level.  Peer-to-peer communication occurs on a routine frequency at all levels of the organization, informing the alignment process up and down the FM chain.

While it is beneficial that these interactions occur at all levels it is most important that exchanges at the business unit and executive levels be especially well tuned.  This is where the most important information resides and where FM has an opportunity to learn the most about stakeholder issues, plans and initiatives.  With this knowledge FM leaders can be proactive with projects and services in a manner that best supports core business outcomes.  That is, after all, what alignment is about.

At the strategic level executives will want to be intentional about maintaining contacts and a pattern of communication which shares information.  These conversations take many forms, some of them of a more informal nature.

At the tactical level there are many ways to increase the alignment dialogue.  One common methodology is to designate specific Customer Relationship Managers to interact with their counterparts or senior executives in business units.  Often this takes the form of a zone management program in which building specific information and projects  are shared, but it need not be that tactical.  If it is, the strategic dialogue should be a specific touch point as well.

Alignment, however, is not a one way street.  While FM may be seeking to align its strategies and operations with core business strategies this process also informs stakeholders about FM’s capabilities, forward leaning attitude and willingness to be a true partner in the business, not just a “call me when you need me” service provider.  It is a critical difference.  The more business stakeholders accept FM as a full partner in the enterprise then the more leverage FM can apply to positive effect.

Mission Statements as a Strategy Alignment Tool

One of the ways to align FM strategy with enterprise strategy is by making sure your FM Mission Statement is aligned with the organization’s mission statement and strategies.  As I look at mission statements from various FM groups I often see them focus more on FM operations than they do on the mission and strategies of the entities they serve.  When this is the case FM can become isolated and be perceived as not relevant to the core goals of the enterprise.

The process used to develop mission statements can support or hinder the quality of the end result.  There is no one right answer as each mission statement must be culturally aligned as well as strategically aligned.   Some may choose to develop a mission statement through consensus while others will choose to be more top down.

I recall one instance when an entire department was engaged in developing its mission statement.  Predictably, a lot of time was spent negotiating specific elements and the language of the statement.  Also predictably, we ended up with a statement that embodied a series of compromises needed to reach consensus.  After all the effort the new mission statement was quickly forgotten and became irrelevant.  It had all the right buzz words and met everyone’s needs, but it didn’t do what it was supposed to do – establish our core purpose in concise language and inspire us to that end.

A better model, I believe, is the top down approach.  Defining the organization’s purpose and core values is one of the central roles of leadership.  Leaders are accountable for the outcomes and have a closer perspective of corporate strategy, putting them in position to set the performance agenda.  I have been part of many mission statement development initiatives.  The very best ones I have seen are those which are articulated by strong leaders who have thought strategically about the organization and where it needs to go, and who use the mission statement to define its “True North.”

FM TODAY: A STORY OF REALITIES AND VISION - Pt. 4

The Future of FM Is Up to Us

The realities of today naturally influence our vision for tomorrow and ability to attain it.  Although often painful at the moment these realities are guiding us toward a reshaped future that will be more efficient, which will demand and reward creative solutions, and which requires each of us to accept responsibility for our share of the outcome.  We have an opportunity to leverage the conditions as they now exist and dictate what we will make of them, and that is what we are in the process of doing on a daily basis.

FM’s often complain about not being heard and thus having to be in reactive mode most of the time.  When I hear these comments I often wonder how much FM is pushing the issue and how much we are to blame ourselves for being “comfortable” with the status quo.  Just as in any other area of life, if we do not like the current reality then we must accept our role in changing it.  Let’s not fall into the category described by the famous philosopher Pogo when he said, “We have met the enemy and he is us."

Fine, you say.  How do we do that?  How do we assume our role, accept accountability and move the FM agenda and profession forward?

We start by being the best we can be, by challenging ourselves more than others do, and by being thought leaders inside our organizations. 

We start by refusing to accept the status quo in ourselves. 

My challenge to each of you for 2011 is this:

• Demand more of yourself than you do of others
• Demand more of your staff than you have
• Learn what your CEO’s top three concerns are and address them directly
• Create solutions that inspire and amaze
• Lead by example with integrity and purpose
• Give yourself away by mentoring others
• Make the commitment first, then figure out how to accomplish it. 

Congratulations on a successful year and enjoy the holiday season with those you love.  It is a special time of year; make sure you enjoy it and capture its memories.  I will be back in January with new FM musings.