I'm struck by the impact different words and concepts have on us. Sometimes we need to check our own reactions and not fall into easy but misleading conclusions.
The politicians are to blame really, as the whole art of politics is about communicating to mass audiences, and simple concepts with easy code words meet their requirements. Strip away the blandishments from most political pronouncements and there is not much left. Some stuff is just universally accepted but hardly says anything useful - helping the middle classes, Joe the plumber, fairer deal for hard working families, bla bla bla. Sometimes it is laughable. We have to protect the freedoms we value.... by imposing more security restrictions and locking more and more people up? Why do we fall for this rubbish?
Business, of course, is not immune. Things are never so simple as they seem, and our first job as individuals is to recognise that and to use our brains more and our cliches less. Here is an example. Think of two words - silos, and accountability. We all love the second and hate the first, just like the characters in a pantomime. When we do a synthetron session, every time someone writes something about reducing silos, everyone agrees. Ditto for increasing accountability.
Now think about it. What is the only way to really drive accountability? Well, if I am to be accountable for something, I need full oversight, decision-making rights and control over it. How is that achieved? Well, through silos! If we had no silos at all, and all sat in one mushy great hippy colony of an organisation, how can anyone (below the CEO) be accountable for anything? The two go hand in hand, yet we lazily equate one with bad things and one with good. In reality, a smart organisation is constantly working at the margin to improve the balance. You can't do that without any silos, and you can't do that by demanding full accountability for everything.
Of course, once the structure and goals are set, we can all work to minimise our silo BEHAVIOUR and to accept the maximum reasonable accountability. In that sense, the concepts have value, and we should accept feedback as leaders and seek to improve. But that is a long way from abolishing silos, isn't it?
When trying to communicate strategy, it is much the same. In the old days, GS had simple goals - make as much money as you can - which led to massive clarity, yet unsustainable consequences (ripping off Shell and competing internally). Now we have more balance, more recognition of our hybrid role in Shell - but, as a consequence, less simplicity of communication.
That is why Greg resorts to some few universal concepts (though even here, they need to be in balance). From-to statements. Shape, simplify, accelerate. Good words, good steers for where we are and where we need to be. We should not accelerate into the wall, nor simplify to commoditisation, but, on balance, we need to move a bit along each of those spectrums. Here is a challenge, if you think this is bland and no use to you. First, try to do better. And second,more important, ask yourself if you have tried to make it relevant to you. Most of us haven't. If your staff complain about Greg's messages, perhaps that reflects not on him, but on you.
Finally, here is a game which tries to show that this is all about balance and positioning on spectrums. Imagine you are project manager for an investment, and you have to produce a proposal for action with cost estimates etc. Now, you go to two town hall meetings, and listen to the boss of the boss of the boss delivering two speeches.
Here is the first.
Our reputation for delivery is fundamental to us. We will only secure sustainable competitive advantage by fulfilling on our promises. We have to set stretch goals, and then hold ourselves accountable for our individual performance against those goals. Our targets need to be clear, and consequential - a deal is a deal, and delivery drives our rewards. Top quartile execution is my number one goal.
And here is the second.
Shell is a third quartile company. Benchmarks show that we are too slow to make decisions, we innovate less than competitors, and that it costs us more to do the same things. Delivery is critical, but today's delivery will fail in tomorrow's competitive world. Everyone is moving forward in this market, and standing still will kill us. We must stretch ourselves continually to achieve what appears out of reach. Only by ambition can we win. We have to tolerate failure in order to achieve breakthrough performance.
You get the idea? Both full of standard bingo words we expect. The same concepts even, but with a massively different effect. In the first case, your proposal will be pretty safe, even a bit padded, and you will make sure that anything you are accountable for you have control of and you can deliver. In the second case, you are far more likely to embrace some risk and to encourage your team to do the same.
It is not easy for Jeroen, or Greg, or Peter Voser. Every word is dissected. They want to make both speeches really. They also know that some parts of the business need the first speech and others the second, but they don't have that luxury. So they have to compromise and make it even more bland. Nowadays, they even have to consider cultural interpretation and even language translations. No wonder business leaders sound more and more like politicians!
No comments:
Post a Comment