What can be done to maximize the use of Collective Intelligence?

There is precisely one place where collective intelligence happens. Just one. Do you know where this is?

It’s where people meet. It is the – so often dreaded – Meeting. It is so apparent: People come together to share their views. By definition: A Meeting is the very embodiment of collective intelligence. Yet companies squander the chance to harness the collective intelligence of its people carelessly.

Meetings are right, square and center in the heart of every endeavor of companies. One would think, there would be a lot of tuning of meetings to get the best out of them. A lot of analysis, structure, and discipline to get the best out of meetings. Yet most people are unstructured:

  • Most meetings run without an agenda
  • If there is an agenda, it is often ignored
  • The discussion itself is unstructured and free for all
  • Seldom, there is disciplined facilitator keeping the discussion from not veering off into fringe topics
  • Minutes of the Meetings are  – if send at all and promptly – often ignored, except by the most structured kind of people

It that too dark a picture? I don’t think so. I have seen many organizations and most meetings were that badly unstructured. Even on board level, where Agendas and Minutes are the norms, the meetings themselves where often unstructured, agenda and Minutes of former Meetings basically ignored.

To explore typical meeting types and their impact on collective intelligence let us go through 5 types of meetings where issues are discussed, and actions are taken. I am not talking here about an educational meeting, that is a separate topic (albeit somewhat related).

A. The Unstructured Meeting – aka: Let the Extroverted Courtier win!

The unstructured meeting is terrible in so many ways. People seem to be there at just the hunch of a direction spelled out in the meeting title, the discussions veer off topic, Minutes are not kept, etc. But the real killer is: People may be invited to join the meeting, but they are not enticed to engage.

It is not only that people fail to prepare for meetings. Worse even if they could contribute ad hoc, just the extroverted ones will. Unstructured Meetings are usually dominated by the Highest Paid Person In the ROom (Hippo) and his extroverted henchmen, who try to please her or him.

B. The Structured Meeting – is so often a formalized recipe for boredom

A Structured Meeting is way better: There is an Agenda, a presentation of the issue to be discussed before the discussion, a systematic capturing of actions items and responsibility written down in a protocol.

But these kinds of Meetings are often a drag. They are formal and rational, which is fine. Yet they fail to invite people to engage emotionally. Noone is ever asked to contribute and to engage. You can get through these meetings without ever saying a word. Again, the pleasing henchman and the HIPPO dominate the meeting. People may contribute, but they will anticipate the way of least resistance, especially if only marginally impacted at all.

The structured, formalized meeting usually is a real drag. Its rational, but it is often boring.

CIM.pngC. The Modern Meeting: Asking for Feedback to get Thoughts going

The modern meeting is often facilitated. As skilled internal facilitators are usually rare inside organizations, consultants often drive those kinds of meetings. It is even more scripted than the structured meeting. Therefore facilitation is of the essence.

First, people are invited to say what is on their mind, a round robin where everyone, in turn, shares what is on his or her mind. The agenda is adopted, or agenda points are added. This “Check-In” into meetings is more important than just updating the agenda. It allows people to focus their mental energy on the meeting and gives them a point to share feelings right at the start of the meeting.

Giving each participant a voice at the beginning of the meetings allows people to connect with each other – an investment into the Meeting that will be repaid with a higher engagement level of each participant. All participants are able to gauge the emotional stance of others and cater to this in their interactions with each other.

Meetings are not existing in a vacuum. They are set in the context that each individual participant is at the particular point of time the meeting starts. An opening question like “Whats on your mind”  during the check-in to each participant is easy to do and effective.

Such is the check-out, where people are again asked individually to share their feedback, their benefits, and concerns regarding the results of the meeting. There are multiple forms of this feedback possible, from just asking for one point of benefits and one main concern to writing post it and putting them on a Whiteboard or “Happiness door.”

D. The Connecting Meeting: Where passivity is not an option

Asking for feedback in Meetings during Check-in and Check-outs is not good enough to fully engage people. After all, it is the central part of the meeting, where some people engage, and most people stay disengaged. But, to harness collective intelligence, a company absolutely needs the engagement of everyone involved:

What the point of having all those experts, with all those diverse observations backgrounds if only a few actually engage and dominate the solution?

In a connecting meeting, people are drawn out of their habitual passivity. For this the connected Meeting follows an even more formal script than the previous meetings:

  • The agenda is not pre-determined. It is built right at the start of the meeting, after the check-in. Thereby, people are able to influence the purpose of the meeting in line with their actually needs – not just the need of the one person who wrote the agenda or had the time and discipline to add agenda items. One of the beauties of building the agenda after the check-in is that people’s actual needs and feelings, thereby giving a place to compassion and caring. Feelings come into play from the start.
  • After check-in and the presentation of the issue, people contribute their observations on the issue, one after the other. Passivity is not an option – everyone needs to speak up
  • Only after everyone has contributed, the facilitator starts the discussion. The discussion itself should be time-boxed. The initiator of an agenda item then has the opportunity to wrap-up or amend the proposal. Everyone’s opinion on the amended motion should be gathered during another round-robin.
  • After that, the proposal is decided upon by whatever decision mechanism is in place: Hierarchy, Consensus, Voting, etc. For an overview of decisions, mechanisms check out this post: Delegation on Steroids

What the connecting meeting achieves is to engage the left and right side of the brain  more:

  • More of the left side, rational thinking is applied by everyone contributing
  • More imaginative, feeling  left side thinking is coming into play, as better connect to one another and feel valued

cXm

The script for the connected meeting is a core element of Holacracy (see Holacracy, Liberation and Management 3.0), but it works outside the Holacracy context, i.e., in an ordinary hierarchical company too. The difference is that with hierarchical power still in play people will be defensive with their contributions and with sharing their feelings, as the HIPPO needs to be pleased in this or that manner.

E. The Challenging Meeting: Where Feedback is intense and in real time

Bridgewater is a Hedge Fund that made more money than any other Hedgefund ever in existence. As said in the previous post (The World’s Leading Hedgefund is Relying on Key Principles of Self-Managed Organizations), it can’t get any more capitalistic than that.

Under Bridgewaters Founder and CEO Ray Dalio, they basically digitalized the feedback process: Feedback is given via an application (the “Dot-Collector” in real-time, during the meeting and everyone’s rates. Then Everyone rates the issue and personal contributions to the meeting qualitatively and quantitatively. In this example, the lady and the guy in the rows assess their CEO’s performance in the meeting

Screenshot 2017-12-15 12.47.48.png

It takes quite some guts to give such a negative feedback to your almighty CEO. An excellent structured Meeting is one thing, a culture of radical transparency and truth is quite another. Don’t expect that this can work in a conventional hierarchy, without a more profound and sustained drive towards liberating your company.

Already during the meeting, everyone can see on a screen how his contribution to the meeting is ranked.

Screenshot 2017-12-15 12.47.07

The beauty of this system is that it draws out people. It forces them to contribute – even those introverts. People over-“contributing,” in other word spending too much time talking, do get the feedback immediately and can adjust their behavior.

The rankings of the discussed alternatives can be voted upon on via the app. The vote can be binding or just have informational character, and the real choice is to be made by an individual decision maker. Multiple decision rules can be applied, as needed and agreed on before the meeting.

Ray Dalio prefers a decision rule called “Believability weighted decision making.” Within this model, not everyone’s vote has the same impact. The most weight is given to those persons with the best track record, the most demonstrated experience in the matter discussed. Weights have to be assigned at the start of the meeting.

Over time, a lot of data on the contribution of each individual over any number of meetings is captured. This might just be the best 360 Degree Feedback there is, as everyone rates everyone at any time during meetings. This way, behaviors good and bad can be spotted and be improved. People are able to use this data to develop themselves and others, and therefore organizations develop to higher levels of consciousness.

Screenshot 2017-12-15 12.49.16

Conclusion: We just started exploring collective Intelligence

What do you think of the Challenging Meeting that Bridgewater has pioneered? A nightmare of transparency. The death of all introverts? An overstructured Utopia?

Maybe.

But one thing is clear: We absolutely need a better way to maximize the collective intelligence of people. Not just of overpaid and elitist hedge fund managers, but of all people, may that be room cleaning teams, nurses, workers in a distribution center or rubbish collectors. Using everyone’s knowledge, observations and intellectual capacities in a group will deliver

  • better results,
  • more accountability,
  • and more engagement.

It will beat the thoughts of a responsible manager who thinks he has figured out the “one best way” every time.

Connecting and Challenging meetings do provide feedback that penetrates beyond behaviors and into assumptions and mindsets.

It will let people connect to each other, connect to their work, connect to the organization. It will bridge the divide so many feel between making sense of their lives and the need to work for money.

This is what I think. What do you think?

___

Sources:

 

 

 

 

The World's Leading Hedgefund is Relying on Key Principles of Self-Managed Organizations

Sometimes I wonder how I ended up with such an interest in Self-Managing Organisations.
I spend the last 20 years in a career in global management consulting, starting up two start-ups, and working as a Chief Operating Officer for a fashion company. My interest in organization and management theory has always been keen, but I felt my know-how was getting a bit rusty.
Then, late 2015, I finally got the chance to update my thinking. I started with wanting to understand Digitalization better, and over time I realized that it’s not about business models, fancy applications, disruptive technologies, Design Thinking, Agile Practices or Lean style experiments. That is all good and well. But beneath that, there is a common denominator: Knowledge Work.
mj2.pngOh yeah, good old Knowledge Work. That’s what I considered my specialty over the years, anyway. But the more I read, the more I doubted that I am really as learned on the subject of managing Knowledge Workers as I thought. After all, I had a career. I needed to solve issues, fit into companies and social cliques. There was only so much time for going into depth.
Now, the more I learned about Knowledge Work, the more I understood that it’s really Autonomy and Purpose which drives performance:

  • The Autonomy for people to do things they really care about in a way they think best
  • The Purpose of an organization which provides true north and alignment of all these vastly autonomous knowledge workers

In ended up with the question: Which form of organization is the one allowing utmost Autonomy and utmost Purpose? It is the Self-Managed Organization.
Becoming an advocate for self-managed Organizations befuddled me. After all, Self- managed organizations smell like communist habitats, like idealistic greens communes where nothing is ever decided, and endless discussions are the norm.
But I learned: Digitalisation needs Self-Management.
Moreover:

All Knowledge-based Work Needs Self-Management

Don’t take it from me. Take it from the greatest Capitalist of all Capitalists: Ray Dalio has arguably been the worlds most successful Hedgefund Manager for the last 4 decades. He is worth 15 Billion and managing a 150 Billion Euro fund called Bridgewater.
40 years ago Ray wanted to make money. He had a knack for the stock-market but he, like so many others, couldn’t consistently beat the market. So he studied harder and harder as an individual, only to understand, that an individual’s perception of the world is so prone to bias, so limited in its perception of the world. Time is too limited, senses are too weak, memory is too limited, and the workings of the mind are too fallible.
rj3.png
As a Hedgefund Manager, the key to better performance is making better decisions. But if an individual is so limited in its decision-making ability, why not tap the resources of other minds? The formula to do that is, Ray found out, is to create a working environment where people can speak their mind freely, honestly and where everyone has access to best and complete information as possible. It is a work environment built, as Ray Dalio puts it, on “Radical Truth” and “Radical Transparency”. On these two principles, he founds his central idea for Bridgewater, the “Idea Meritocracy”: A workplace where everyone can be at his best, where the best ideas prevail, not just the ones of the superiors:
vv
But Bridgewater is not a self-managed organization per se. There are lots of components which are clearly hierarchical. But its very essence, the way decisions are made, is clearly liberated from all Hierarchy.
Just take a breath and let it sink in: The worlds leading, 150 Billion$ Fund is running on key principles of Self -Management! It can’t get any more capitalistic than a hedge fund. For Ray Dalio, it has started out as a journey for more Profit, but it is now a journey to make people whole, to treat them as adults.
Profits were key. People were an after-thought.
Now, People are key. Profits will follow. 
Because it makes business sense & because it provides fulfillment – not just for Ray.
There is a lot of original, quirky and interesting stuff in his 2017 book “Principles”. I will explore that in another post. Here is a teaser:

__
What do you think of Self-managed Organizations? Do you have a story of revelation that determined your thinking about management and organizations you like to share?
Sources:

  • Dalio, Ray “Principles: Life and Work” 2017
  • The featured image pictures Bridgewaters Headquarter in Westport, Connecticut
  • Just skim through the blog posts on managementDigital.net starting October 2015. Can you spot the “journey of revelation”?

 
 

The World’s Leading Hedgefund is Relying on Key Principles of Self-Managed Organizations

Sometimes I wonder how I ended up with such an interest in Self-Managing Organisations.

I spend the last 20 years in a career in global management consulting, starting up two start-ups, and working as a Chief Operating Officer for a fashion company. My interest in organization and management theory has always been keen, but I felt my know-how was getting a bit rusty.

Then, late 2015, I finally got the chance to update my thinking. I started with wanting to understand Digitalization better, and over time I realized that it’s not about business models, fancy applications, disruptive technologies, Design Thinking, Agile Practices or Lean style experiments. That is all good and well. But beneath that, there is a common denominator: Knowledge Work.

mj2.pngOh yeah, good old Knowledge Work. That’s what I considered my specialty over the years, anyway. But the more I read, the more I doubted that I am really as learned on the subject of managing Knowledge Workers as I thought. After all, I had a career. I needed to solve issues, fit into companies and social cliques. There was only so much time for going into depth.

Now, the more I learned about Knowledge Work, the more I understood that it’s really Autonomy and Purpose which drives performance:

  • The Autonomy for people to do things they really care about in a way they think best
  • The Purpose of an organization which provides true north and alignment of all these vastly autonomous knowledge workers

In ended up with the question: Which form of organization is the one allowing utmost Autonomy and utmost Purpose? It is the Self-Managed Organization.

Becoming an advocate for self-managed Organizations befuddled me. After all, Self- managed organizations smell like communist habitats, like idealistic greens communes where nothing is ever decided, and endless discussions are the norm.

But I learned: Digitalisation needs Self-Management.

Moreover:

All Knowledge-based Work Needs Self-Management

Don’t take it from me. Take it from the greatest Capitalist of all Capitalists: Ray Dalio has arguably been the worlds most successful Hedgefund Manager for the last 4 decades. He is worth 15 Billion and managing a 150 Billion Euro fund called Bridgewater.

40 years ago Ray wanted to make money. He had a knack for the stock-market but he, like so many others, couldn’t consistently beat the market. So he studied harder and harder as an individual, only to understand, that an individual’s perception of the world is so prone to bias, so limited in its perception of the world. Time is too limited, senses are too weak, memory is too limited, and the workings of the mind are too fallible.

rj3.png

As a Hedgefund Manager, the key to better performance is making better decisions. But if an individual is so limited in its decision-making ability, why not tap the resources of other minds? The formula to do that is, Ray found out, is to create a working environment where people can speak their mind freely, honestly and where everyone has access to best and complete information as possible. It is a work environment built, as Ray Dalio puts it, on “Radical Truth” and “Radical Transparency”. On these two principles, he founds his central idea for Bridgewater, the “Idea Meritocracy”: A workplace where everyone can be at his best, where the best ideas prevail, not just the ones of the superiors:

vv

But Bridgewater is not a self-managed organization per se. There are lots of components which are clearly hierarchical. But its very essence, the way decisions are made, is clearly liberated from all Hierarchy.

Just take a breath and let it sink in: The worlds leading, 150 Billion$ Fund is running on key principles of Self -Management! It can’t get any more capitalistic than a hedge fund. For Ray Dalio, it has started out as a journey for more Profit, but it is now a journey to make people whole, to treat them as adults.

Profits were key. People were an after-thought.

Now, People are key. Profits will follow. 

Because it makes business sense & because it provides fulfillment – not just for Ray.

There is a lot of original, quirky and interesting stuff in his 2017 book “Principles”. I will explore that in another post. Here is a teaser:

__

What do you think of Self-managed Organizations? Do you have a story of revelation that determined your thinking about management and organizations you like to share?

Sources:

  • Dalio, Ray “Principles: Life and Work” 2017
  • The featured image pictures Bridgewaters Headquarter in Westport, Connecticut
  • Just skim through the blog posts on managementDigital.net starting October 2015. Can you spot the “journey of revelation”?

 

 

Delegation on Steroids

The best thing about being a manager is that you get to decide. You call the shots. It is thrilling to use that power to get things done. And if you want to get some bigger things done, things outside your assigned areas, you just have to convince a limited number of other managers to go along. Not everyone, only those managers relevant to a more prominent initiative. Thereby a manager is able to come up with decisions decisively, speedily and without spending too much effort on the decision process.

But here is the problem: How does a manager know what is actually “good” for the company and for people? In reality, it is often dangerous to rely on an individual maker:

  • Analytical Errors: The Assumptions and Analysis that lead to a decision might be flawed. Too few checks might have been in place that would have prevented this faulty reasoning.
  • Insufficient Information: Accurate perception is hard and very time consuming
  • Biases: Every Individual is subject to inherent biases. It is just the way the mind works.
  • Insufficient Time: With a multitude of obligations, the incentive to take a shortcut is high: “I feel it is right. How can I be wrong? So let’s go for it, now!”
  • Reality is complex: There are many situations where the tendency to do good doesn’t help at all, as all options might be grey

Out of this list, the most important killer of good decisions is time. Given enough time, you might get rid of all logical errors, get all information from all the different perspectives, rehearse the decision to remove biases and reduce the complexity of situations. Alas, there is never enough time.

LT2.png

So what can be done to make better decisions? Here is a list.

It starts with Delegation

Delegation is the assignment of responsibility to a subordinate to carry out specific activities. The larger the area delegated is, the more time is freed up for the manager. The opposite of Micro-Managing is Delegation.

Delegation might be the best tool to let people develop and learn. In fact, most management writers think that Delegation is the one best tool a manager has. Manager-tools.com names it one of the three foundational skills that a manager must have, besides running one on one meetings and giving feedback.

Job descriptions are nothing more than a tool for a permanent delegation. But what is most commonly defined as Delegation is the case by case, temporary assignment of responsibility for some minor purposes, which might include some minor decision- making authority.

Delegation is a skill. It requires the mastery of giving briefings, setting targets, remaining hands-off during the execution, giving feedback, etc. There are lots of ways to get it wrong.

The more Delegation is practiced, the more a company…

  • moves from Command & Control towards Mission Command
  • moves from Hierarchy to Self-Management
  • is able to relief Managers from noncritical tasks towards high value-added tasks

Let’s have a look at different options managers have to come up with decisions.

steroids

More on this graphic see: 4 Steps to move Companies towards Life.

Beyond Traditional Delegation

There are three main ways to move beyond traditional delegation:

  1. Collaborative Leadership practices, which still rely on a manager as a central decision maker
  2. An Appointed Decision maker to whom a significant and specific decision making power is delegated by a manager
  3. Voting techniques for decision making by groups

1. Collaborative Leadership Practices

With delegation, some, mostly minor choices are offloaded to subordinates. Significant choices do still need to be made by a manager. Here is a way to make those decisions as a manager, but involve everyone affected in a systematic process.

In his 2013 book “Flat Army” Dan Pontrefact comes up with a framework for collaborative leadership. One aspect of his work, the “Collaborative Leadership Action Model,” describes how a leader can get others to get more engaged in the decisions and actions that she makes.

clam.png

What this 6 step model is highlighting is the need to involve the impacted people in all stages, before and after the decision has been made – and to be truthful and forthright in the following up.  I think it is a great way to get started on the way to become a collaborative leader and use the wisdom of the crowd.

2. Appointed Decision Makers

Taking delegation one step further, beyond execution, is the technique to appoint a decision maker on a case by case basis. This is a pretty radical step, as a manager needs to move beyond today’s prevailing mental model – the all-knowing manager – who knows best.

To appoint a decision maker is to make oneself step aside, to be on the sidelines, like a coach in a sports game. To not intervene in the decision process, and to accept the decision made by a subordinate is tough. After all, making decisions is at the very core of the self-understanding of most managers today.

Niels Pfläging in his short book “Organize for Complexity” provides a four-step process how to do this:

cdp

This gets tougher the more significant the decision is. If it’s just, for example,  the selection of office furniture, it might be easy. But picture delegating the decision for the procurement of a million dollar system. Any Manager delegating crucial decisions to sub-ordinates makes herself vulnerable to attacks. The Manager can be seen as weak, soft and not doing his job.

Appointing Decision makers on a large scale cannot be made in an organization which culture is stuck deep in the hierarchical way of working.  Where micro-managing is the norm delegation is usually frowned upon. A company must have embraced the “Mission Command” management style before subordinates can be appointed as decision makers for decisions that maker. Otherwise, the immune system of an organization will attack the “over-delegating, passive” Manager.

3. Simple and Advanced Voting Techniques

Voting! Pah. This is public sector stuff. It is not something we do in business. A manager decides, and execution starts. It is as simple as that.

But wait a minute:  Decisions by voting are not as strange as you might think. It is the method of choice to run the board of directors or supervisory boards, where decisions are made by voting in compliance with the statues of a company. Or think of typical steering committees, where different managers of different parts of the organization have to come up with joint decisions through consensus, the most demanding form of voting.

In fact, voting is involved in a lot of what business does. It is just not always explicit. Take for example a manager proposing a particular action and then discussing it with co-workers. By doing so, the manager is taking a measure of the constituency. People are voting by giving their opinions. This can be pictured as an informal way of voting, albeit with a non-binding result. Of course, there are hard-nosed managers out there, who make decisions on their own. But there are those Managers who know that lonely decisions are more likely to fail in execution, too.

Why not making more decisions through explicit voting?  In a team setting, this is already happening in today’s companies as agile practices such as SCRUM are adopted. Within SCRUM, there are autonomous teams who decide by consensus within the rules given by method. And there is a referee, called Scrum Master, who mediates conflicts.

In an organizational setting, voting needs the same:  Rules and a Referee. There are two options:

A. Voting controlled by a Superior

For small decisions, managers aiming to increase employee engagement can put up some issues to vote, e.g.

  • Letting people vote on possible projects through internal crowdfunding
  • Evaluating the performance of co-workers through Merit Money
  • or by allowing more and more votes on a case by case basis. First on small topics, like the purchase of office furniture and later on more crucial issues

Voting can be done by simple or qualified majority, by consensus, in secrecy or by open vote. Whatever the voting mechanism, it is essential that the manager clearly explains the rules and adopts the role of an impartial referee.

B. Voting by systematic integration of objections

Voting is has a basic shortcoming: It fails to engage people. It does not force people to come out and state true preferences. Instead, some people will estimate what their superior wants and vote accordingly, especially in open votes. To really engage people a way must be found to make everyone come out of his shell and state her or his opinion.

One of the most elegant ways to vote on a team level is supplied by Holacracy (see Holacracy, Liberation and Management 3.0).  In the “integrative decision-making process,” a proposal is presented, clarified, discussed and amended in 6 stages until all objections to it have been taken care of and the proposal is adopted.

IDMP

Basically, this is a consensus vote that addresses the main shortcoming of consensus votes, namely that nothing is ever decided. It does that in ingenious ways:

  1. It provides a clear script that specifies how and when to engage in the discussion
  2. It involves everyone,  giving introvert and shy people a place and time to speak out in a protected environment
  3. A facilitator is specified at the start of the meeting and keeps the meeting on track
  4. Social pressure is applied on every objector to remain reasonable, as each objection is discussed step by step in front of all other meeting participants. Thereby proposals are not drowned in an unidentifiable mass of resentment, but the irritation, the objections, are identified and discussed on the smallest, most concrete base

In a company context, this process can be tuned to achieve even more decisiveness. The consensus requirement might be lifted and replaced by a majority vote. As with all Agile concepts, tinkering is possible to suit the process to the situation at hand.

Accelerants: Values and Constitutions

Adopting any mode of making more participative decisions is easier if companies embrace values, that promote employee participation. Like Netflix, which even publishes its continuously updated values and value stories for anyone in the world to see in the Netflix Culture Book.

Practicing values means making those values the basis for the hard decisions about salary increases, promotion, and firing. Not just for some inconsequential HR exercise.

But values only allow a company to get so far to self-management: Any list of values is far too vague to give sufficient direction to most real decisions. A manager is left with a lot of leeway to interpret and apply values in daily business.

Self-managed, networks teams cannot be run on this arbitrary level.  The solution is to adopt a corporate constitution. Such a document codifies how authority is distributed, in processes and committees. It is based on values, but it is far more concrete than that. It is a document detailing the distribution of power,  with checks and balances.

An example of a corporate constitution is given by Holacracy.

Conclusion: Actions speaks louder than words

It amazes me how much is written about leadership, corporate values and corporate culture in contrast to the tiny volume that is written about the hard facts like decision-making processes.

Tae Hae Nahm, Managing Director of Storm Ventures, in an interview with the New York Times:

“No matter what people say about culture, it’s all tied to who gets promoted, who gets raises and who gets fired. You can have your stated culture, but the real culture is defined by compensation, promotions and terminations.

Basically, people seeing who succeeds and fails in the company defines culture. The people who succeed become role models for what’s valued in the organization, and that defines culture.”

Talk and action need to be the same. Therefore, I think Management and Leadership are really one. To talk about leadership without addressing the hard facts that management stands for is all but empty talk. Time to get real and try some new decision methods to come up with better, more timely decisions -while at the same time getting people engaged and companies innovative.

Sounds like a total win for me!

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Sources