STRATEGY CENTRAL

Ok, you’ve been to the conference and taken great notes, had really good team debriefs, even talked at length with the presenters.  Now you’re ready to come home and implement the great practices that you picked up.  Been there?

The question is, what happened?  Let’s just say that most of us, most of the time, came home and if we got around to trying what we learned found out that it just didn’t come off the way we heard that it would.  Why do you think that happened?

I’m digging into The Knowing-Doing Gap and I’m already thinking this is going to be a good one.  Not because the knowledge is in there.  It is.  But because I’m hoping it will encourage some actual implementation.  For example, I loved this quote from chapter one:

"What is important is not so much what we do–the specific people management techniques and practices–buy why we do it–the underlying philosophy and view of people and the business that provides a foundation for the practices (p. 24)."

What it’s telling us is that in the companies that are successful at doing what they know to do there is a direct connection between the why and the what.

What happens when your organization grows?  Do you celebrate immediately and have high-fives all around?  Or is there a kind of analysis that attempts to determine the cause of the growth?  In the August 3rd reading in The Daily Drucker there is a very interesting piece that reminds us that "a business needs to distinguish between the wrong kind of growth and the right kind of growth, between muscle, fat, and cancer."  Isn’t that an interesting proposition?  What does that mean?  And what could that mean for you?

Before I get into that, let me just say that Drucker assumes that every organization has a "minimum of growth required."  And with that as a presupposition here are his rules on the need to distinguish between muscle, fat, and cancer:

• First, growth that "results in an increase of total productivities of the enterprise’s resources is healthy growth."  What are productivities?  Let’s say productivities would be fruitfulness.  And you could see how that would be.  If we’re talking attendance or participation growth, it should lead to an increased involvement in the end result: involvement beyond consumption.
• Next, growth that results only in volume and does not, within a fairly short period of time, produce higher overall productivites is fat."  Again, if productivites is fruitfulness and fruitfulness must be more that consumption (attendance) then if it doesn’t lead to involvement it would be considered fat…and according to Drucker if it doesn’t "lead to higher overall productivity it should be sweated off."  That is an interesting observation!  Isn’t it?  Think about your organization’s mission.  For instance, if you’re in business to produce change in lives and your understanding is that engagement in living beyond yourself produces change, then you won’t be satisfied with simply increasing attendance at your events.  You’ll be looking for next steps.  Drucker’s saying that if you don’t see that in a "fairly short period of time…it should be sweated off."  What might that look like?  How about inserting periodic calls to action?
• Last, Drucker calls out the idea that growth that leads to a reduction in fruitfulness should be eliminated by radical surgery — fast."  What would cause growth that reduces fruitfulness?  What about programs that take energy away from a careful definition of your mission?  Couldn’t that lead to a kind of growth that reduces productivity?  Yes.

In recent days I’ve thought a lot about the things that started me on the path I’m on today.  And I keep coming back to Tom Peter’s book In Search of Excellence.  I don’t remember now why I read it.  I was already committed to the adventure of building the church.  I was in seminary (of all places).  Somehow I picked up a copy and began to read it.  I still have my beat up paperback copy, full of underlined passages, starred sections, and cryptic notes in the margins.  I remember thinking page after page how relevant it was to what I was preparing to do.  And I mark that book as being the first cause that led me to this place…where I am constantly on the lookout for insights that help me see more clearly what we could be doing.

In today’s post over on Tom Peters’ blog he takes another cut at what his basics of excellence are today, 23 years after publishing In Search of Excellence.  Take a look:

• A Bias for Action is Job One.  (Create a discipline/culture of excellence!)
• Decentralization!  Accountability!  (Tom’s Top Two: 1965 – 2005)
• Fail. Forward. Fast. ("Reward Excellent Failures, Punish Mediocre Successes.")
• "Metabolic Management" Matters! (Hustle! Adapt! EAT CHANGE! Win the "O.O.D.A. Loop" War—Confuse Your Competitors!)
• INNOVATE or Die. ("Game-changers" or Bust! Lead the Customer! Just Shout "No" to Imitation!)
• A Damn Good Product. (Pursue "Dramatic Difference.")
• A Damn Cool Product. (Design Rules!)
• Ride the Value Added Curve to the Sky! Sell "GamechangerSolutions"; Provide "Scintillating Experiences"; Become a "Dream Merchant"; Strive to Be a "Lovemark.")
• Relentlessly Pursue the "Big Two" Markets. (WOMEN Buy Everything. Boomers & Geezers Have All the Money!)
• Best "Talent"/Roster Wins! (HR Rules! Everyone a Leader! Women Lead Best! "Weird" Matters Most! A Workplace to Brag About! Educate for Creativity!)
• Wanted/Demanded: Radical Technology Strategies! ("Incrementalism" Is for Wimps!)
• Hard Is Soft! Soft Is Hard! (People! Passion! Enthusiasm! Wow! INTEGRITY! TRUST! Good Citizen.)
• Accept No Less Than EXCELLENCE! (Excellence, Pursuit thereof, Is the Only Thing That Vaults Everyone Out of Bed in the Morning.)

What do you think?  Do you see the relevance?

Out.