|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Results: Keep What's Good, Fix What's Wrong, and Unlock Great Performance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales rank 876,147
Customers rating (based on 7 reviews)
|
|
|
|
|
Every company has a personality. Does yours help or hinder your results? Does it make you fit for growth? Find out by taking the quiz that’s helped 50,000 people better understand their organizations at OrgDNA.com and to learn more about Organizational DNA.Just as you can understand an individual’s personality, so too can you understand a company’s type—what makes it tick, what’s good and bad about it. Results explains why some organizations bob and weave and roll with the punches to consistently deliver on commitments and produce great results, while others can’t leave their corner of the ring without tripping on their own shoelaces. Gary Neilson and Bruce Pasternack help you identify which of the seven company types you work for—and how to keep what’s good and fix what’s wrong. You’ll feel the shock of recognition (“That’s me, that’s my company”) as you find out whether your organization is:• Passive-Aggressive (“everyone agrees, smiles, and nods, but nothing changes”): entrenched underground resistance makes getting anything done like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall• Fits-and-Starts (“let 1,000 flowers bloom”): filled with smart people pulling in different directions• Outgrown (“the good old days meet a brave new world”): reacts slowly to market developments, since it’s too hard to run new ideas up the flagpole• Overmanaged (“we’re from corporate and we’re here to help”): more reporting than working, as managers check on their subordinates’ work so they can in turn report to their bosses• Just-in-Time (“succeeding, but by the skin of our teeth”): can turn on a dime and create real breakthroughs but also tends to burn out its best and brightest• Military Precision (“flying in formation”): executes brilliant strategies but usually does not deal well with events not in the playbook• Resilient (“as good as it gets”): flexible, forward-looking, and fun; bounces back when it hits a bump in the road and never, ever rests on its laurelsFor anyone who’s ever said, “Wow, that’s a great idea, but it’ll never happen here” or “Whew, we pulled it off again, but I’m tired of all this sprinting,” Results provides robust, practical ideas for becoming and remaining a resilient business. Also available as an eBook
|
|
|
| Publisher | Crown Business | | Release date | 10/2005 | | Availability | Usually ships in 6 to 12 days | | Edition | Hardcover |
| | List price | $27.5 | | Our price | $22 (you save 20.00%) | | Used price | from $0.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Covert Selects: Results: Everyone wants resultsyour boss, your co-worker, and the company accountant. Everyone gets resultsgood or bad. How your company achieves these results is the focus of the book "Results" (@ 800ceoread.com)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Fixing Organisational Management
The vast majority of large organisations seem to be dysfunctional, at least to some extent. This book helps diagnose those dysfunctions and provides guidelines for addressing them. The organisations primarily addressed by the book are large corporations, but it appears that the principles would apply to many other types of organisations.
An easy way to start the diagnosis is to go to [...] and answer the brief questionnaire to find out what sort of organisation you belong to. The possible options are passive-aggressive, fits-and-starts, outgrown, overmanaged, just-in-time, military precision, and resilient. According to the authors, in order to move from one of the dysfunctional type towards the "resilient" type, you need to address the four building blocks: decision rights, information, motivators and structure. Most organisational dysfunctions are attributable to one or more of: unclear decision rights, lack of access to information, inappropriate motivators, and overlayered structures.
I am not sure that all possible organisational problems can be addressed in a single book, but most of the advice given by the authors rings true. Addressing the four building blocks will not guarantee that your organisation will be successful, but it will mean that many of the problems which beset most organisations will not be a problem for yours.
 Results: Keep what's good, fix what is wrong, and unlock great performance
A very reader friendly, handy and excellent reference book. A must have for future middle level managers and leaders
Well-Done!
Obviously, all human effort produces results, including no change of the status quo. What Neilson and Pasternack are talking about are efforts which sustain what is both effective and efficient, repair or eliminate what isn't, and thereby result in ("unlock") great performance. They identify four separate but interdependent "building blocks" (decision rights, information, motivators, and structure) on which to establish a program to achieve whatever the desirable results may be. Perhaps to manage growth. Perhaps to rightsize. Perhaps to introduce a new product or service and/or to penetrate a new market.
In Chapters One through Nine, they examine several different types of organizations:
Passive-Aggressive: "Everyone Agrees But Nothing Changes"
Fits-and-Starts: "Let 1,000 Flowers Bloom"
Outgrown: "The Good Old Days Meet a Brave New World"
Overmanaged: "We're from Corporate and We're Here to Help"
Just-in-Time: "Succeeding by the Skin of Our Teeth"
Military Precision: "Flying in Formation"
Each of the first six types has specific characteristics, most (if not all) of which are perversions of what would otherwise be desirable. For example, most executives would agree that an organization's operations should be disciplined, consistent, and lean; also, that there should be a well-defined chain of command. However, in a Military Precision organization, there can be serious problems which result from "command and control" management which discourages (if not punishes) principled dissent and individual initiative. Almost everyone involved awaits "orders" to be followed without question or hesitation. As I read Chapter Eight in which Neilson and Pasternack discuss the Military Precision organization, it struck me that it could run off independent thinkers and develop within those who remain a passive-aggressive attitude which results in subversive behavior. However, there are at least some organizations on which the appropriate emphasis should be on everyone knowing his or her role and implements it diligently, producing fluid and consistent execution of its policies and procedures.
As Neilson and Pasternack suggest, "7-Eleven exemplifies the Military Precision organization because it is top-down with a twist. It takes its direction from above, but its intelligence lies in the field...and it recognizes that. it's an organization bent on providing a consistent, quality customer experience to the thousands, often millions, that pass through its doors every day."
As for the Resilient organization, which Neilson and Pasternack describe as the "healthiest" of all, it also has several organizational traits which include entertaining the inconceivable ("seeing" what isn't yet...but could be); building a culture of commitment and accountability; "moving the goal post...every three years" at least; at all times and in every way demonstrating the "courage of its convictions"; recovering from adversity and then moving on; thinking horizontally (i.e. rather than in terms of hierarchies); Self-correcting (i.e. having mechanisms which identify small problems before they become major crises; listening to complainers to identify patterns and trends of dissatisfaction enterprise-wide; linking motivators to what is most important; and realizing any "success" is transient ("a little paranoia is good for you"). I presume to add one point: Today's Resilient organization can very quickly become one of the other seven. That is to say, each of the ten positive traits which Neilson and Pasternack identify, if taken to an extreme, defining characteristics of an "unhealthy" organization.
According to Neilson and Pasternack, the symptoms of a Passive Aggressive organization include smiles which conceal dissent, "shopping for decisions" (i.e. seeking until finding decisions preferable to those of one's supervisors); hoarding of resources which creates a "Bermuda Triangle" of information flow; "mixed message motivators" which create confusion and dissonance; and widespread use of the CYO strategy in anticipation of unfavorable consequences. These symptoms obviously suggest often deeply submerged feelings of dissatisfaction and perhaps even hostility.
What makes this volume so informative, indeed valuable is the fact that Neilson and Pasternack identify all manner of causes of dysfunctional organizations, suggest how those causes can be avoided or eliminated, and then explain what a "healthy" organization is but also how to establish and then sustain one. It occurs to me that most organizations proceed through phases during any one of which they exemplify one of the seven types. Therefore, some of the attributes of one type (e.g. Passive-Aggressive) should be replaced by some of those of another (e.g. Military Precision). It remains for decision-makers to understand which of the seven types best describes their organization and then, guided and informed by what Neilson and Pasternack provide in this volume, make whatever corrective or preventive adjustments may be necessary.
To Neilson and Pasternack, I now offer "Well-done!"
Finally, a diagnostic tool for the rest of us
The authors present extensive research on companies that consistently deliver results and those that do not. Their proposal is that the differentiator is a proper meshing of the following four building blocks:
* Decision rights: underlying rules about why and by whom decisions are truly made
* Motivators: incentives, career alternatives, corporate culture and values, and other elements that drive peoples' behavior.
* Information: performance metrics, and processes to coordinate activities and transfer knowledge.
* Structure: overall organization model, including, but not limited to, the "lines and boxes" of the organization chart.
The authors proceeded to investigate, in a very large number of companies, how the above four building blocks fit together, or fail to. Looking at their research results, the authors found out that the data tended to gather around seven organizational "syndromes" four unhealthy, two healthy, and one ideal, as follows:
The Passive-Aggressive Organization: Building consensus in such companies is easy, but execution is next to impossible. That's because people agree to things, but as soon as the meeting is over, begin to sabotage the implementation. Passive-aggressive companies are full of people looking like they support some initiative but in reality are - actively or passively - doing their best to guarantee it never gets done. The authors confess that this is the most difficult type of organization to fix. People are unable to take decisive action, because what looks like acquiescence is actually resistance in disguise. And when decisions are made they're almost certain to be vetoed or ignored. The solution begins when decision rights are placed with those best able and positioned to effect positive outcomes. But you can't stop there: a solution must make sure those people who are going to make the decisions 1) have timely access to good information and 2) are accountable, appraised and rewarded for making decisions that lead to successful execution. Finally senior management must streamline the decision process, removing obstacles and naming process owners to shepherd execution.
The Fits and Starts Organization: These attract intellect, initiative, and entrepreneurship, and these very special people, if they're highly self-motivated, will make great things happen, provided there's 1) a solid value system among the troops, and 2) senior management provides essential direction and redirects potential collisions/redundancies. Otherwise, the marketplace receives conflicting messages from their spasmodic behavior, and as result consistently undervalues these companies. What's going on? A Fits and Starts organization clearly shines in the Talents department, but lacks the management skills to effectively harness all this creative energy. Under pressure, they just work harder, thus bringing out even more their coordination shortcomings. Too many people are empowered to make decisions, often with little or no information beyond the data generated by that decision maker's immediate group. You can guess the rest: compensation schemes vary all over the place. Weak performance appraisals invariably lead to rewards largely unrelated to the company's strategic direction (if in fact there is one). Soon, people start updating their résumés. The best quit first. And the Fits and Starts company loses its chief competitive advantage: its people.
The Outgrown Organization: Outgrown organizations are exactly that - they're bursting at the seams because their management model was designed for a much smaller company. It may now be too large and complex to be run effectively by a small team of executives at headquarters. It reacts slowly to market developments. When it does, it's reactive and/or too late. Information pertinent to decision-making is placed as far as possible from those invested with the power of deciding, ie, it languishes in those units closest to the customer. People talk wistfully about the "good old days" when all one had to do before making a decision was shout across the hall or make a couple of quick phone calls. People close to the customer design intricate ways to circumnavigate headquarters. Ultimately, there are more exceptions than rules. Solutions must retain the benefits of scale while pushing decision-making out towards the client. Identify those who make a difference and reward them accordingly, keeping in mind that the best have probably already left. Because these companies have warm, powerful cultures, recharging people's batteries may be just a matter of broadcasting that the changes they've yearned for have finally come to pass.
The Over-managed Organization: These illustrate all the bad traits of the traditional Command and Control organization. Because the higher-ups spend most of their time checking on the information they receive, action is slow, misdirected, or non-existent. Over-managed organizations share a top-down decision system with Outgrown organizations, but their midsections are much fatter. In fact, wading through the middle ranks to get anything done can be a major task. Meetings generally take place in auditoriums because conference rooms are never big enough to contain all those involved. There, those who make presentations prepare much bigger backup presentations ("just in case they ask") that never get presented. The authors report that those inside Over-managed companies have the bleakest outlook and the most negative attitudes of all people surveyed. No wonder: there is no consistency to rewards and promotions, ownership and accountability are unclear, and the people with initiative have no permission to exert it. Senior management has no reliable information, and line managers have no idea how their division, let alone the total company, is doing. Summarily lopping off middle management is hardly ever a solution, because all those lines and boxes are a symptom rather than the cause. Rather, over-managed companies must single out key processes, find out who needs to make what decisions and when, design a new organization around them, make sure the proper information reaches them in time, and finally design and implement a new reward system that clearly reflects the new priorities.
The Just-in-Time Organization: These have a strong sense of mission, contain significant numbers of very talented people, and are able to change direction quickly in response to market trends, although seldom as a result of proactive measures to anticipate such changes. They are excellent places to learn, and foster an atmosphere of discovery, even of breakthrough. But, unless tight structures and consistent processes are in place, they can often be one-hit players rather than a reliable source of competitive advantage. These are companies that deliver results, but just barely. They may not be very good at nurturing long-term relationships with key clients. Also, they're seldom scalable. Their internal "heroes" are always people who snatched success from the jaws of defeat, just seconds before the Game Over bell rang. Yet right after one more such celebration they wonder how many times it was done in the past, and why nobody back then bothered to document that earlier victory so all this adrenalin would not be wasted again. Outsiders always get the impression that people are moving a little faster than they should be. But the human body is not designed to sprint a marathon, so Just in Time organizations are famous sources of management burnout. The solution is complicated by the fact that people in such organizations abhor greater emphasis on process and structure as initiatives that will render it "boring". All solutions must therefore slowly but deliberately take apart the "cowboy who shoots from the hip" mentality. Unfortunately, it may only come about after some high-profile executive burns out.
The Military-Precision Organization: Like flying in formation, everyone knows his/her role in a Military-Precision organization. It is disciplined and enormously coordinated. It is hierarchical and can process large volumes of similar transactions. They are run like good sports teams, drilling standard plays over and over until they become instinctual. While it brilliantly executes all activities that were carefully planned for, the same cannot be said for its ability to deal with the unexpected. Because future leaders must be groomed, not just drilled, their biggest challenge is finding and preparing the next generation of leadership. They can also get so wrapped up with continuous improvement of their internal processes that they fail to read - y compris between the lines - the information that flows into headquarters from the front lines. And because they typically don't deal well with the unexpected, this mistake can keep them ignorant of major but subtle changes in the marketplace until it's too late.
The Resilient Organization: Resilient organizations seem to have it all - their results are brilliant, their brands are respected, and they attract the best people. Everyone knows his/her priorities, and that the reward systems in place are closely tied to those priorities. Thus, if someone works 50% harder than his peer next door, he knows he's going to get paid a 50% bigger bonus. Yet Resilient companies hate media exposure, never rest on their laurels, are constantly scanning the horizon for change, and are ready to reinvent themselves every Monday morning. Resilience is not an end state, but rather a continuous journey. All Resilient companies have a "Secret Sauce", that changes from one company to the next, but that consistently includes the following four ingredients 1) an effective BS filter that separates fads from actual trends, 2) strong links to clients and customers (witness FedEx's Customer Summit), 3) a self-correcting mechanism that soaks up information about those market trends and turns them into effective internal redesign, and 4) an attitude of sincerity and frankness, sometimes brutally so, with all constituencies. On this last point, survey respondents mention the ability of top management to bring bad news across to employees, and take corrective measures swiftly. They know that complacency retains the mediocre and drives away the truly talented.
There is a website also http://www.orgdna.com where, by answering a simple questionnaire (19 questions, estimated total time 5 minutes) in one of 12 languages, you can submit your own organization to a test and find out which type it is. Some of you will gain some real insights about why some things are not working in your companies, and hopefully have the power or the influence to do something about it.
Most people will not be surprised to learn that 54% of questionnaire respondents work for unhealthy organizations (either Passive-Aggressive, Fits and Starts, Outgrown, or Overmanaged). Passive-Aggressive alone answers for 27% of questionnaires! Those 17% who work for Resilient organizations report that the experience is "fulfilling", and that returns are "higher than" their peers in the industry. The two other healthy profiles (Military Precision and Just in Time) account for another 14% of respondents. The 15% balance of survey respondents was judged "inconclusive" by the authors. Finally, the authors ranked responses by company annual sales, and, not surprisingly, find that very large companies (above US$ 10 billion in annual sales) can be extremely unhealthy, and are very difficult to run in a results-oriented fashion.
Succumbing to the instant gratification of being able to read the book a couple of minutes after buying it on amazon.com, I chose the e-book alternative, and, after some fiddling with the Adobe settings and my own sitting position, found that it was a very convenient way to read.
Results is not the silver bullet that the title suggests, but is a simple (sometimes too simple) diagnostic tool for ailing organizations. The cases and examples (and quite often the actual company name is mentioned) are excellent, and inserted at the right moment. I particularly liked the one about 7-Eleven, originally a Fits and Starts, Outgrew that model, filed for bankruptcy protection, reorganized as Military Precision, and is today on its way to becoming Resilient. The irony is that this last step has involved collapsing eleven management layers into seven, and that includes the CEO and the store managers!
All seven "syndromes" are beautifully described, although I would have preferred to see a more thorough treatment of Passive-Aggressive, exactly the one the authors contend is the most difficult of them all. The Resilient is beautifully covered, which is excellent, as it gives the rest of us - who don't work for a Resilient company - something to strive for.
If you're an executive and like to keep a dozen management books in the office that you can reference quickly, this should definitely be one of them. Also, this is an excellent book for coaches to recommend to clients who are at a loss for a diagnostic tool for their organizations' inability to consistently deliver results. Finally, those who, having read Execution (Gary Bossidy and Ram Charam), and afterwards felt that there was something missing, may find that something in this book.
Excellent reading
I found this book very interesting, full of practical examples and in general very illustrative
|
|
| | |
|
