Pearl Zhu's Blog, page 1423
July 9, 2015
Is Customer Experience a Sum of Processes
Customer-Centric process thinking has become a part of everyone’s job. Process-thinking is a mindset, not a procedure to be followed. But not all processes and improvements are equal, hence there is the need for a formal evaluation process so organizations pursue the most meaningful initiatives first. Also don’t set process without input from frontline workers. To discuss further, is Customer Experience (CX) a sum of processes? How to manage CX in systematic way?List a set of questionnaires to clarify plan of customer-centric process implementation, control and measures. The purpose of a customer-centric process is not to dictate procedures, process design is not about one best way. And a process design is a pattern, not an instruction.- Internal Status Quo of the existing one- How many processes or customer touch points are included- How many staff people are involved- How much time/ finance requires at each step or touch points- Is there some points taking too much time and money- What are company internal performance versus Customer Experience (their expectations/ satisfaction)- Is it possible to measure it in each Touch Point- How to reveal activities = waste of time and money, which don't give any added value-What are companies weaknesses and strengths against competitors- What activities can be done to improve processes to save time and money-What are you hoping to accomplish? What are your KPIs? People, process and technology
Whether top down or bottom up, a systematic feedback and correction is highly essential. In such cases, particularly the top down ones, a transparent feedback generally does not exist due to great feeling of effectively developed and implemented. It is important that the changes to be brought in are not for cosmetic purposes nor to fix something that is not broken. At the leadership level from management perspective, it is necessary to initially find out if there is a problem. The leader must have a vision on where he or she wants to bring the company to, get feedback from all senior levels and then come up with a proposal and get the feedback. Unless you have true buy in at all levels , success becomes very difficult.
The frontline worker must be involved on the customer-centric process definition (or revision/improvement). Because frontline workers often have direct experience to serve customers. For sure you need to have extensive input, also from frontline workers, when designing the processes. After a draft design, pilot the process to make sure it gives the expected result. Here you could also involve external partners as supplier and customers - they could give completely new insights and ideas. The question would be: which level of worker and what is required of these selected few? Involving the end line too much also might create hurdles in the improvement efforts (negative perception, lack of understanding of the whole - how the processes integrate with one another, so on). As a follow-up question: how to drive the discussion between "thinkers" and "doers"? At which point one takes precedence over the other? Making procedures practically successful is a "success factor" of having processes work. But the giant gap between procedures and processes is exactly that the same given process can be executed through a variety of procedures (this is the entirety of the significance of automation!) without the procedures changing the design of the process.
CX is the sum of all your processes. Not all processes and improvements are equal because each touchpoint (in any process) does not always have the same effect; however, every part of the process is interlinked and the smallest touch point will have an effect (bottleneck) on a major touch point further up or down the line, and visa versa, and therefore will have an overall effect on the “whole” process, but the costs for either a minor or major touchpoint could be big or small - equally or unequally - and then there’s the overall cost saving attached to the end result and, do not forget the ultimate effect on the Customer Experience. By improving the process, you should also improve the CX by speeding up communication, shorten lead-times, improve quality, reducing costs, etc., all of which improves the customer experience and enabling the company to reap better revenue, profits, grow market share and attract investors. Customer needs are the primary reasons for any process model. The customer experience is affected by every single touch point within a process; and by every single person who enables a process to flow efficiently. The process is part of the CX, but also the CX is sum of the process. An ultimately honed and efficient business process should offer many valuable experiences and benefits on both sides! You can’t have a consistently great customer experience without good processes and good process management.
In many cases, the contributing factor to Customer Experience (CX) is more than just process. It's how all the business processes fit together, how the accountability, ownership and handoffs between teams and processes are designed. It's the entire value stream that influences the customer experience. As long as each department works together to address common goals and objectives, and CX is certainly a common interest, continued improvement and positive CXs are achievable! When referring to process, include roles and responsibilities, process flow, handoffs and interactions, as well as governance - ways to monitor, measure and report on performance against KPIs and CSFs.A company which embarks on CX initiatives should not departmentalize the process, but treat each department in the overall process as another internal customer which might help eliminate the “them & us” syndrome in companies. Everyone and every department should understand how the whole (overall) process eventually affects the ultimate paying customer, at the beginning and at the end of the process! With process improvement, bottlenecks in customer touchpoints can be solved. You will lose value if you see process and CX as separate thing. You would have no process without customer touchpoints therefore the customer interactions are the route course of all of your internal interactions. Customer exists first, hence the process to serve customer better comes into existence. Result: removing the customer dissatisfiers and improve overall customer experience.So the contributing factor to CX is more than just process. It's how all the business processes fit together, how the accountability, ownership and handoffs between teams and processes are designed. It's the entire value stream that influences the customer experience
The key here is consistency, you can have one of great experiences with limited processes, but you won't get it right in the majority of cases, or ideally in all cases if you don't design and manage processes properly. It depends on how relevant the process is to impacting the customer experience. A case can probably be made that all process improvement leads someway to an improvement in customer experience. However, it’s necessary to have a formal process in place that requires a clearly defined business case with cost/benefit analysis before any investment is made. Doing so helps ensure resources are invested in the right areas for the right reasons, and expected value is known beforehand so realization can be monitored, measured and reported along the journey.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
July 8, 2015
Why Does Change Have to be Comprehensible?
The goal for change is always to make improvement or innovations happen, and it's a progressive journey to keep business move forward.
Change is inevitable, but more than two thirds of change effort fail to achieve the expected results. Too often top management says they need to change or selects a set of numbers relative to goals and then unleashes a fancy name program on the organization and says "Change”! So it's no surprise that won't work. But why does change have to be comprehensible, and how to make change sustainable? The enemy is not change per se, it's change without focus or purpose. One of the change motto is "never mistake motion for action." "The successful businesses are the ones that have learned WHEN change is called for and how to decide WHAT to change." Let's not let all these problems inherent in any change initiative, to get in the way of accepting the business facts that change is inevitable and needed in every business. The successful businesses are the ones that have learned HOW to implement change time after time after time. However, sometimes, the "change is inevitable' mantra that is used as an excuse to not really think things through or explain away perfectly valid concerns. Once the change becomes the focus, as opposed to the reason or objective of the change, the change train becomes unstoppable. The reason so many change initiatives are not comprehensible is that they don't make fundamental sense. Many times, teams have worked very hard to refine the processes involved with an initiative and things are just starting to go smoothly and customers are responding. Then, upheaval. For no good reason, other than vanity or change for change sake. The point is Change Management needs always go hand in hand with strategy management, program, project management or talent management, with clear business purpose and focus to get it sustainable.
There are two reasons to pursue change: Become better at what you do, or become able to do something different. Becoming better means removing obstacles. Any change that doesn't reduce the friction people experience in doing their jobs will be perceived as misdirected. Becoming something else means fundamental retooling that may call for different people as well as different processes. Asking people to do something they are not equipped to do just frustrates them with more incomprehension. if you aren't willing to train or retool, the change will fail. There are many idioms that refute the premise: "some things never change," "the more things change, the more they stay the same," "there's nothing new under the Sun," etc. The goal for change is always to make improvement or innovations happen, and it's a progressive journey to keep business move forward.
Change needs to be human-centered. Organizational Change is always difficult, and many organizations have the symptom of “change fatigue,” but if you can invest upfront and do a good job of communicating why the change is needed, to have empathy by letting people figure out What’s in Me,” the easier it may become. In the risk of invalidating the current culture and everything that is working, with this approach, you keep the opportunity open for defining and leveraging current strengths during the change process. People should know "where you are driving them to" and "what's in it for them." Therefore, besides a complete realistic plan, the KISS principle, you need to gain the important marketing skills before committing the Change Management Journey. When the group being changed takes on the responsibility to understand and manage through the change, it goes much better and it has much more sustainability.
Change Management requires a plan and strategy as well, change is not for its own sake, a clear vision, a systematic thinking and effective communication, the logical processes and exemplified change leadership are all the key success factors to overcome the challenges and manage changes smoothly. Well planned Change Management with comprehensible understanding will greatly reduce and practically eliminate the fear of change that derails good or even great intentions, and have better opportunity to achieve expectations.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Change is inevitable, but more than two thirds of change effort fail to achieve the expected results. Too often top management says they need to change or selects a set of numbers relative to goals and then unleashes a fancy name program on the organization and says "Change”! So it's no surprise that won't work. But why does change have to be comprehensible, and how to make change sustainable? The enemy is not change per se, it's change without focus or purpose. One of the change motto is "never mistake motion for action." "The successful businesses are the ones that have learned WHEN change is called for and how to decide WHAT to change." Let's not let all these problems inherent in any change initiative, to get in the way of accepting the business facts that change is inevitable and needed in every business. The successful businesses are the ones that have learned HOW to implement change time after time after time. However, sometimes, the "change is inevitable' mantra that is used as an excuse to not really think things through or explain away perfectly valid concerns. Once the change becomes the focus, as opposed to the reason or objective of the change, the change train becomes unstoppable. The reason so many change initiatives are not comprehensible is that they don't make fundamental sense. Many times, teams have worked very hard to refine the processes involved with an initiative and things are just starting to go smoothly and customers are responding. Then, upheaval. For no good reason, other than vanity or change for change sake. The point is Change Management needs always go hand in hand with strategy management, program, project management or talent management, with clear business purpose and focus to get it sustainable.
There are two reasons to pursue change: Become better at what you do, or become able to do something different. Becoming better means removing obstacles. Any change that doesn't reduce the friction people experience in doing their jobs will be perceived as misdirected. Becoming something else means fundamental retooling that may call for different people as well as different processes. Asking people to do something they are not equipped to do just frustrates them with more incomprehension. if you aren't willing to train or retool, the change will fail. There are many idioms that refute the premise: "some things never change," "the more things change, the more they stay the same," "there's nothing new under the Sun," etc. The goal for change is always to make improvement or innovations happen, and it's a progressive journey to keep business move forward.
Change needs to be human-centered. Organizational Change is always difficult, and many organizations have the symptom of “change fatigue,” but if you can invest upfront and do a good job of communicating why the change is needed, to have empathy by letting people figure out What’s in Me,” the easier it may become. In the risk of invalidating the current culture and everything that is working, with this approach, you keep the opportunity open for defining and leveraging current strengths during the change process. People should know "where you are driving them to" and "what's in it for them." Therefore, besides a complete realistic plan, the KISS principle, you need to gain the important marketing skills before committing the Change Management Journey. When the group being changed takes on the responsibility to understand and manage through the change, it goes much better and it has much more sustainability.
Change Management requires a plan and strategy as well, change is not for its own sake, a clear vision, a systematic thinking and effective communication, the logical processes and exemplified change leadership are all the key success factors to overcome the challenges and manage changes smoothly. Well planned Change Management with comprehensible understanding will greatly reduce and practically eliminate the fear of change that derails good or even great intentions, and have better opportunity to achieve expectations.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Can Holacracy Help Organizations be more Agile?
Agile requires a lot of discipline around practices. Holacracy requires a lot of discipline around governance and structure.
"Holacracy is a new way of running an organization that removes power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles, which can then be executed autonomously, without a micromanaging boss. The work is actually more structured than in a conventional company, just differently so. With Holacracy, there is a clear set of rules and processes for how a team breaks up its work, and defines its roles with clear responsibilities and expectations. "(Holacracy.com). So holacracy is one of the ways to organize your teams or company into a flatter organization. Is holacracy the next Silver Bullet? Can Holacracy help organizations to be more agile?Holacracy and Agile have a considerable degree of synergy. And they are both comparatively easy in the small; increasingly difficult to scale. They have a degree of overlap. But Holacracy won't replace Agile; Agile won't replace Holacracy. Holacratic structure is a good one for an agile shop, but it's not the only structure that works, and it can only work in a company made up entirely of “grown ups.” Agile is all about relationships and collaboration at its core, so holacracy evolves from the culture that Agile creates. Agile is a catalyst towards moving organizations and people from more of an individual culture to a more relationship and team culture, which is all part of the evolutionary journey of holacracy.
Holacracy tries to define a new rule set, taking into account the human aspect of organizations. The success of agile is really down to being quite confined to the development and product team, whereas Holacracy wants to apply it to the entire organization. The bigger the organizations or enterprises, the more they have “change inertia,” resist Agile and want everything completely waterfall. Holacracy steps in the direction of solving the problem that many experience with attempting to scale agile to fit large organizations. Most seem to think that Agile is "situation specific," there are no universal best practices. Holacracy tries to flatten organizations hierarchically and enforces agile philosophy throughout the company by having the business leaders confirm a new set of rules, with the goals to improve organizational agility.
Agile requires a lot of discipline around practices. Holacracy requires a lot of discipline around governance and structure. A functional Agile organization as a (squat) pyramid, but it's a pyramid balanced on it's point. Some of the principles behind Holacracy align well with agile principles, probably because they were born in an agile software environment and that influenced its creation. Holacracy appears hard to grasp to start, but is actually "lighter" than "agile practices." Holacracy, while outlines the governance of work, doesn't tell you how to execute your actual work. It governs the roles, accountabilities and authority, but it’s up to the role holders to figure out the best way to execute. It speeds up decision making, allowing decisions to be made more effectively without too much rigid rules. Agile (done well) requires a lot of discipline around practices. Holacracy requires a lot of discipline around governance and structure. While you can certainly do a half baked agile, but it’s hard to do half baked Holacracy. Maybe this is in part because agile rollouts tend to start and stop with the software delivery team, are often ground up and without full organization buy-in.
The big shift is moving from a command and control mindset to a service mindset. It is all about taking ownership of what you do and taking employees more responsible towards their work. If you are up for Holacracy, make sure you have great people in your organization who are able to accomplish the task on their own without getting stuck anywhere. It's not for those who need guidance or direction. You need a strong leader to motivate people and achieve goals. At the same time, a good leader is the one who makes others self motivated and more responsible towards their work. It's not for those who need guidance or direction" - that depends. If people cannot free themselves from feeling a need for guidance and direction, that’s a contra-indication. On the other hand, people need to learn all the time, and sometimes that will mean getting guidance and direction from others who already know. Given that most agile organizations are only agile in respect of certain parts of the business, and that many businesses fail to understand the relatively simple concepts behind agile. So if the agile organizations have very flat hierarchies, and the people at the "top" are very much committed to the high level leadership maturity model, and then they can shift to holacracy mode smoothly.
Holacracy is good, but you can not expect every employee to be of a same level of maturity to adapt to it. You need to build the collaborative team, before you build the self-management initiative. There are three needs in an organizational setting which are embedded in Holacracy or other format of digital “style”: Self-determination, Self-organization and Interdependence. The purpose of holacracy is to breakdown silos, to improve organizational agility with the faster speed of responding the changes, and to increase employees engagement, with the ultimate goals to build people-centric organization.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
From Performance Appraisals to Performance Optimization
Most organizations fail to manage performance effectively, because they fail to look into the system holistically.
Managing performance is a wonderful idea! But too many companies ignore the difference between doing PA (Performance Appraisal) and actually being proactive in performance management. In fact, in performance management, much less time should be spent on evaluating past performance, but moving to removing barriers to future performance. You can ask yourself some questions to move to the right direction like how frequent feedback will add value to your organization and the employees, what are the organizational goals and what value can performance evaluation add to it? What rewards should be linked to performance evaluation and how these rewards will affect productivity of your employees and contribute to the organizational goals?
From Performance Appraisal to Performance Optimization: It is essentially moving away from appraisals of performance to managing and optimizing future performance. The performance review process should be used as a coaching tool; to not only let the employee know how they are doing, but to let them feel as though they have a voice, and they are an integral part of the company. This is usually the problem when performance appraisals are viewed as a judgment process rather than a helping process. This becomes very obvious when the manager makes judgment during the process rather than takes a helping stance. The appraisal can be the venue for finding solutions and effective methodologies rather than setting the blame on people. If we look at appraisal as helping, people would tend to open up and take comments more positively which is helpful in performance improvement. But if the tone of the discussion is judgmental, people become evasive and protective of their own welfare, and the discussion will not be productive as each party builds shields and weapons. But when instead, bridges are built, then movement toward achieving goals is facilitated, and a positive climate in the organization is built.
Strengths Finder. If people know their strengths and managers help them work in those strengths, employees get to do what they do best everyday and performance is maximized. It drives engagement, productivity, profitability, and employee retention. Who doesn't want to know more about who they are and what their strengths are? They are hungry to know how they did and what the results mean! It's human nature. The key element to successful review processes is not in how good the framework or tools are, it is the quality of the proactive conversations that take place. If the focus is shifted to investing in leadership abilities that build and support such necessary conversations; focus on building success for the individual through identifying their challenges and what is needed to support them to achieve within their role. When frequent conversations take place that focus on building success for the individual, then the formal organizational requirements can be achieved by summarizing all of conversations throughout the required timeframes. So it's necessary to have a SYSTEM in place in organizations. It isn't enough to just "talk," but it has to be systematic and holistic solution.
SMART goals mapping: Managing performance requires a system with component parts that all work together. Starting with SMART goals is a good way to assess employees, because the employees are the ones to establish their SMART goals based on the manager’s SMART goals which roll up into the organization goals. This way ensures that everyone is working towards that company's goals and also towards their own goals that will have a positive impact on the organization as a whole. SMART goals allows for a mid-year and end of year formal appraisal, but also allows for an ongoing discussion between the manager and employee. This method also gives the employee control over their appraisal/performance, if done correctly, it establishes a two way communication on a regular bases between employee and manager. The measurement and timely communication of performance is a useful tool that will assist in the achievement of unit/organizational goals. As such the process of defining and the creation of personal and unit objectives must be constructed within the goals and objectives of the operational plan. The role of HR as the lubricant makes the whole operation move with respect to people and improve overall business performance.
Performance Management as an ongoing process: Performance based management requires that the measurement and communication of performance be an integral part of an ongoing process and not an annual, quarterly, or monthly event. Much of the stress engendered in performance evaluation is created by the after-the-fact practice of communicating results. The employee's apprehension builds as the date and time draws near to discover how well they did. Any manager that communicates by using the oh-by-the-way method has failed the employee, the company and his/her self. The purpose of the performance discussion is not to ambush the employee, performance appraisals used in that manner will guarantee ongoing employee and management friction that will cause things to cascade down. You can not manage performance after- the-fact.
Most organizations fail to manage performance effectively, because they focus on improving the processes or implementations of performance management or evaluation. They fail to look into the system holistically. Therefore, if you want an effective performance evaluation or management system, you need to shift your mindset from developing performance management processes or implementation to developing a holistic performance management solution that adds value to employees, organizational goals and business results. It is important to create an environment where everyone feels as being part of a whole system and individual contribution can be achieved or improved with the system working with one goal: achieving what has been planned as a team. With this, the team leaders or department managers act and are viewed as catalysts and guides. If top management supports the plan, and are willing to show that support during implementation, then you'll have a much better chance of success. Finally, framing all of your training and managing an ongoing Performance Management processes in a positive manner to focus on optimizing future performance and keep the end - business goals in mind as always.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Managing performance is a wonderful idea! But too many companies ignore the difference between doing PA (Performance Appraisal) and actually being proactive in performance management. In fact, in performance management, much less time should be spent on evaluating past performance, but moving to removing barriers to future performance. You can ask yourself some questions to move to the right direction like how frequent feedback will add value to your organization and the employees, what are the organizational goals and what value can performance evaluation add to it? What rewards should be linked to performance evaluation and how these rewards will affect productivity of your employees and contribute to the organizational goals?
From Performance Appraisal to Performance Optimization: It is essentially moving away from appraisals of performance to managing and optimizing future performance. The performance review process should be used as a coaching tool; to not only let the employee know how they are doing, but to let them feel as though they have a voice, and they are an integral part of the company. This is usually the problem when performance appraisals are viewed as a judgment process rather than a helping process. This becomes very obvious when the manager makes judgment during the process rather than takes a helping stance. The appraisal can be the venue for finding solutions and effective methodologies rather than setting the blame on people. If we look at appraisal as helping, people would tend to open up and take comments more positively which is helpful in performance improvement. But if the tone of the discussion is judgmental, people become evasive and protective of their own welfare, and the discussion will not be productive as each party builds shields and weapons. But when instead, bridges are built, then movement toward achieving goals is facilitated, and a positive climate in the organization is built.
Strengths Finder. If people know their strengths and managers help them work in those strengths, employees get to do what they do best everyday and performance is maximized. It drives engagement, productivity, profitability, and employee retention. Who doesn't want to know more about who they are and what their strengths are? They are hungry to know how they did and what the results mean! It's human nature. The key element to successful review processes is not in how good the framework or tools are, it is the quality of the proactive conversations that take place. If the focus is shifted to investing in leadership abilities that build and support such necessary conversations; focus on building success for the individual through identifying their challenges and what is needed to support them to achieve within their role. When frequent conversations take place that focus on building success for the individual, then the formal organizational requirements can be achieved by summarizing all of conversations throughout the required timeframes. So it's necessary to have a SYSTEM in place in organizations. It isn't enough to just "talk," but it has to be systematic and holistic solution.
SMART goals mapping: Managing performance requires a system with component parts that all work together. Starting with SMART goals is a good way to assess employees, because the employees are the ones to establish their SMART goals based on the manager’s SMART goals which roll up into the organization goals. This way ensures that everyone is working towards that company's goals and also towards their own goals that will have a positive impact on the organization as a whole. SMART goals allows for a mid-year and end of year formal appraisal, but also allows for an ongoing discussion between the manager and employee. This method also gives the employee control over their appraisal/performance, if done correctly, it establishes a two way communication on a regular bases between employee and manager. The measurement and timely communication of performance is a useful tool that will assist in the achievement of unit/organizational goals. As such the process of defining and the creation of personal and unit objectives must be constructed within the goals and objectives of the operational plan. The role of HR as the lubricant makes the whole operation move with respect to people and improve overall business performance.
Performance Management as an ongoing process: Performance based management requires that the measurement and communication of performance be an integral part of an ongoing process and not an annual, quarterly, or monthly event. Much of the stress engendered in performance evaluation is created by the after-the-fact practice of communicating results. The employee's apprehension builds as the date and time draws near to discover how well they did. Any manager that communicates by using the oh-by-the-way method has failed the employee, the company and his/her self. The purpose of the performance discussion is not to ambush the employee, performance appraisals used in that manner will guarantee ongoing employee and management friction that will cause things to cascade down. You can not manage performance after- the-fact.
Most organizations fail to manage performance effectively, because they focus on improving the processes or implementations of performance management or evaluation. They fail to look into the system holistically. Therefore, if you want an effective performance evaluation or management system, you need to shift your mindset from developing performance management processes or implementation to developing a holistic performance management solution that adds value to employees, organizational goals and business results. It is important to create an environment where everyone feels as being part of a whole system and individual contribution can be achieved or improved with the system working with one goal: achieving what has been planned as a team. With this, the team leaders or department managers act and are viewed as catalysts and guides. If top management supports the plan, and are willing to show that support during implementation, then you'll have a much better chance of success. Finally, framing all of your training and managing an ongoing Performance Management processes in a positive manner to focus on optimizing future performance and keep the end - business goals in mind as always.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
July 7, 2015
A Value-Added Board
The value-added Boards bring wisdom, ‘deep common sense,’ balance, improved strategic thinking, creativity, and more.
Corporate Board is one of the most significant governance bodies in modern businesses. Generally speaking, Boards have a couple of main functions such as strategy oversight (input, review, etc), governance practices (monitoring, risk management), service (providing advice & support to executives), and resource provision (opening their networks etc.). However, from industry research, very low percentage (less than 30%) of BoDs understand how their organizations create value. This is an absolutely abysmal statistic and is reflective of the fact that the most public company boards have not correctly understood what their primary responsibility is. What’re the principles and practices to run a value-added digital board though?
Value Management: There was a time not so long ago that "values management" was recognized as an important adjunct to and extension of "rules management." Generally speaking, Value Management is about satisfying the expectations and the resources to achieve them. -Rules can't cover every situation; when there's no rule extant, multi-dimensional business values must guide BoDs’ judgement in making sound judgement and effective decisions.-Values Management requires a close examination by all of the organization's Vision, Mission and Values, with a thorough examination, and leadership - driven operationalization of the values with examples from organizational memory and role -playing to achieve the values in situation where the rules don't provide adequate guidance.
Strong Intent and learning agility: Board members should be joining the boards because they have the strong intent and learning agility to contribute to the maximization of the company's full potential and are unwilling to settle for anything less. They need to go beyond "understanding the strategy" to a deep dive into the businesses to further understanding the culture, the business capability and competency, etc. Only by doing this, can the board genuinely understand the value creation opportunities and risks available to the company which will then enable the board to engage with management in the development of a value maximization plan.
The laser focused agenda: Majority of time, the board agenda should be focused on the progress toward the goals, targets, milestones, etc. of the value maximization plan. In other words, governance should be about the business. Meeting should not entail just polite conversation, but should be highly engaging and even heated at times if issues are to be debated in the manner necessary. Further, much of the process of deep debate and discussion around the plan progress is the process that facilitates high level management accountability. What is needed is clear context, and this is achieved by precisely defining that the board's primary responsibility is to ensure the maximization of capital allocation, company performance and shareholder value. Boards need to be held more accountable and it all starts with ensuring the governance documents are sufficiently robust to force transparency and acknowledgement that they the directors who are responsible and accountable to the shareholders for successfully leading the business and protecting the shareholders investment.
The value-added Boards bring wisdom, ‘deep common sense,’ balance, improved strategic thinking, creativity, focus on shareholder and stakeholder communications, practice better governance, better oversight, multi-dimensional value management, and better risk management with strong discipline and self-assessment.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Corporate Board is one of the most significant governance bodies in modern businesses. Generally speaking, Boards have a couple of main functions such as strategy oversight (input, review, etc), governance practices (monitoring, risk management), service (providing advice & support to executives), and resource provision (opening their networks etc.). However, from industry research, very low percentage (less than 30%) of BoDs understand how their organizations create value. This is an absolutely abysmal statistic and is reflective of the fact that the most public company boards have not correctly understood what their primary responsibility is. What’re the principles and practices to run a value-added digital board though?
Value Management: There was a time not so long ago that "values management" was recognized as an important adjunct to and extension of "rules management." Generally speaking, Value Management is about satisfying the expectations and the resources to achieve them. -Rules can't cover every situation; when there's no rule extant, multi-dimensional business values must guide BoDs’ judgement in making sound judgement and effective decisions.-Values Management requires a close examination by all of the organization's Vision, Mission and Values, with a thorough examination, and leadership - driven operationalization of the values with examples from organizational memory and role -playing to achieve the values in situation where the rules don't provide adequate guidance.
Strong Intent and learning agility: Board members should be joining the boards because they have the strong intent and learning agility to contribute to the maximization of the company's full potential and are unwilling to settle for anything less. They need to go beyond "understanding the strategy" to a deep dive into the businesses to further understanding the culture, the business capability and competency, etc. Only by doing this, can the board genuinely understand the value creation opportunities and risks available to the company which will then enable the board to engage with management in the development of a value maximization plan.
The laser focused agenda: Majority of time, the board agenda should be focused on the progress toward the goals, targets, milestones, etc. of the value maximization plan. In other words, governance should be about the business. Meeting should not entail just polite conversation, but should be highly engaging and even heated at times if issues are to be debated in the manner necessary. Further, much of the process of deep debate and discussion around the plan progress is the process that facilitates high level management accountability. What is needed is clear context, and this is achieved by precisely defining that the board's primary responsibility is to ensure the maximization of capital allocation, company performance and shareholder value. Boards need to be held more accountable and it all starts with ensuring the governance documents are sufficiently robust to force transparency and acknowledgement that they the directors who are responsible and accountable to the shareholders for successfully leading the business and protecting the shareholders investment.
The value-added Boards bring wisdom, ‘deep common sense,’ balance, improved strategic thinking, creativity, focus on shareholder and stakeholder communications, practice better governance, better oversight, multi-dimensional value management, and better risk management with strong discipline and self-assessment.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Digital Master Tuning #101: Information Management as Differentiator between Digital Master and Digital Laggard
Information Management is all about having the right people to have the right information to make right decisions at the right time.
Information is the most valuable commodity individuals and organizations produce in the digital environment in which they currently function. Nowadays, organizations large or small, collect an enormous amount of data. Data is raw material, information is processed data, information only has a value when it is needed. When businesses manipulate information in meaningful ways which give you something to interpret and utilize, then you have established value from information you get. Therefore, Information Management is key differentiator between digital master and digital Laggard.
Organizations needs to have Information Management strategy as integral element in business strategy. It determines the strategic objectives, their risk appetite for achieving them, identify and assess the risks and make sure it’s all joined up. Information is a key enabler to help you achieve your strategic business objectives – having the right information to make an informed management decision to develop the right products for serving the right customers. Information Management has many pitfalls: The volume of data collected are used for market evaluation, customer resource management, and enterprise resource management coupled with the real world requirements that support and facilitate the overall operational management, retards the business community’s capability to convert that data to useful and valuable information. Information is also something that can hinder the achievement of strategic objectives, having it unavailable, lost, stolen, or compromised. Unstructured data based decision-making by senior managers has been poor because of the intrinsic value of information reduces decision effectiveness.
IT stands out as a value-added function by managing information effectively and efficiently. It can abstract business and customer insight from explosive information, and bring to the table innovative solutions that meet customers’ needs, while reducing cost to market, without the sacrifice of strategic goals and strategies invoked on it by its business partners. If IT does it well, it will achieve high business value. But often the problems most organizations have are (1).not understanding what raw material they have to play with (poor information management); (2). not applying worthwhile evaluation to it to reveal the inherent value; but mostly (3). not understanding why they should do these things in the first priority.
Changing circumstances will likely dictate the value of information associated with that situation. Changing products and processes will dictate the value of information associated with them. One of the unique, wonderful characteristics of data is that it's not depleted when consumed. The argument that information is somehow different because it has no value "apart from a goal, a product, or a transaction between individuals." This is true of any asset. It can increase in value once it is used. However value depends partly on perception of quality/usage/satisfaction. Not only is information an interesting economic goods, but value is also difficult to determine, it could be utilitarian, hedonistic, extrinsic, intrinsic, social, practical epistemic etc. The effort of valuing information independent of its association to the value of related tangibles seems a difficult, if not futile, exercise. Perhaps we should first work to identify how information is associated with the valued tangibles of our businesses; our products and our resources; like information flows in our processes by example, then its own value will become readily apparent and quantifiable by association. There's a difference between the potential value of an asset, its realized value (when consumed), and its probable value (accounting value). Understanding and measuring these differences is the first step in getting organizations on the road to closing these gaps. Potential value all depends on how the information will be used again in the future and this is often exceptionally uncertain. Information may never be used again or it may be used multiple times. Unless you can predict how it might be used again for tangible gain, it is difficult to say what, if any, potential value, it has.
Information Managers have to push hard to sell ´being IM proactive´ to avoid being reactive. Information is the most invaluable asset in business today, besides people. The tricky bit with information is that, depending on the level of granularity and aggregation, you can use it for multiple purposes. Policies and procedures would be overhead type of information whereas customer, sales, inventory, and market data would be revenue producers. Quite often, information is not tangible enough to feel any need to worry about Information Management. It is only when an event of consequence happens that they wake up and realize that IM gets proper attention. Not finding the info needed to clinch a deal is a good wake up call to focus on IM. They will assume that the information is confirmed data somewhere along the way. The IM process is lacking the notation of where the data came from. When this problem is acknowledged the field of Information Management will become high in demand.
Compared to digital laggards, high performing organizations can manage two most invaluable assets in business well: People and Information. Information Management is all about having the right people to have the right information to make right decisions at the right time. Given this assertion, there is no limit to the value of information in our economy or better stated, in today’s digital business ecosystem. And information Management is the key differentiator between digital leaders and laggards, high-performing organizations and mediocre companies.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URLDigital Master Book URLDigital Master Author URLDigital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun Quiz
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Information is the most valuable commodity individuals and organizations produce in the digital environment in which they currently function. Nowadays, organizations large or small, collect an enormous amount of data. Data is raw material, information is processed data, information only has a value when it is needed. When businesses manipulate information in meaningful ways which give you something to interpret and utilize, then you have established value from information you get. Therefore, Information Management is key differentiator between digital master and digital Laggard. Organizations needs to have Information Management strategy as integral element in business strategy. It determines the strategic objectives, their risk appetite for achieving them, identify and assess the risks and make sure it’s all joined up. Information is a key enabler to help you achieve your strategic business objectives – having the right information to make an informed management decision to develop the right products for serving the right customers. Information Management has many pitfalls: The volume of data collected are used for market evaluation, customer resource management, and enterprise resource management coupled with the real world requirements that support and facilitate the overall operational management, retards the business community’s capability to convert that data to useful and valuable information. Information is also something that can hinder the achievement of strategic objectives, having it unavailable, lost, stolen, or compromised. Unstructured data based decision-making by senior managers has been poor because of the intrinsic value of information reduces decision effectiveness.
IT stands out as a value-added function by managing information effectively and efficiently. It can abstract business and customer insight from explosive information, and bring to the table innovative solutions that meet customers’ needs, while reducing cost to market, without the sacrifice of strategic goals and strategies invoked on it by its business partners. If IT does it well, it will achieve high business value. But often the problems most organizations have are (1).not understanding what raw material they have to play with (poor information management); (2). not applying worthwhile evaluation to it to reveal the inherent value; but mostly (3). not understanding why they should do these things in the first priority.
Changing circumstances will likely dictate the value of information associated with that situation. Changing products and processes will dictate the value of information associated with them. One of the unique, wonderful characteristics of data is that it's not depleted when consumed. The argument that information is somehow different because it has no value "apart from a goal, a product, or a transaction between individuals." This is true of any asset. It can increase in value once it is used. However value depends partly on perception of quality/usage/satisfaction. Not only is information an interesting economic goods, but value is also difficult to determine, it could be utilitarian, hedonistic, extrinsic, intrinsic, social, practical epistemic etc. The effort of valuing information independent of its association to the value of related tangibles seems a difficult, if not futile, exercise. Perhaps we should first work to identify how information is associated with the valued tangibles of our businesses; our products and our resources; like information flows in our processes by example, then its own value will become readily apparent and quantifiable by association. There's a difference between the potential value of an asset, its realized value (when consumed), and its probable value (accounting value). Understanding and measuring these differences is the first step in getting organizations on the road to closing these gaps. Potential value all depends on how the information will be used again in the future and this is often exceptionally uncertain. Information may never be used again or it may be used multiple times. Unless you can predict how it might be used again for tangible gain, it is difficult to say what, if any, potential value, it has.
Information Managers have to push hard to sell ´being IM proactive´ to avoid being reactive. Information is the most invaluable asset in business today, besides people. The tricky bit with information is that, depending on the level of granularity and aggregation, you can use it for multiple purposes. Policies and procedures would be overhead type of information whereas customer, sales, inventory, and market data would be revenue producers. Quite often, information is not tangible enough to feel any need to worry about Information Management. It is only when an event of consequence happens that they wake up and realize that IM gets proper attention. Not finding the info needed to clinch a deal is a good wake up call to focus on IM. They will assume that the information is confirmed data somewhere along the way. The IM process is lacking the notation of where the data came from. When this problem is acknowledged the field of Information Management will become high in demand.
Compared to digital laggards, high performing organizations can manage two most invaluable assets in business well: People and Information. Information Management is all about having the right people to have the right information to make right decisions at the right time. Given this assertion, there is no limit to the value of information in our economy or better stated, in today’s digital business ecosystem. And information Management is the key differentiator between digital leaders and laggards, high-performing organizations and mediocre companies.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URLDigital Master Book URLDigital Master Author URLDigital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun Quiz
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
What are the Top Traits of Innovative Leaders
Innovative leaders must be strategic as well, and they must take risk in order to discover new opportunities that would lead the correct path.
With increasing speed of change and continuous digital disruption, innovation in organizations is no longer "nice to have," but "must have" strategy and practice, because of the inevitability of competition, and uncertainty of business dynamic. There are many levels of innovation from incremental & iterative to evolutionary to breakthrough. If the cost of your product has to reduce to sustain in market, then efficiency innovation is a must. If your current market has been disrupted by the new technology or other “brute forces,” then breakthrough innovation is needed to turn around the situation. Innovation is the top challenge for today’s leaders. Is this something you either have in your company, or you don’t? Leadership is one of the critical success factors for innovation. But who are the innovative leaders, and what are the main characteristics of a leader who "encourages innovation"?
Openness: Sometimes innovation is only characteristic in an open minded leader. The leader views the whole picture and applies creativity in areas not tried. Being open to what your employees have to say and the way they feel is essential. They are the best resource for what is wrong and what needs to be fixed, versus what is working well already. Involving them in process improvement is key. Often small innovations around keep on happening and go unnoticed because those are taken for granted; because none is able to connect those with the larger picture. Leaders who are open, collaborative and willing to listen to employees are more likely to be successful innovators. Create a culture where the sharing of ideas are welcome and innovation is rewarded.-LISTENING (and actually HEARING what is being said) by front line staff.-MIRRORING (repeat it back to make sure you UNDERSTAND).-VALIDATE ideas and suggestions, even if they cannot be implemented.-EMPATHIZE with the problem/issue that brought about the suggestion/comment/idea.-TAKE ACTION if you can; EXPLAIN *WHY* if you cannot.
Walk the talk: One very important thing to encourage innovation is also the ability to enable the employees to visualize the vision, take risks and above all the ability to tolerate mistakes and the courage to see spade as a spade. Many leaders 'say' that they are ok with the new way to do the things, but exhibit the contrary. It is very important that employees not only 'hear,' but also 'see' that they can actually take risks, question the status quo without any fear of being put down/let down. Many leaders that 'say' "go ahead, and do it your way, let’s see what comes out"; but when the person actually did it, the reaction was " this is not how it is done, it's all wrong., etc." Result is no surprise that the employee never ever took up anything that was even remotely 'innovative.' The innovative leaders give the freedom to employees to do anything new and even if it fails, they learn from it and grow only to make better products in future, and that is where innovation thrived in every little thing they did. Culture of innovation is a gradual process and continuous one in that sense, and a leader plays a very important role in ensuring that it is sustains over time.
Flexibility: A leader who encourages innovation first of all shall allow an innovator to bend the rules as long as it is not harmful to the organization. As long as this flexibility is provided with necessary oversight by the management, All elements of risk taking propensity and also proactive behavior will lead towards innovation. You have to remember that innovation can be a breakthrough and notice that it requires a “break.” They include being a risk taker, challenging the status quo, being fearless, looking at failure as a learning opportunity, and always looking for a better way. Leaders who encourage innovation have a learning organization, and one of the critical factors to having a learning organization is to make sure you have a feedback organization. It doesn’t mean once a year performance appraisal feedback. It means continuous feedback and openness to learning and personal growth. This is the basis. After that with people who have good personal insights into their talents, you need collaboration. No one innovates alone. You need synergy and collaborative teams with "liquid" talent flowing to where it’s needed.
Exercise, Discipline, Affection and Respect. Translated in to what this means for humans: (1). Exercise. The leader must create the environment that encourages the exercise of the innovators and talents and affords them the chance to use their gifts as the major responsibility of their job. (2). Discipline. The best innovation leaders are specific about boundaries and limitations, the project design and performance parameters, budget, available resources for the project, timeline, and what success looks like. For the best innovation to occur, knowing what not to do and what resources are available is liberating. (3). Affection. Innovators of the highest order will get intrinsic rewards from the process, but still need validation. The best leaders know what their people need and when they need it. (4) Respect. Respect - even in failure - must be an expectation at all levels. It's not sufficient for just your immediate supervisor to respect your 'not quite there attempts at innovation'; it must also be evident among peers, subordinates and executive. Too often one person's failure is viewed as another person's opportunity to prove they're better. Those who do not demonstrate respect for others' failure will eventually undermine the culture of creativity.
Methodology: Some highly innovative companies have created a set of methods enable development of a company's innovation capability. At the core of the program is a customized business simulation, that lets participants experience the comprehensive problems and opportunities associated with creating and executing innovations at the company, and develop the critical capabilities to be successful in the future. Following the program, leaders are able to apply discovery thinking or the skills needed to both develop insights about emotional, economic, or functional customer needs, and to create new options for meeting those needs. They are also able to develop execution skills, by managing uncertainty and approaching innovation projects as an experiment, testing ideas, assessing results, and having the fortitude to kill projects. Finally, they can create organization-wide alignment by cascading these skills across the company through effective innovation leadership.
Innovation is indeed key, and some leaders may even recognize the importance of it and they try to "force" it, but it does not really work. Innovation Leaders face a complex reality, environment plays an important role, every industry is different, enterprise culture is unique, Innovation leaders must be at the right moment (environmental opportunities), develop skills and knowledge, and use the right information available, to take the right decisions, with the right people, using the right methods, to give the best results. Innovation leader is not only a dreamer, but also an action leader with 20% planning plus 80% action. He or she must be sensible to hear customers and connect with what a company can offer. They must be strategic leaders, and must take risk in order to discover new opportunities that would lead the correct path. Innovation, like all business disciplines, requires capabilities that can be taught, practiced and mastered. This may sound simple, but it is not easy. It takes practice, practice and practice more.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
With increasing speed of change and continuous digital disruption, innovation in organizations is no longer "nice to have," but "must have" strategy and practice, because of the inevitability of competition, and uncertainty of business dynamic. There are many levels of innovation from incremental & iterative to evolutionary to breakthrough. If the cost of your product has to reduce to sustain in market, then efficiency innovation is a must. If your current market has been disrupted by the new technology or other “brute forces,” then breakthrough innovation is needed to turn around the situation. Innovation is the top challenge for today’s leaders. Is this something you either have in your company, or you don’t? Leadership is one of the critical success factors for innovation. But who are the innovative leaders, and what are the main characteristics of a leader who "encourages innovation"?
Openness: Sometimes innovation is only characteristic in an open minded leader. The leader views the whole picture and applies creativity in areas not tried. Being open to what your employees have to say and the way they feel is essential. They are the best resource for what is wrong and what needs to be fixed, versus what is working well already. Involving them in process improvement is key. Often small innovations around keep on happening and go unnoticed because those are taken for granted; because none is able to connect those with the larger picture. Leaders who are open, collaborative and willing to listen to employees are more likely to be successful innovators. Create a culture where the sharing of ideas are welcome and innovation is rewarded.-LISTENING (and actually HEARING what is being said) by front line staff.-MIRRORING (repeat it back to make sure you UNDERSTAND).-VALIDATE ideas and suggestions, even if they cannot be implemented.-EMPATHIZE with the problem/issue that brought about the suggestion/comment/idea.-TAKE ACTION if you can; EXPLAIN *WHY* if you cannot.
Walk the talk: One very important thing to encourage innovation is also the ability to enable the employees to visualize the vision, take risks and above all the ability to tolerate mistakes and the courage to see spade as a spade. Many leaders 'say' that they are ok with the new way to do the things, but exhibit the contrary. It is very important that employees not only 'hear,' but also 'see' that they can actually take risks, question the status quo without any fear of being put down/let down. Many leaders that 'say' "go ahead, and do it your way, let’s see what comes out"; but when the person actually did it, the reaction was " this is not how it is done, it's all wrong., etc." Result is no surprise that the employee never ever took up anything that was even remotely 'innovative.' The innovative leaders give the freedom to employees to do anything new and even if it fails, they learn from it and grow only to make better products in future, and that is where innovation thrived in every little thing they did. Culture of innovation is a gradual process and continuous one in that sense, and a leader plays a very important role in ensuring that it is sustains over time.
Flexibility: A leader who encourages innovation first of all shall allow an innovator to bend the rules as long as it is not harmful to the organization. As long as this flexibility is provided with necessary oversight by the management, All elements of risk taking propensity and also proactive behavior will lead towards innovation. You have to remember that innovation can be a breakthrough and notice that it requires a “break.” They include being a risk taker, challenging the status quo, being fearless, looking at failure as a learning opportunity, and always looking for a better way. Leaders who encourage innovation have a learning organization, and one of the critical factors to having a learning organization is to make sure you have a feedback organization. It doesn’t mean once a year performance appraisal feedback. It means continuous feedback and openness to learning and personal growth. This is the basis. After that with people who have good personal insights into their talents, you need collaboration. No one innovates alone. You need synergy and collaborative teams with "liquid" talent flowing to where it’s needed.
Exercise, Discipline, Affection and Respect. Translated in to what this means for humans: (1). Exercise. The leader must create the environment that encourages the exercise of the innovators and talents and affords them the chance to use their gifts as the major responsibility of their job. (2). Discipline. The best innovation leaders are specific about boundaries and limitations, the project design and performance parameters, budget, available resources for the project, timeline, and what success looks like. For the best innovation to occur, knowing what not to do and what resources are available is liberating. (3). Affection. Innovators of the highest order will get intrinsic rewards from the process, but still need validation. The best leaders know what their people need and when they need it. (4) Respect. Respect - even in failure - must be an expectation at all levels. It's not sufficient for just your immediate supervisor to respect your 'not quite there attempts at innovation'; it must also be evident among peers, subordinates and executive. Too often one person's failure is viewed as another person's opportunity to prove they're better. Those who do not demonstrate respect for others' failure will eventually undermine the culture of creativity.
Methodology: Some highly innovative companies have created a set of methods enable development of a company's innovation capability. At the core of the program is a customized business simulation, that lets participants experience the comprehensive problems and opportunities associated with creating and executing innovations at the company, and develop the critical capabilities to be successful in the future. Following the program, leaders are able to apply discovery thinking or the skills needed to both develop insights about emotional, economic, or functional customer needs, and to create new options for meeting those needs. They are also able to develop execution skills, by managing uncertainty and approaching innovation projects as an experiment, testing ideas, assessing results, and having the fortitude to kill projects. Finally, they can create organization-wide alignment by cascading these skills across the company through effective innovation leadership.
Innovation is indeed key, and some leaders may even recognize the importance of it and they try to "force" it, but it does not really work. Innovation Leaders face a complex reality, environment plays an important role, every industry is different, enterprise culture is unique, Innovation leaders must be at the right moment (environmental opportunities), develop skills and knowledge, and use the right information available, to take the right decisions, with the right people, using the right methods, to give the best results. Innovation leader is not only a dreamer, but also an action leader with 20% planning plus 80% action. He or she must be sensible to hear customers and connect with what a company can offer. They must be strategic leaders, and must take risk in order to discover new opportunities that would lead the correct path. Innovation, like all business disciplines, requires capabilities that can be taught, practiced and mastered. This may sound simple, but it is not easy. It takes practice, practice and practice more.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
July 6, 2015
The Philosophical Understanding about Right vs. Wrong
“I am right, and you are wrong.” This is one of the most common arguments between people. Right and wrong are subject to change and to attitude. We have seen it change. We have seen people debate what is right and what is wrong. We do not change our opinion to suit the needs or define some form of respect for others. So philosophically, scientifically and psychologically, what’re the Apple to Apple “Right vs. Wrong” comparison?Sometimes right and wrong mean correct and incorrect. Sometimes they mean accurate or inaccurate. Sometimes they mean morally/ethically good or bad. Most of people have been using the words right and wrong in the moral/ethical sense. In that sense, some human actions are objectively and absolutely right or wrong. Other human actions are either subjectively right or wrong or relatively right or wrong. People always looks at the world the way as to how they want it to be, so anything that is not matching their way of looking at the outer world, they consider it as wrong, and what’s matching their vision seems right to them. It’s a complete individual phenomenon, and right and wrong is determined completely about how we perceive the circumstances whatever disturbs one's peace of mind is wrong. Right and wrong also comes in shades of grey. Right and wrong is a very hard thing to define. It depends mostly on your perspective experiences and situation. Philosophically, there isn't always a right or wrong choice in any situation and there is a lot of grey. This makes it very hard to choose a right or wrong from your choices. We challenge, we debate, we learn the nature of each other through the aspect of civil and respectful dialog. We shift and move our thoughts through this process, while growing in mind and spirit to the competitive nature that is the essence of being human. There is nothing called right. But then, the impact of our deeds, is spread across primordial cycles of cause and effect, often, coming back to us beyond the boundaries of our memories. Right and Wrong are subjective aspects of how we choose to live our life, but the essence of life, the ability to live, act and grow requires a sense of collaboration, that practical aspect of choosing to work together, regardless of the philosophical differences between us. The problem of questionable RIGHT or WRONG comes when they are based on beliefs, which are developed by human thinking. Even the rules, which are made by humans come in for questioning.
The right or wrong are two polarities; because these two things seems to be or supporting each others, right and wrong is the same thing like a coin with two sides, because if you think that this is right, then how can we consider this is right, only beneficial factor not non beneficial factor. Sometimes there is an obvious right or wrong solution to a problem which you have. But when someone else looks at the problem from their perspective, they may come up with different ideas as to what is right or wrong. Several aspects to the question: -Is it an absolute right and wrong, or is it a continuum of more right or more wrong in comparison to the alternatives. -Is it possible to have definitive labels of right and wrong for some actions, but less clear for others-Is there objective truth to some actions where we can say they are right or wrong, regardless of public opinion, laws, culture, etc. And is there subjective truth to some where they are right or wrong depending on how society defines them. There is no need for everything to have the same standard or criteria. Many times right and wrong are subjective, from communication perspective, one should always gain empathy from other point of view, then you could be more flexible to share the “right” things with others, but also be open to “wrongs,” not necessary real wrong, perhaps the complementary viewpoint to co-paint a big picture with full spectrum of colors. Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Can Systems Thinking Predict Consequences?
Systems Thinking is the way of thinking to understand holistically the interconnections and interdependencies between parts. Digital business ecosystem is complex and hyper-connected, can Systems Thinking predict consequences based on its in-depth understanding of organizational context and systematic view of business complexity, if so, why isn’t it used more? What are important factors for applying System Thinking to problems solving and decision making effectively?
Highly complex cognition: One thing that seems often to be left unconsidered is that in order to leverage Systems Thinking, one must have grown a brain capable of highly complex cognition. This brings in the area of human development to explain why a lot of people fail to see the value of, make use or, or even understand system theory based information. One line of human development is cognitive complexity. Cognitive complexity is a multifaceted issue - there are different types of cognition, as well. Spiral wizardry is as much about a mental stance as it is computational ability. The trend line for this can level out very early for some folk, rise a bit through life for others, and for some the trajectory never levels. It just keeps growing and growing until the lights go out. One highly complex thinkers have the capacity to get beyond, we can meta stance from our way of thinking and recognize it as unusual. From there System Thinkers find empathy is natural, other humans can't be anything other than what they are, and they can design for this complexity continuum in their work.
Cross-functional communication: There seems to have been a lot of work done from individual points of interest and little cross-communication between these interests. Using ST now could possibly highlight these inter-communication and planning shortcomings so those involved can understand the outcomes of various relationships/actions and use the learning in future planning, to certain beliefs, social groupings, motivation patterns, organizational dynamics, and goals. If we try to impose solutions or structures that are too far ahead of the curve, the result is alienation and rebellion rather than transformation. Too often, we intuit a "better" or "higher" mode of being without respecting the stages of change and development that must happen before large numbers of people in an organization or society can enact such a mode. There is a hierarchy involved, but it is more factual than evaluative.
Digging through Big WHY: Often, Systems Thinking (ST) can help you understand WHY perverse or ineffective decisions get made. It is often not because "they won't listen to you" or they "don't understand the problem." It's that the system you are seeing and the one they are seeing are fundamentally different: Budgets don't move between silos, policy must be applied constantly, inner goals around targets, or promotion criteria manifest themselves in what from the outside seem like poor decisions. Often these are rational given the circumstances. But when cross-functional communication and collaboration is enforced, Systems Thinking does indeed lead into predicting outcomes. This is especially true of controlling costs, scope creep, and associated re-work.
So Systems Thinking hasn’t been applied more often due to lack of talent: Strategic thinking is a talent, not a skill - at least viewed through Strengthsfinder. It's rare. Systems thinking is a combination of talents and skills. It's rare. Design thinking is a skill. It, too, is rare. These three modes are related, but not identical. Also Systems Thinking is not just an individual’s ability, but a collective business capability to breakdown the silo, communicate and collaborate more seamlessly in order to manage organization in systematic way.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How to Map Strategy Execution Processes
A sound strategy and plan of execution are both important. Strategy is more important because it helps organization navigate through the thorny journey ahead; but execution is more difficult because it consumes resources, takes disciplines and practices to get it right. Strategy and execution need to go hand in hand. Knowing where you're headed is critical to supporting all the micro decisions along the way. However, the key objectives and opportunity to "pivot" can become lost in task planning and execution. So how to mind the gaps between strategy and execution, and how to manage the underlying business processes, build dynamic business capabilities in order to execute strategy more seamlessly?
Clarify the building blocks for strategy execution: It takes an integrated team to guide and monitor the execution with individual representation of the ideas and knowledge of the mechanics collaborating to deliver a meaningful result. The strategic themes are essentially the pillars of the organization. They include business growth, operational excellence, customer service excellence, product development, innovation and sustainability. Strategic perspectives are financial aspect, customers and stakeholders, internal processes, organizational capability and engaged leadership. The four building blocks required for effective strategy execution are clarifying decisions right, designing information flow, aligning motivators and making changes to structures.
Mapping Vision - Strategy - Tactics: By mapping strategy to execution, you need to well define the business goals (both long term and short term). What you are going to achieve could be “LONG TERM” or “SHORT TERM” goals. Usually companies need to measure the goals using certain KPIs which are very much to do with time and investment. After that, they need to have SHORT-TERM actions which are aligned with the goals. The managements need to make sure that STRATEGY are on the right track, otherwise they have to take corrective ACTIONS. If strategy (the deliberate strategy) is planned or intended, usually it is LONG TERM. The time factor is needed because you want to measure your performance. If there is no time-frame for the strategy, the actions are meaningless because you could keep executing forever. For emergent strategy, you could have short term or long term goals as well. There are three interrelated terms: vision, strategy and tactics:-Vision: What you want the organization to be (your dream). -Strategy: What you are going to do to achieve your vision (goals) -Tactics: How you will achieve your strategy and when (actions).
Manage Execution via Balanced Scorecard and beyond: In strategy based balanced scorecard, organizations try to align its strategies to corporate goals and objectives and cascade strategic intent to all departments of the organizations. The balanced scorecard approach helps organizations translate their strategy into key performance indicators that can be cascaded down to department, teams and even individuals. This is a great way to set objectives and monitor them. However, it is not easy to develop sound KPIs. To quote Drucker : What gets measured gets managed. Costs, profit are easy to measure, but even more important ones such as quality, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction and environmental impact are much more difficult to measure. As a result, they are often left out of balanced scorecards, and therefore not managed. Furthermore, developing, monitoring and managing objectives is crucial for successful strategy execution. However, soft aspects such as leadership, conveying the strategy, cultivating high-performing culture, empowering and motivating employees, etc are as important, if not more important. Such key practices are not part of the balanced scorecard, but also need to be managed well.
Leveraging the latest digital strategy analytics tools, collaboration technology, and processes., etc. Digital technologies can change the way in which organizations execute their strategies. It’s important to translate the strategy into KPIs and monitor their performance. There is great value in collaborative technologies that allow for more democratic decision-making and increased collaboration and information sharing across functional departments. Digital technologies can also be very helpful in strategic analysis. Another interesting link to explore is the driver for identifying key strategic processes. It is usually the parameters that affect customer experience the most which are key. In essence - customer experience is fundamental to how processes should be managed. This is an important issue to understand that the processes in your business will deliver/create the result. Many times you don't consider the processes as the (main) driver to deliver the desired result and then you will not get the result you hoped for. The processes are the tool to get the result you formulate in the strategy.The success of strategy management undoubtedly lies in the ''timely execution,'' and this can be achieved only through continuous persistence and follow up, the effective processes, efficient tools, and the high-performing culture to get it right with the sense of urgency.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
