More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
In the behaviors discussion, the tribe asks the question, “What should we do to accomplish the outcomes?”
If your tribe answered “yes” to the first question, then it should get specific about the behaviors that will accomplish the outcomes. These outcomes need to be put in order of implementation, with each being specific.
The process of writing down behaviors is deceptively simple, and people are in constant danger of making two classic mistakes. The first is writing down what people are already doing, rather than focusing on behaviors that will bring the outcomes to life.
The second mistake is assuming that everything will go perfectly. It won’t. Whenever practical, the strategy should include at least two behavioral paths to accomplishing each critical outcome.
Once the tribe has recorded its behaviors, and the list seems complete, it’s time for the last two test questions. Test Question #2: Enough Assets for Behaviors? Most often, the answer to this second question will be “yes.” If the answer is “no,” the tribe has two choices. First, it can add assets to the strategy. A good question to ask is, “What assets do we have that we haven’t identified yet?” Second, the tribe can modify its behaviors so that they require fewer assets (often, time, money, and people). A good question is, “Is there a faster, cheaper way to get this done?”
Test Question #3: Will Behaviors Accomplish Outcomes? Here, the tribe looks at the behaviors from a critical eye. Will they work?
There’s a danger in this third test question: the same tribe that developed the plan is now evaluating it. The “we can do anything” euphoria that comes from these three strategic conversations may prevent a fair evaluation.
It is vital that these contrarians be able to freely express their skepticism, but do not ask the naysayer for solutions.
This history of tribes shows a process of coordinated, networked strategies so that high-level behaviors flow down to the outcome of the next level.
In tribes, unlike corporations of the 1950s, strategies also cascade up. People in direct communication with the customer—often at the bottom of hierarchies—are often in the best position to suggest top-tier strategies. Within the context of a Stage Four culture, every person, every group, and every department all have their own strategies, and these all interlock together.
Tribal Leaders need to ensure that the tone of one discussion doesn’t slop over into the next. Outcomes is all about measurement. Assets focuses on making a long and exacting list of everything the tribe can bring to bear on the strategy. Behaviors is much like a to-do list. For example, many tribes we observed (after some basic training in this approach to strategy) had lively discussions on assets, with people throwing out ideas faster than they could be written down. This same free-for-all spirit doesn’t work well in a behaviors discussion, however, as it requires exactness of action.
team. In this process, she should lead a discussion about (1) what is working well, (2) what is not working well, and (3) what the team can do to make the things that are not working well, work.
Stage Five accounts for just under 2 percent of workplace cultures. It’s marked by “life is great” language, devoid of any competitor. It’s not that competitors don’t exist; it’s that they don’t matter. Values, which are important at Stage Four, are vital—a word literally meaning “life-giving.” Without them, the tribal culture would collapse to Four and keep falling. A noble cause—critical at Stage Four—is the group’s only compass.
Jim Clifton, the CEO of the Gallup Organization, is a Tribal Leader on steroids. “Over the years, people have called Gallup a cult—our detractors I mean—but I have always considered that a great compliment.”
said, “We asked the question, ‘Are we helping six billion people or just the best corporations in the world?’ The honest answer was that we were helping the best corporations—and schools and universities,” Clifton said. “We weren’t doing much for the six billion people.” From our research, companies that are engrossed in warfare with a competitor don’t consider questions like the one Gallup asked. They are generally focused on winning market share and new customers—and thwarting the rival at the same time.
COACHING TIP: Bring together the tribe and ask the following question: “What would propel us to the next level?”
A tribe should attempt a Stage Five outcome (like the Gallup “world poll”) only if it’s stable at Stage Four and has the business results to keep it there.
No. At Stage Three, the focus is “my” values. At Four, it’s “our” values. At Five, it’s “global”—or “resonant”—values, so the only important factor is that values can work together.
Simply put, the future of business is Stage Five—either frequent leaps into it from Stage Four (as several companies in this study are doing) or breaking new ground by finding stability at this level. Our company, and our professional lives, are dedicated to giving everyone the opportunity to be a part of a Stage Five group. We hope that as you do, you’ll let us know, so we can spread the wealth from your discoveries.
Stage Three runs the world, from political campaigns to most business books to the set of unstated assumptions about how organizations should operate.
Unless leaders go after it with a Weedwacker, Stage Three will regrow into new strategies that won’t work except through manipulation, bending the ethical rules, and just plan graft.
As we write in the early days of 2011, there seems to be an epic battle forming between Stage Three managers and Stage Four leaders. We believe history is on the side of Stage Four. We’re pleased to count many of these leaders as members of our growing tribe, and when we learn things from them, we post them as tools on our Web site, www.triballeadership.net.
Because Stage Three always creates Stage Two in its wake, it’s no surprise that the ranks of those who say “my life sucks” have grown.
Leadership is not about you, it’s about what you do for others.
The big idea that got us going was that one could view a culture as a self-correcting system of language.
