Well, no, it gets done by having people in place who can actually accomplish their objectives more than 50% of the time and who are willing to be wrong the other half, but don't stigmatize being so, but gracefully re-task for more efficient methodologies when they are. Its the latter part that is the hardest to find competent people to do, unless they're doing what they do for the love of it. And even then, there's so much hung-up on ego that they don't want to accept they could possibly be wrong. That kind of thinking gets in the way of getting the work done, and getting the work done is why you're in business, its what earns the checks.
See, you've pointed out two seperate issues, and one is vastly more important than the other. If no one points fingers and says "You're right, you're wrong," then how will they know? Where's the internal challenge to beliefs and the shake-up necessary for the process of improvement to occur? Where's the Reaper's Hand, as it were? Its the second issue that's more often missing, people willing to say, "OK, here's why I believe I'm right, if I'm wrong, OK, where do we go from here?" Its the listening and evolving missing from the loop. If the first, the naming of Right and Wrong is missing, sure, everyone may feel really good about themselves but business doesn't get done because you never get challenged to retarget.
I guarantee, if you dwarf your competition in two years, there's an Alex-equivalent Challenger in the management hierarchy somewhere. He's the guy every one of you thinks is an obstructionist asshole, who asks the really hard questions in the meetings that no one wants to deal with, that pushes for processes to change when they're broken (but comfortable) and to stay the same when the new idea has no backing from below. He's the guy most likely closest to burn-out and who secretly carries around the gut feeling he's totally wasting his life and wishes he could be a happy little "yes man," but can't quite shake the desire to be competent and let go of caring about what happens, for all that he or she attempts disaffected disinterest in the verities.
(No, I have no particular insight here, uh-uh.)
The older and more entrenched a company gets, the more Challengers that a company needs, and the fewer they actually have as they get forced out by those who play nicer with others for less pay-off. At Compaq, you can just imagine what enormous fun a Challenger has ... not. This is the company that announced publically a policy to cut raises and "merit-based promotions" for the next year, and bothered looking surprised when morale dropped. Lack of Chalengers up the management hierarchy to say, "Hey, dumbass, doesn't that seem kind of stupid to you?" and demand a solid answer led to that kind of thinking.
no subject
See, you've pointed out two seperate issues, and one is vastly more important than the other. If no one points fingers and says "You're right, you're wrong," then how will they know? Where's the internal challenge to beliefs and the shake-up necessary for the process of improvement to occur? Where's the Reaper's Hand, as it were? Its the second issue that's more often missing, people willing to say, "OK, here's why I believe I'm right, if I'm wrong, OK, where do we go from here?" Its the listening and evolving missing from the loop. If the first, the naming of Right and Wrong is missing, sure, everyone may feel really good about themselves but business doesn't get done because you never get challenged to retarget.
I guarantee, if you dwarf your competition in two years, there's an Alex-equivalent Challenger in the management hierarchy somewhere. He's the guy every one of you thinks is an obstructionist asshole, who asks the really hard questions in the meetings that no one wants to deal with, that pushes for processes to change when they're broken (but comfortable) and to stay the same when the new idea has no backing from below. He's the guy most likely closest to burn-out and who secretly carries around the gut feeling he's totally wasting his life and wishes he could be a happy little "yes man," but can't quite shake the desire to be competent and let go of caring about what happens, for all that he or she attempts disaffected disinterest in the verities.
(No, I have no particular insight here, uh-uh.)
The older and more entrenched a company gets, the more Challengers that a company needs, and the fewer they actually have as they get forced out by those who play nicer with others for less pay-off. At Compaq, you can just imagine what enormous fun a Challenger has ... not. This is the company that announced publically a policy to cut raises and "merit-based promotions" for the next year, and bothered looking surprised when morale dropped. Lack of Chalengers up the management hierarchy to say, "Hey, dumbass, doesn't that seem kind of stupid to you?" and demand a solid answer led to that kind of thinking.
What, no, me bitter?