The Lululemon stories coming out this week illustrate, if nothing else, that running a successful business is a complicated endeavour. There are a number of interests to balance, and something always has to give. Determining what exactly what should “give” and how exactly to implement that decision introduces an interplay between three dimensions of an organization:
- Overall Direction
- Measures and Metrics
- Rules and Norms
To have a serious look at “performance,” each of these is necessary though no one dimension logically prevails. The result of the interplay is very tangible to those operating in and around the environment. Employees actually live it, and investors, suppliers and other stakeholders are deeply affected by it.
From an organizational development perspective, these dimensions offer distinctly different lenses through which to analyze and evaluate performance. They can also inform opportunities for on-course corrections that can pre-empt a larger “realignment” or “change project.” Here is a quick explanation of what you could see through each lens.
Dimension #1 – Overall Direction (balancing inspiration with reality; clarity with rigidity)
| Done well |
- There is alignment toward an overarching purpose.
- We all know why we are here.
- We have an obvious shared interest and our conflict is about how to get there not where to go.
|
| Overdone |
- Attachment to “core values” grows rigid such that an unrealistic zeal drives activity.
- People are quick to become indignant when others suggest that we would ever compromise or question the direction that has been set.
- There is talk of “sacred cows.”
|
| Underdone |
- Lack of consistent focus makes it hard for people to assign priority.
- Lower levels of management feel compelled to check with upper levels.
- Management shows reluctance to exercise judgement because decision-making criteria is unclear.
|
Dimension #2 – Measures and Metrics (balancing art and science; means and ends)
| Done well |
- There are appropriate and trackable indicators of performance at individual, team and organizational levels.
- Discussions around performance, including performance reviews, have some objective and tangible criteria.
- With negative changes in measures and metrics, discussions turn to “what can we do to affect this outcome?”
|
| Overdone |
- Emphasis on “making the numbers” leads to situations akin to “the operation was a success, but the patient died.”
- Rampant gaming of the system to make “my numbers,” with complete disregard for overall impact.
- No concept of “taking one for the team” because there is no opportunity to provide a context or expectation of reciprocity.
|
| Underdone |
- There is no meaningful indication of results and outcomes.
- Well-intentioned people often feel that although much gets done, little may have been accomplished.
- There is little perceived connection to and control over end-results (positive or negative)
|
Dimension #3 – Rules and norms (balancing constraints with restrictions; formal with informal)
| Done well |
- There are a few key parameters that people maintain (and don’t need to look at the website for guidance).
- These are supported in formal policy (e.g. vision, mission and values).
- There is a “spirit” of the rules not fully captured by the “letter” of the formal statements
|
| Overdone |
- Decision-making may be stifled because everything is prescribed and no judgment is required.
- Rationale for doing something is often replaced with explanation of rules, guidelines and norms that prescribe behaviour (more “we/you can’t” than “why couldn’t we?”)
- People look for air-cover from a policy or from “so-and-so said we have to do it this way” to justify actions/decisions.
|
| Underdone |
- The walls of the office have signs like: “DO NOT LEAVE FOOD IN THE OFFICE FRIDGE OVERNIGHT.“ & “DO NOT LET THIS DOOR SLAM.”
- The funnel of “policies in progress” is always full.
- Existing policies are routinely reworked to be clearer. (e.g. Coffee cream is exempt from “Food left in Fridge” policy.)
|
What now/what next?
An analysis of this nature has to sift through competing perceptions of the situation. If the goal is to improve performance, the first step should be to better understand it. The interplay of these dimensions is similar to the combination of individual life philosophy, personal goals, and code of conduct that form a human being. Some degree of misalignment is inevitable, but very often it is manageable. Large misalignments and inconsistencies will become obvious over time and become more difficult to manage and to hide.
Using these dimensions as a periodic diagnostic within an organization can bring insight to where to focus time and energy to proactively affect future performance. This can also help to prevent large crises that require swift and sudden change.
Comments are closed