Organizations with individuals who are full of egos are heading towards an internal sabotage, if not abated.
These individuals who have talent but lack empathy and self-awareness, no matter how valuable they are in the organization are running on a limited bandwidth.
When push comes to shove, their talent can't be depended on when a serious adjustments and adaptations are required from everyone in the organization.
When strategic thinking is required, they tend to reason out why things can't be done in the organization versus having a mindset of openness and flexibility.
Misaligned teams and Boards do not ever accomplish more than they intend to do. They can be the proverbial 'stumbling block' to serious attempt at steering the organization to a better direction.
If there are too many fragile egos in the room, prepare to use more than fair share of wisdom and insight.
You need an expert strategy advisor to help you navigate the politics in your organization.
Let me help you get to where you want to go.
Convert selfish egos to productive work.
When everything is urgent, nothing is urgent.
When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
Change efforts go by the wayside if there's not enough urgency within the organization
to ensure that it will be given an undivided attention and resources it needs. Moving the strategic priorities into implementation requires consistent and constant pressure from management that understands strategic management.
85% of strategic plans do not get implemented. When the rubber hits the road, the tendency is to focus on the day-t0-day mundane issues, relegating the higher objectives into the backburner. This stop-and-go scenario will delay your progress and unconsciously reward inventing obstacles.
Managers and leaders- stop treating all crisis as equal. You should know how to treat priorities as real priorities, or your employees will not believe another memo with an urgent stamp.
It's not what they hear, it's what they see in action that gets believed.
Politicians travelling during the holidays set very bad examples. If they can't heed the directive, then how are we, ordinary mortals can believe these leaders every time they open their mouths and make another directive.
If your organization says something else, but no one believes it, you are inviting a cognitive dissonance. What you do is far more effective than what is said in the memos or in talk in the cafeteria halls and weekly meetings.
I was once in a meeting where the supervisor once said, "Be thankful that you have a job." This was after hearing what we think about the current state of uncertainty gripping the whole organization in terms of budget cuts, staff lay-offs, and internal conflicts.
It's like the blind leading the blind. You can't get any assurance or clarity from someone who doesn't and couldn't lead.
Well, she wasn't able to stay for another term.
Tired of wearing mask? I hear you.
I was talking to a colleague from Australia last week.
She said that in her country, they are required to wear mask everywhere at a 250+ rate of new infections a day. While I said, I was driving by a lake last week for a presentation, people are enjoying every inch of the beach space. No mask at all.
There is a dissonance between what the public health authorities are asking everyone to do and what people are doing otherwise. People go to the beaches, enjoy public events and restaurants, avail of health services, and outdoor sports and recreations, like they used to.
The fatigue in keeping the rules of social distancing and wearing masks is a social phenomenon. There is a certain limit to how far the public can keep up with restrictions in the name of collective public safety, health, and well-being. The social deviance is a response to this but there are deeper factors at play.
It is beginning to show that individual registers to risks and rewards are very different and sometimes, antithetical to the establishment. In fact, I would surmise that instead of being able to curb out deviant behaviors through fines and penalties, it will rise up as force to reckon with.
How much of what is perceived are purveyors of real risks? How much is pure fluff and can be dismissed as overreaction?
Perception is reality. Perception is the only real thing.
Today, the diminishing practice of a gentleman's agreement or people's agreement if we have to be more inclusive in our language is concerning.
The other day, my husband is collecting his fees from a client and the client promised to pay him the balance he owed. Today, he told me that that promise is not a sure thing. It can change on daily basis. The person is not to be trusted on his words, because his actions do not suggest trust.
Sad to say, that a lot of people do not get to understand that their words carry a lot of weight. When they say it, they should be able to deliver based on those words spoken as part of 'palabra de honor'- word of honor. Of course, conditions are set for those commitments to be delivered.
How many people in this generation can actually say with a straight face that they practice that in their daily business and life. You are what you commit yourself verbally.
There is a moment that decisions and commitments must be made after weighing in on considerations and options. Then, it is time to execute them in order to transform commitments to real gains. Without integrity, institutions and organizations will fall and fail on the basis of their omissions that hurt in the long run.
This is not a law but a phenomenon in the social sciences that people by human nature make decisions based on what they predicted or expected to be the outcomes, and ignore the unintended, unexpected, unpleasant, and accidental consequences of those actions.
In the evaluation community, evaluators are trained to view these consequences as possible impact areas or emergent issues that the organization (doing the evaluation) need to be more serious about.
With confirmation bias, this is very difficult. We always want to hear or publicized what we have done, achieved, accomplished, that we have solved the problems. We do not hear about the consequences of say, moving budgets around, due to scarce resources, ignoring the 'small needs of small group of people,' whereby we can create winners and losers on a day-t0-day basis.
I was talking to a general manager of a research-based organization. He told me that "the pendulum has swung too far, cut off their head- which means at least 60% of research budget will be eliminated."
Research is one of those things that do not have a quick, immediate, sensationalized, dramatic effect/result on issues. This is one of those painstaking, often laborious, untelevised, mundane types of jobs where non-dramatic results are expected. The next genetic discovery to feed the next generation of people will not going to be the top headline in a newspaper. This is not the 'stuff" that could compete in attention with the Trump impeachment or the local Wexit movement.
Unintended consequences also do not manifest in quick turn-arounds. It can take years and years, until the impact is generalizable, can be described, and can be traced to those interventions that were conducted many years ago. Who will be there to ensure, report, and write about it for the world to know? Taleb talks about the 'silent evidence.' Because we don't know what we don't know, we are at the mercy of the present and what is palpable.
We, humans, like immediate gratification. We are wired to have our cake now, and eat it now too! Despite the call to delay gratification, it is very difficult to resist the temptation to get something out there, fast and furious, even when it is deleterious and completely misguided. Not all are cut out for it. The rest of us fall easily for some things and not for other things.
Which leads me to the next point about what to do with unintended consequences.
What we study, gets magnified. What we ignore, tends to occupy less of our cognitive space. Aside from embracing this idea, we need to be open minded about how our intended and unpleasant consequences impact on the work that we do, and how we publicize our successes. With a grain of salt, we will be more sensitive about our actions, be accountable to those that we serve, and negative impacts should be part of the rigor of metrics we use to make critical judgements about our resources.
Yes, we would like new hospitals, new playgrounds for the kids, new schools, and new airport, all the nice amenities of city living. But who will pay for it and who will get less as a result?