Measuring Success… Taking the “Twitter” Challenge!

If at first, you don’t succeed… DON’T lower your standards!

They say “when you surround yourself with like minded people, you can do great things!” Often, we think of this in a startup context, but whether you have 2 employees or 200,000, this saying is equally as important for any company to enjoy continuing success and longevity.

Too often, the quarterly culture sets in and the mindset is over focused on “pleasing investors” with management lenses fixated a high level of revenue growth when the real casualty can be a longer term view of the company and its ability to grow and/or even survive past the short term tenure of serving senior executives and/or the next earnings call.

Twitter recently decided to clean house and unceremoniously laid off 8% of its workforce in a cost cutting measure. Some previously valued members of the team were laid off by tweet. As a developer, would you work for a guy who can lay you go by tweet? #NoThanks ! Twitter’s misfortune grew from the bad PR they got for their poor handling of the lay offs with a “poor earnings” quarterly call, which saw Twitter stock drop 20% on the markets. The fixation on pleasing investors apparently lead to overfocus on costs. Even with this cost reduction focus, Twitter still took a huge market hit on their below expectation revenue numbers. The reasons why didn’t matter apparently so how does this resonate for sustainability at Twitter?

Creating value requires a different mindset to the austere process of cutting costs, which is what Twitter must now be challenged with. How can Twitter raise revenue levels whilst at the same time be reasonably cost conscious? It seems like a big project proposal is on the way but what is actually lacking is a connection. I submit it’s not a matter of cost, it’s a matter of structure and resources. In short, if you want to grow, you need to harness the power of your people and connect them to innovation!

So, taking the ‘Twitter Challenge’, can your company realign itself to organisational structures, business practices and a company culture that has the following features:

Horizontal Workflows in organisational charts that formally allows cross functional communication, workflows and temporary dotted line reporting relationships to happen with view to (value creating) cross functional projects.

A documented process of employee innovation that provides a structure to generate, harness and return (employee) new product ideas into a proposal to project workflow building esprit de corps amongst participants.

A company culture that is flexible such as a clan or adhocracy culture. Such a provision will come from flexible two way communication, active management engagement with employees and systemic project resourcing for vetted new product ideas along with organisational refinement and continuous improvement projects. The new cultural norm should be change. It’s an exciting thought when it is structured, process driven and recognised by management as a key value attribute in their organisations success. To set project resourcing in context in a company, every job should be 4 parts function and 1 part project

Trust, managing collaboratively. If you want your employees to invest in you, you need to invest in them. Good employee health plans and 401ks are not enough. Involve employees in creating a sustainable future for your company and you will not only gain their trust, you will gain their engagement, commitment and expertise as they commit to a common longer term success. In such a context, you are asking them to live upto their potential, not to the limits placed upon them by their job description. Collaborative leadership turns “you” and “I” into “we!”

Investors. managing expectations.  Senior Management need to draw a line in the sand for some investors can be obnoxiously hawkish about short term results. Some fund managers make millions on shorting stock every day so if asked to take a chance that doesn’t satisfy a hawkish approach to profitability, they will either dump stock covering any losses on other deals in their portfolio or become very aggressive in their demands. Tim Cook of Apple addressed this issue when some investors became very aggressive on Apple’s position regarding investing in climate change and green technologies. His answer was clear:  “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.” Apple stock held because despite aggressive demands, management was competent and confident enough to stand on their own two feet and speak their minds. Investor relations should be focused on finding the right kind of investor to invest in the company’s vision for the short, medium and longer term future. It’s a meeting of minds not on revenue numbers, but on how a company will operate and what vision will take a company to many times its current size. Revenue can be relatively mapped to a longer term plan that covers all areas of importance.

So that is the high level “Twitter” challenge. It’s a daunting one for a company of any size to do. However, if you have and/or value the right people, you are ahead before you start. Here are some pointers on attracting and managing “the right people”:

Define your basic employee: What attributes does every employee need to have and how do you check for them pre interview, during the interview process and during employment?

Define your vision, culture and practices: What company structures will your employees have to engage in and will they be engaged by collaborative leadership delivering a strong vision for the future that has good employee participation in its formation?

Engage your employees: Are your employees engaged by management proactively practicing consultative leadership?

Provision and distribute an employee innovation workflow: Senior level management should announce, support and policy provision for employee time on projects, sessions brainstorming new ideas and management of the innovation process pipeline (proposal to project) with teams bringing projects from inception to market. Involve your employees in your company’s future and they will involve you in theirs!

The Twitter challenge if taken will challenge leadership to set aside a conventional notion that if a company cuts costs, it will be successful. This is a misnomer distributed by companies who got lucky to date and should not shroud the truth. The consistent creation of value is the only way to remain relevant, competitive and solvent into the future. Take care of your people by making them the drivers of new value creation and they will take care of your business transforming it into a sustainable enterprise that is more reactive to market forces. They will see it transformed into an organisationally flexible company that can react to, rather than consistently absorb market movements.

Sources/Credits:

Pics;

www.usatoday.com

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook-climate-change-sceptics-ditch-apple-shares

www.forbes.com

www.mercurynews.com

www.thenextweb.com

           

Credits

http://time.com/3839011/twitter-earnings-results/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook-climate-change-sceptics-ditch-apple-shares

Organisational Flexibility, the rise of the Matrix Management Structure

Today's silo, tomorrows competitive edge!!..

I once asked about the profitability of a product when considering extra payment terms to indirect suppliers in a cross functional meeting, and the Marketing Manager looked at me like I had just killed his first born son! I thought I best not pursue the issue at the time for fear that I be accosted by twenty sword yielding ninjas on my way home making it an even fight!

Upon more serious reflection of such defensiveness and numerous subsequent articles on Matrix Management structures, I have reviewed the core vertical management structure/silo concept as established over time by classical management theory and wondered if a need for simple accountability has become an inhibitor to organisational flexibility in today’s increasingly dynamic marketplace?

Source: Vertex 42

http://www.vertex42.com/ExcelTemplates/organizational-chart.html

Considering this, it is not hard to see why others have sought a solution to this problem, which has arisen in recent years due to the rise in technology as an integrated platform operating in business. Matrix management’s rise has also being aided by globalisation and the integration of advanced marketing strategies into big data models identifying market threats and opportunities much earlier then has been in times past. The need for responsive change through project management has become the norm in industries like technology, construction and government agencies that have dealt with fast changing market places for some years prior to other industries.

Matrix Management Structures have arisen initially through these industries but as technology based disruptor's reach more and more markets, the need to be more flexible in today’s marketplace creates a competitive edge and can become a matter of survival if left too late to plan for and adopt organisational structures like the Matrix Management structure.  It makes vertical structures less ‘silo’ and more ‘contributor’ to common goals set by the senior leadership in a dynamic marketplace. Matrix’d management should be managed by a cadre of high calibre functional and programme managers working together to common objectives rather then at odds, which often arises when perceived centres of power are challenged by often well-intended colleagues trying to do their jobs as they perceive them.

It sounds simple right? Well when thinking about the ‘vertical management silo’ we think of the following:

• ·      Good accountability
• ·      Good downward communication of goals, objectives and tasks
• ·      Good visibility of ‘vertical silo’ activity

When we think of ‘matrix management structures’ we think of:

• ·      Good project charters and functional modus of operation
• ·      Flexibility to handle organisational and/or market change quickly
• ·      Close collaboration on a horizontal level with layered visibility from the top down

It is reasonable to think if we lay out our expectations, the organisational benefits would be directly responsible for a world-class organisation? If so, then why are so many struggling with the need for more organisational flexibility and the matrix management structure as a model? The reasons vary from organisation to organisation but I would offer the following points to consider when looking at one’s company in a matrix management model.

ü  People make or break organisations, the matrix management model is people centric, so consider the model in terms of talent management, corporate culture and how accepting functional managers are to the influence and responsibilities a project manager would have in any change initiative. Without awareness and acceptance by all parties, the matrix management structure becomes dysfunctional and ineffective over time.

ü  Ensure the whole organisation is on board, not just one silo or a group of silos. The sponsor of a matrix management structure needs to be at the very top and the follow through needs to be executed at the same level downwards to successfully re-orientate the vertical silos to the matrix management structure in a planned manner so everybody feels secure and accepts their organisational roles into the future.

ü  Ensure the programme/project management structures are appropriately positioned to effect change and improvement in support of, rather then in conflict with functional silos.

ü  Matrix Management structures offer flexibility but make accountability difficult in complex areas of the business. Make sure the accountability is executed collaboratively using technological means to secure progress and milestone metrics on project and functional areas of operation. The synergy of accountability means projects are managed clearly and collaboratively, as are functional areas. Change management from autocratic management can be difficult but it’s necessary if matrix management structures are to work effectively.

ü  Never consider matrix management structures as an end, but a means to a new modus of operation. The requirements need to be carefully considered against internal readiness, market place dynamics and the strategic plans for the future. Engaging matrix management structures against a narrow window of project management need only will prove problematic and subject to a very high fail risk.

The need to be focused on people in such an increasingly dynamic marketplace has never being so apparent since the 1980s when the last “big push” was on moving the landscape in business. This time, its faster, more dramatic and more impacting leaving those whom balance vision and flexibility with organisational dogma standing into the future. The key always has and always will be people. To quote Debra J. Devine “If we are going to live with our deepest differences then we must learn about one another”. In order to do that we must saddle collaborative leadership practice and culture with a customised matrix model transforming the way we live, work and interact with each other building sustainable business into the future.