How to Create Alignment throughout Your Organization in Two Simple Steps

July 24th, 2011

A few years ago I was in Santa Barbara, CA visiting a client on Halloween. The students at the University of California, Santa Barbara have a tradition of dressing up in costumes and parading informally throughout the downtown area on Halloween night, so I stayed into the evening to enjoy the show. After a while I went into a bakery to warm up before heading home. The young woman behind the counter began showing me a variety of treats, and insisting that I sample some of them. I finally said to her, “You’re spending a lot of time with me, and you don’t even know if I’m going to buy anything.” She replied, “That’s okay. My job is to make you happy.”

Wow! THAT’s the kind of experience your customers have when you align employees’ interest with organizational goals. (And yes, I did buy some baked goods before I left.) Yet I find that many executives and business owners don’t know how to achieve this alignment, which is critical for both employees’ and leaders’ success. When I am asked (frequently), “How can leaders align employees’ interests with organizational goals?” I have a two-step reply:

    1. Create a vivid “big picture” or vision for the organization, and communicate it widely, frequently, and consistently, using multiple media and language that is appropriate for the audiences; AND

    2. Paint the employees into the picture – i.e., make sure that each worker can state specifically what value he or she provides to the organization.

Both steps are important: employees who both see the organization’s “big picture” – i.e., its mission, vision, goals – AND can articulate clearly the contributions they make to achieving that picture are highly motivated individuals. In fact, they will be so energized that you will have to get out of their way so they can work! These are people who cannot wait to get to work every day, because they know they are making a significant difference in the world.

When I worked at Fed Ex during the early years (late 1970s and early 1980s), I couldn’t wait to get to work every morning because the environment was electric. We were on a mission to deliver critical packages “absolutely, positively overnight.” To empower us to do that, executives pushed decision-making down the ranks as far as possible and gave us great autonomy. Risk-taking was rewarded as long as mistakes were treated as learning experiences. When I traveled, I got a chill every time I saw a FedEx truck, and I loved the immediate attention I got when people discovered what company I worked for and peppered me with questions about it. Because purple is one of the company’s colors, my colleagues and I used to claim that “purple blood” ran through our veins.

What’s the secret to create such a highly engaged, productive workforce? Creating a clear “line of sight” between each individual and the organization’s goals – i.e., painting a clear, compelling vision and showing every employee how he or she contributes to it. Some of the elements I just named are very effective in maintaining that engagement – e.g., autonomy, trust in employees’ competence, and a culture that supports prudent risk-taking. Although I worked in staff positions, I still could articulate, and sometimes physically point to, what I did or contributed to doing. The visceral reaction I experienced every time I saw a FedEx truck or plane – either in person or in a movie or on television – meant that I felt a part of the company’s success. As a result, the company’s mission – “absolutely, positively overnight” – became mine as well.

If you would like to learn about a simple and quick technique to determine whether your employees are aligned with your organization’s goals, I invite you to read my article, The Transforming Power of Asking, “What’s Your Job?” Then let us know what you discover!

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks

How High a Priority are YOUR Employees? Are You Sure?

July 7th, 2011

One question that I often hear these days is, “What can we do to be successful in today’s economy?” My answer comes in the form of two questions:

    1. “How high a priority are your employees?” AND

    2. “Would your employees agree with your answer?”

Leaders who want their organizations to be successful first and foremost must focus on helping their employees become fully successful. When employees are fully successful, their productivity skyrockets, and customers are delighted because the organization is able to deliver, or over-deliver, its promised value.

I learned this secret to high productivity early in my career when I worked for FedEx. Fred Smith, the founder and CEO of the company, anchored the corporate culture on this simple philosophy: People – Service – Profit. Fred’s belief was that if you take care of your people, they will provide excellent service, which will increase profits. I have yet to see any evidence to disprove his belief. To the contrary, I have seen company after company adopt some version of this philosophy. Why? Because it works!

How do you make employees a high priority? I developed a research-based tool called the Employer Performance Scorecard that identifies four areas that influence employees’ perceptions of how they are treated. I encourage my clients to use this scorecard to help them assess employees’ perspectives about how they are treated on a day-to-day basis. High scores mean you place a high priority on employees; low scores mean you have work to do!

Here are the four areas and representative elements in each one:

1. Managers and supervisors
The #1 reason why employees leave organizations and why they join unions is dissatisfaction with the immediate supervisor. You can help employees be successful if you ensure their supervisors are meeting their needs effectively. This requires that you set your supervisors up for success (e.g., provide the proper training and tools) so they are able to manage effectively.

2. Organizational culture
Employees who feel they are part of something larger than themselves and that their views are respected are likely to perceive that they are valued. You can help employees be fully successful if you ensure they have “voice” (i.e., they feel they are heard) and that they understand how they contribute to the organization’s mission or vision.

3. Organizational processes
You increase employees’ ability to be fully successful when you ensure that workplace decisions and processes are procedurally fair, that communication is two-way, and that leaders truly “walk the talk” – i.e., their behaviors are consistent with their words.

4. Rewards and recognition
Research consistently shows that pay generally is not THE reason for employee dissatisfaction, disengagement, or turnover as long as there is a reasonable level of compensation. Employee commitment to their own success (and by extension, that of the organization) skyrockets when workers are recognized for their contributions to the organization. There are hundreds of no- and low-cost ways to recognize your workers in ways that are meaningful to them. Truly, a little recognition goes a LONG way!

How would you answer the two questions I posed at the beginning of this message? If you are not sure, or if you would like additional information about how to ensure that you employees are a high priority, I invite you to take our Employee-centered Workplace® Assessment. And let us know what YOU do to make sure your employees are a high priority!

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks

Why Insisting that Employees “Do More with Less” Is a Mistake, and How You Can Stop Making It

July 4th, 2011

One of the biggest and most preventable mistakes I see employers making in response to layoffs, furloughs, and budget cuts is what I call the fallacy of “doing more with less.” The admonition to “do more with less” has become commonplace in organizations over the last two years. Do you find yourself using it yourself? If so, stop it!

Here are three reasons why adopting the “doing more with less” approach is a mistake:

    1. It’s counterproductive: surviving employees, already demoralized by layoffs and furloughs, perceive that they are being asked to pick up the slack without being compensated for doing so – and they’re right!

    2. Doing more with less is not sustainable long-term. There’s only so much you can add to existing workloads before people and systems begin to break down.

    3. Employees become disengaged, burned out, resentful, and cynical – and they will leave the organization the first chance they get.

    In addition, I’ve found that when they try to “do more with less,” people start seeing everything as a priority. And of course, when everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority.

Here are two ways you can avoid falling into the fallacy of “doing more with less:”

1. Embrace the concept of doing LESS with less

This actually increases productivity: employees know you are being realistic and they appreciate your honesty so they reciprocate with good performance. Employee commitment is likely to increase when you’re truthful about what you’re asking your workers to do. If you would like to learn more about this issue, here are two articles that go into more detail:

The Fallacy of “Doing More with Less”

How to Prioritize: Doing LESS with Less Effectively

2. Set priorities effectively, and allocate available resources accordingly

Let’s be clear about two facts about priorities that people often ignore. First, priorities are what you DO, not what you say you will do. Realistically, you can only have a handful of priorities at any given time. (That’s ONE handful!) Second, priorities involve choices about time. By saying you don’t have time to do something, such as going to your kids’ soccer game, you effectively are saying that other things are more important to you at the moment.

A few years ago, I developed a straightforward process for setting priorities. Here it is in a nutshell:

    First, identify clearly your organization’s vision or mission. Beginning with the end in mind is the first step in organizational success.

    Second, use that vision to categorize everything you do (e.g., evaluate performance, develop products and services) as critical, very important, or important.

    Third, devise a realistic formula for allocating resources based on the above three categories. For example, while you might decide to allocate 100% of your resources to items in the “critical” category, it’s probably more realistic to devote 70-80% of them to the critical priorities, 15% to very important items, and 5% to important items.

If you would like more detailed, step-by-step information about this process, you may obtain the template, Pat Lynch’s Process for Prioritizing Organizational Services and Programs, by clicking here and checking the appropriate box on the list from my web site. You will receive the link to the template immediately via e-mail.

What are your thoughts or experiences about doing LESS with less? Let us know!

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks

New Teleseminar: 7 Strategies for Organizational Success in Today’s Economy

July 4th, 2011

Would you like to learn about the best no- or low-cost strategies that will help you re-focus and re-vitalize your organization so it can thrive in today’s economy?

I recently conducted a one-hour free teleseminar, 7 Strategies Executives and Business Owners Must Know for Organizational Success in Today’s Economy, in which I identified and described time-tested concepts, tools, and techniques that can make your life much easier and put your organization on (or back on) the road to success. Here are a few of the topics we covered:

    • How to set priorities and allocate resources
    • Techniques to increase employee engagement
    • Why insisting that your employees “do more with less” is a mistake
    • How to align employees’ interests with organizational goals
    • No- or low-cost tools and techniques that ensure organizational success

If you are struggling with the challenges caused by having to produce the same results with fewer resources, then I invite you to invest one hour of your time in listening to this free teleseminar. Then let us know which strategies you found most useful in helping to make your organization more successful!

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks

California Budget, Part II: Be Careful What You Ask (Legislators) For

June 26th, 2011

In November 2010, California voters decided to stop tolerating state legislators’ annual refusal to pass a balanced budget by June 15th each year. They passed an initiative that requires the State Controller to stop paying the errant legislators when they fail to meet their constitutional mandate to produce a balanced budget by that date. And that pay is gone forever – no retroactive pay allowed.

That strategy seemed to work: for the first time in anyone’s memory, the legislature passed a budget on June 15, 2011. Everyone celebrated, most of all the legislators, who believed they had saved their paychecks.

The celebration was short-lived: Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the budget the very next day, saying that it was not a balanced solution to the state’s financial woes. In fact, he was quoted as saying that the budget that was passed contains “legally questionable maneuvers, costly borrowing and unrealistic savings.”

Personally, I call that budget the “Save our (California legislators’) paycheck” budget.

Legislators reportedly were outraged. After all, they passed a budget, didn’t they? And didn’t it show that revenues matched expenditures?

Well, not exactly. The Governor had promised voters a “gimmick-free” budget this year, and in his view, this budget did not pass the “no smoke and mirrors” test. In fact, his assessment of a gimmick-laden budget was backed up by the State Controller’s analysis, which found that while the budget committed the state to spending $89.8 billion, it only provided revenues of $87.9 billion, leaving a shortfall of $1.85 billion.

Oops.

Now legislators are REALLY mad: the Controller’s assessment came with the news that because the budget was not balanced, their pay and per diems would be suspended until they pass a budget that does meet the “gimmick-free” criterion. One Los Angeles Assembly member was quoted as saying, “I now have to explain to my wife and daughter that we won’t be able to pay the bills because a politician chose to grandstand at our expense.”

Welcome to the world of tens of thousands of Californians, whose financial situations are fraught with uncertainty each year when the legislature engages in its own form of grandstanding when it chooses not to meet its constitutional mandate of passing a balanced budget by June 15th. Institutions that rely on state funding, for example, have been forced to pass their own budgets without knowing how much money to expect from the state – if any. In the past few years, the state actually decided to issue IOUs in lieu of cash because the budget had not been passed. How well do legislators think that asking one’s landlord or bank to accept an IOU in place of a rental or mortgage payment will go over? Now they have an opportunity to find out themselves.

There are at least two related lessons to be learned here:

    1. Be very specific when asking for what you want or need.

    In this case, the voter-passed initiative said the budget must be balanced. Alas, it apparently did not define the term “balanced” in a way that made it crystal clear to legislators that their constituents would no longer tolerate their annual “smoke and mirrors” approach, but instead must pass a budget that actually balances when held up to the light of day.

    2. Be careful of what you ask for.

    By putting legislators’ pay at risk (as it relates to passing a balanced budget), voters caused lawmakers to focus on passing a budget. This seems to be a good thing, doesn’t it? Unfortunately in their haste to save their paychecks, the legislators neglected to take care of a few critical details. According to the State Controller, for example, the budget relies on a variety of fees and taxes to raise revenue – but lawmakers didn’t pass the legislation necessary to collect that revenue. Apparently the initiative should have said that intentions don’t count – there actually must be mechanisms in place in order for the budget to be balanced in reality.

So we’re back to smoke and mirrors. At least the legislators are not getting paid to not produce a balanced budget, which may jolt them back to reality. In the mean time, Californians across the state are suffering – again – because lawmakers –again – aren’t doing their constitutional duty.

I can’t wait for the next step: perhaps an initiative that makes the failure to pass a truly balanced budget by the constitutional deadline a terminable offense? No waiting till the next election either: no balanced budget, no job.

What’s your suggestion for getting the message across to politicians?

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks

California Budget, Part I: What a Difference Accountability Makes!

June 26th, 2011

What a difference accountability makes! Compare these two statements about the California budget process. They were made nearly a year apart by the same California Assembly person:

    “The budget?” (Dismissive wave of her hand.) “We [Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature] just have philosophical differences.”

    “I’ll do whatever it takes to get a budget passed on time.”

The first statement was made by the Assembly person to attendees at a meeting of a Long Beach City Council person in 2010, about two months after the legislature continued to be in violation of the constitutional deadline for passing a balanced budget. (They finally passed it 100 days after the deadline.) She was quoted as making the second statement to a newspaper reporter one week before the constitutional deadline for passing a balanced budget in 2011.

What got the Assembly person’s attention? In November 2010, after years of frustration and serious economic hardship foisted by irresponsible legislators on Californians who rely on the state for funding (e.g., state employees, vendors, contractors, school districts, colleges and universities, health care recipients, welfare recipients), voters finally stopped tolerating the legislature’s annual illegal activity by passing an initiative that requires the State Controller to stop paying legislators their daily rates and per diems for every day they fail to meet their constitutional duty of passing a balanced budget by June 15th each year. The initiative further specified that there would be NO retroactive pay or per diem. Going forward, legislators are accountable for actually doing the primary job for which they were elected – i.e., to pass a balanced budget on time every year that identifies the state’s priorities.

Given that legislators’ pay now is at risk, was anyone surprised that in 2011, legislators suddenly began to turn their attention toward the budget? By essentially mandating a pay-for-performance requirement related to the budget, voters created a situation in which it now is in everyone’s best interest for legislators to pass a balanced budget on time. And it seemed to be effective: for the first time in anyone’s memory, the legislature passed a budget by June 15th. Whew! Legislative paychecks were saved. Accountability works!

Or does it? Stay tuned for Part 2….

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks

Budget Cuts: Why Fire Departments and Police Departments Need to Change the Question

May 29th, 2011

As city, county, and state budgets are being discussed and finalized around the country, one thing is clear: those who allocate resources are asking the wrong questions. As a result, recipients of government services are being short-changed because resources are being misallocated.

During city/county/state budget negotiations, the primary questions generally are:

    1. How much must we cut so that our city/county/state has a balanced budget?
    2. How much must each agency cut so we can achieve this outcome?

The problem is that these are the wrong questions. Instead of focusing on money, politicians and administrators need to begin with the end in mind – i.e., the services to be provided. Here are the questions they should be asking instead:

    1. Is this service something that (city/county/state) government should provide?
    (If it is not, stop it!)
    2. If it is, what level of service do we (decision-makers) choose to provide?
    3. What is the best way to provide this service?
    4. How much are people willing to pay for it?

Using public safety (i.e., fire departments and police departments) as an example, here are the questions decision-makers should be asking:

    1. Should the government provide public safety services?
    2. What level of public safety do decision-makers choose to provide?
    3. What is the best way to provide this service?
    4. How much are people willing to pay for it?

When the conversation is all about cutting the budget, then guess what becomes the #1 priority? (You are correct if you said “cutting the budget.”) Focusing on cutting the budget can lead to dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., proportional sharing) and outcomes (e.g., ineffective resource allocation). (Elsewhere I explained why the tactic of proportional sharing as a budget cutting tactic is an ineffective way to allocate resources.) As a result, the public loses. In terms of public safety, for example, there may be fewer fire fighters, emergency medical personnel, and police officers available to respond to calls. Fewer civilian staff as well as outdated equipment and infrastructure also are consequences of cuts to public safety budgets. Together these results mean longer response times in situations in which seconds or minutes matter. Are longer response times okay with the public? If so, then there’s no need to change the question. But if public safety has taken a hit because of misdirected questions and stakeholders are not okay with longer response times, then it’s time to insist that decision-makers stop asking and answering the wrong questions.

The bottom line: if you want different answers, you have to change the questions you ask. If the public is at greater risk due to budget cuts and the heads of fire departments and police departments are not okay with that, it’s time for them to re-direct the conversation by changing the questions. While re-focusing the discussion won’t change the reality of scarce resources, it can ensure a much more effective resource allocation process.

What are you waiting for?

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks

Reality Check: How to Stop Trying to Square a Circle

May 27th, 2011

The world has changed in major ways in the last few years, with important implications for organizations. Despite the resulting upheaval in virtually all major areas of life and business, many people continue to cling to the notion that things will return to “normal” if they can just weather the current storm, so they resolutely keep doing what they have been doing for years – i.e., they are trying to square a circle. Here is the truth: change is the new “normal.” This means that the things that made organizations successful in the past are unlikely to be the key to future achievements. The playing field has changed, and organizations whose leaders who fail to adjust to the new reality are engaging in a form of organizational insanity. As a result, their organizations cannot possibly be successful.

How can leaders stop trying to square a circle and face their situations realistically? In no particular order, here are six suggestions to begin that process:

1. Realize that assumptions have expiration dates.
Since the environment has changed, it’s safe to say that the bases on which leaders made decisions in the past have changed. This is a great time to take a close look at what your organization is doing, why it’s doing those things, and how it’s doing them.

2. Recognize that the things that enabled the organization to be successful in the past won’t necessarily work now or in the future.
Begin by taking a step back and defining “success” for your organization and painting a clear picture of what it looks like. Then find new, viable ways to achieve that success.

3. Stop putting your head in the sand in the belief that ignoring reality will keep it at bay.
Having a strategy to guide the organization is one thing; sticking tenaciously to it in the face of major change is another. Living in denial about changes that are occurring all around you does NOT make them disappear. Make sure your strategy is realistic in light of the current environment.

4. Develop multiple contingency plans.

Situational agility is key to success in this world of permanent “white water” conditions where the only certainty is change. In this age of global interdependence, the sources and types of change can come from anywhere. As Dorothy said in The Wizard of Oz, “We’re not in Kansas any more, Toto.” Look beyond the immediate environment for other points at which change may derail your organization’s success.

5. Embed accountability processes into the organization.

One reason why people cling stubbornly to the past even when it doesn’t serve them well any more is that there is little or no accountability for mediocre or even poor performance. When situations and environments change, there must be mechanisms in place that demand appropriate adjustments to keep the organization on track for success.

6. Have a strategy in place and implement it.

Although situational agility is important, there must be an overall framework that provides the boundaries within which it operates. Developing a strategy that requires leaders to articulate a clear “big picture,” identifying the measures of progress and success, and adjusting the plan as necessary puts the leaders at the helm of the organizational ship rather than leaving its fate to the vagaries of the storms that it encounters.

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks

Is a Business Partnership in Your Future?

May 27th, 2011

Are you thinking about entering into a business partnership? If so, you might want to do your homework! I recently was interviewed about what entrepreneurs should consider before taking such a big step. I invite you to read the resulting article, “6 Questions to Ask Yourself Before Choosing a Business Partner.” Let me know what you think!

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks

8 Obstacles to Public Sector Success

May 18th, 2011

In my experience, public sector agencies and government entities (i.e., cities, counties, states) face eight common obstacles to their success. See how many of these issues you have experienced, either as a provider or a user of public services.

1. Lack of a common “big picture.”

The biggest obstacle to success for any organization is the failure of leaders to articulate and/or communicate the “big picture” – i.e., the value that the organization provides. Without this information, it’s impossible to set effective priorities, which means that one person’s claim on resources is just as valid as another’s. How can leaders allocate resources effectively when there is no overall direction to guide them?

2. Leaders’ inability or unwillingness to establish and enforce priorities.

One of the critical responsibilities of all leaders is to set and enforce priorities. In the public sector, setting priorities often is challenging because of the complexity and variety of stakeholders whose interests conflict with each other, and sometimes are diametrically opposed. In some cases, leaders simply don’t know how to set priorities – a serious deficiency, but one that can be remedied. In other cases, public sector leaders are unwilling to set and/or to enforce priorities because they know that some stakeholder group(s) will be unhappy with them. Too often, for example, we see scenarios in which politicians demand “proportional sharing,” or equal budget cuts across agencies. Or they identify some priorities, only to change them when confronted by stakeholders who wanted a different outcome. How can an organization be successful when its leaders shirk one of their most important responsibilities?

3. A dearth of courageous leaders.

I define courageous leaders as people who focus relentlessly on the big picture, even when they pay a personal price for doing so. Although such leaders are a critical success factor in all organizations, public sector agencies and units in particular desperately need individuals who are willing to focus on the greater good, setting priorities that serve the big picture, and allocating resources in ways that support those priorities. While it’s easy to point fingers at public sector leaders and label them as self-serving individuals who are only looking for ways to be elected to their next jobs (or to keep their current jobs) – and there are many who fit this description – let’s not forget that the public also bears responsibility for the lack of courageous leaders. Specifically, accepting mediocre or poor performance or results enables the behavior that caused it in the first place. We are setting organizations up for failure when we don’t support and nurture courageous leaders.

4. Ineffective resource allocation.

Successful organizations use their resources wisely. The ability to allocate scarce resources effectively requires these critical success factors: (a) a clearly articulated and communicated big picture, (b) specific priorities that support achievement of the big picture, and (c) courageous leaders. In short, the things that need to be in place for effective resource allocation are precisely those that public sector organizations often lack.

5. Inexperience in questioning assumptions.

Because assumptions have expiration dates, it’s good business practice periodically to assess the assumptions that serve as the foundation for decisions and practices. Yet public sector leaders often fail to do this. My experience is that they tend to layer things on top of each other, seldom taking the time to ask whether what’s underneath still is necessary for the success of the organization.

6. Willingness to settle for mediocrity.

Acceptance of mediocrity runs rampant in the public sector – e.g., mediocrity of service levels, of employee performance, of politicians’ decisions and actions. For years, the public has looked down upon those who work in the public sector, decrying the mediocrity – yet accepting it. Having worked as an employee and as a consultant for years in public (and private) sector organizations, I know that this embrace of mediocrity is not limited to outsiders: it’s all too common within organizations as well. When mediocrity is the standard by which performance is gauged, how can organizations possibly be successful?

7. Accountability run amok.

Imagine that accountability is a continuum, with “no accountability whatsoever” at one end and “extreme micromanagement” at the other. Now imagine situations in which you have stakeholders who reside at or near the “no accountability” end, and public sector leaders who work mostly at or near the “extreme micromanagement” end. What you have is a recipe for mediocrity at best, and failure at worse.

8. Bureaucracies that block organizational success.

The words “government” and “bureaucracy” often are used interchangeably. One result of layering things (e.g., regulations, programs, processes) on top of each other without considering whether any have outlived their usefulness is dysfunctional behaviors and outcomes. For example, RFPs (requests for proposals) from government agencies and entities tend to be hefty documents that can run well over one hundred pages. Whatever the size, my experience is that the actual description of the project is dwarfed by the blizzard of forms that document the myriad of requirements with which successful bidders must comply. (My favorite “You’ve got to be kidding me!” example of such a compliance issue is the City of Los Angeles’ insistence that contractors sign a document attesting to the fact that neither they nor any of their ancestors ever owned slaves.) How many stakeholder interests are being served poorly or not at all because of irrelevant restrictions and rules? And let’s not get started on how many people are required to process all this paperwork – before any real work can begin. Bureaucracy is a death knoll for success.

How many of these issues resonate with you? What will you do to address them? In a future post I will share some of my own suggestions about how to minimize these obstacles.

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks