I have a hypothesis about long term vs. short term orientation which may be able to partially explain this. Usually the orientation is significantly driven by ‘the context’ or ‘the view of the future’ a management is driven by. If a management is not so committed for a long term innings in a field it is bound to demonstrate a short term orientation. Now the question arises what is at the source of a long term orientation. One clear pattern is that the senior menagement (most often a first generation entrepreneur) is intom something he/she thoroughly enjoys and wants to excel in. Money is always secondary. That is why we see the Warren Buffet, Gerald Hines, Bill Gates kind of personalities who have founded very large businesses but continue to live an incredibly simple life. They are passionate about their work and do not see and end point in it.

The short-termist are ususlly either building to flip or even if they are not, do not feel confident about surviving the future and want to make the most of the here and now.

So, for the latter kind of short-termist there is a chance of developing a long term orientation provided their view of what they can accomplish is dramaticaly altered by some evidence or a new context. They need to see something compelling possible for themselves in the long term.

Moreover, i do belive that this change only needs to happen at the top and subsequent realignment or organization structure/incentives etc. will help bring this trnsformation down for the rest. Bulk of the rest of the organization will play along whatever game the top management decides upon.

These are my two bits on LT vs. ST orientation.

Also, thanks a ton for recommending the Halo Effect. After a long time read a management book that has the humility of admitting not knowing it all and definitely resonated with my personal feelings about iconic books like BTL and G2G.

David, I look forward to it; it’s a timely, albeit timeless, topic.

By the way, the problem is very similar to what was called in philosophy the problem of incontinence (not that kind). How does one explain the fact that one can know the good, realize the good is good, have no obstacles to choosing the good–yet not choose the good?

Aristotle’s answer was, “you must not have really wanted it, otherwise you would’ve chosen it.” Plato–a far more insightful humanist–was, “well, that’s human nature.”

My take on the subject is that personal and corporate change are very similar to dealing with addictions: it takes repeated attempts, which in aggregate show improvement, but which in particular instances are weak. And there are no guarantees.

Best practices, I think are:

-envisioning–constantly keeping in mind goals, outcomes, tangible pictures of the desired to-be state of affairs

-specific next steps–tactics, mantras, tips and tricks that move the ball in the generally right direction

-no-no’s–things that are warning signs of “bad” behavior, a la if you don’t want to get hit by trains, don’t play on the tracks

-values–a clear set of guiding principles, enunciated frequently by people who understand them and practice them

-a medium-to-long-term view of the world that infects all behaviors–negotiating, pricing, relationship management, compensation, investment evaluations

-a strong preference for intrinsic motivational approaches over extrinsic approaches. Getting people to behave in ways that support others by giving them money (in effect, paying them to be unselfish) is as close to oxymoronic as you can get.

Hmmm … I’m really, really, looking forward to the book.

I am diabetic and over-weight 37 year old. Not a good combination. Despite knowing how bad things are I’ve not taken the obvious effects to lose weight.

Earlier this year, I did lose 19 pounds in 9 days, – I suffered pancreititis which put me in hospital for a week and nearly killed me. Apparantly the pain is worse than childbirth so I wouldn’t recommend it as a diet. The treatment to prevent reoccurance is to lose weight. But I’ve not.

I’m really looking forward to your book David!

David,

I am looking forward to your book. You do a great job of combining the analytical and emotional elements of what it takes to develop a strategy and create change.

The smoker analogy is a good one. I am not a smoker but have been exposed to best practices in smoking cessation which might be applied to organizational change. Some of the best practices are:

1.) Dramatic felt need. Often people rationally know they need to change but its a precipitating event that prompts change. For women, apparently the prompt is often negative comments from their children or concerns about affecting children’s health. Men tend to react to their own health crisis (a heart attack) or that of somebody they know who also smokes. In the corporate context this suggests leaders either need to create a felt need or spot crises and communicate their implications.

2.) Multiple modess of communicating. Successful smoking cessation often relies a on a combination of therapies – counseling, telephone hot lines, nicotine replacement patches, and support groups – to help a person change their habits. If any one of these are used in isolation the odds of success are much less than if they are used in concert. The company environment requires a multi-pronged approach as well; just making speeches and presentations about the new vision usually fails.

3.) Peer comparision and communication. Smokers, diabetics, cancer patients and others engaged in long term care programs find peer feedback to be THE critical resource. Hearing from others going through similar experiences resonates more, and has a greater likelihood of leading to changed behavior, than guidance from medical professionals. The implication organizationally is for mangers to get input from academics, consultants and analysts BUT more importantly, they should observes competitors and others who are in similar circumstances.

So, yes – there are many valid analogies between what it takes for a smoker to change their behavior and what organizations need to improve.

I look forward to seeing the book.

David,

It seems to me, most often, the sudden realization that the same “causes” will not produce different “effects” becomes a motivator, which is why many people who quit smoking and/or begin a diet have some sort of revelation that something needs to be done (eg. a friend passes, a doctor delivers a test, a partner suggests consequences).

However, in terms of developing a strategy before such a realization, I might suggest some sort of baseline study to determine “what is” and then developing a strategy to move us from “what is” to “what could be” based upon our desired outcomes as opposed to those outcomes we are getting.

All my best,

Rich

A good list, Charlie and one I’d accept. Question: does real “cure the fat smoker” change in organizations require ALL of this. Or are some elements key?

For example, Charlie, virtually every client we know claims that they want to be client-centric, trusted advisors, blah-blah-blah. But we all know that incredibly few pull it off.

Now, we all know how to criticize and point out why the failures failed, but do we know HOW the few that pulled it off actually did it? Are we any closer to knowing the recipe? Is Jenny Craig?

Sometimes metaphors are hugely powerful–case in point, the fat smoker. So let me offer some more metaphors.

Here are a few guidelines given to people trying to lose weigh, quit smoking, quit drinking, or quit drugs. I’ll let your readers draw the parallels.

1. It’s not the 8th drink that gets you in trouble, it’s the first one.

2. There’s only one cigarette you can’t have–the first one.

3. If your (12-step) program isn’t working, try Bill W.’s (Bill W. is Bill Wilson, the founder of AA and the father of the 12-Step program)

4. You have to change people, places, and things.

5. While you are (sober, not smoking, drug-free), your “disease” is out there doing pushups–getting stronger. If you give in, you’ll re-start just where you left off, but with more momentum downhill.

6. Your best thinking got you here–hooked, addicted, overweight.

7. Just do the next right thing–yesterday is gone, tomorrow isn’t here yet. Live in today. Do this one day at a time; one hour at a time; one minute at a time, as required.

8. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

9. Make a gratitude list, a benefits list, a “why am I doing this” list. Read it, frequently.

10. Don’t sweat the small stuff

11. It’s all small

12. This is not a failure of the will, but a misapplication of the will. You can’t enforce your will on others. Join, don’t fight. Be on teams. Don’t go it alone.

13. How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.

14. The elevator to (sobriety, weight loss, etc.) is broken; take the Steps.

15. How do you get to be an old-timer (non-smoker, non-drinker)? Don’t (smoke, drink) and don’t die. A day at a time.

I think the most powerful metaphors for corporate change from these other fields probably fall into three categories:

a. keep the goal in mind

b. be totally clear about good and bad specific tactical abehaviors–just do the former, and just don’t do the latter

c. don’t try this all by yourself. It’s a group effort.

Or so it seems to me.

David, I’ve not read the article but it’s a great title!

In terms of priorities, I would propose the following three factors

• A sudden shock – for an organisation this may be a decline in profits, the loss of a customer, the entrance of a serious new competitor, a price war, or a rise in costs
• The ability to link short term actions to the longer term goals – I call these medium term themes. For example, UK retailer M&S has recently led its recovery on a few key themes – product innovation, better opening price points, improved customer service, refreshed store environment. Any initiatives which fall outside these themes have been cancelled.
• The values and quality of senior leaders. It always surprises me how quickly a new leader can set the tone of a business, even in large organisations. Their approach, attitude and actions can rapidly establish a tempo which the organisation follows. If the approach is geared to the long term then great, if not……….

Hope this helps. I would be interested if you and the other guys agree with my short list, or do you think that other factors are more important?

Stuart

Hi David:

Thank you in advance for what I know will be another strong contribution to the state of the art thinkng about professional service firms’ strategy. From my perspective, there are two interdependent aspects of this issue.

ONE: As you probably know, I’ve asked a version of this question in my own book, article and blog writings in recent years, even to the point of declaring 2007 to be my year of focusing on what it takes for a professional service firm to “do things differently.” The theme I’m exploring is what I’ve called “professional courage.”

Regarding your question, professional courage is applied to oneself, and regarding organizational change, it’s applied to the firm. In either case, though, as your other commenters have said, it requires one to be convinced that a change is imperative.

In my work (focusing on the PSF marketplace), the “convincing event” always comes from the marketplace, and it always involves some kind of economic threat.

TWO: Beyond one professionally brave person making the commitment to change, it’s the cascade effect that occurs when this individual or a few professionally brave people begin taking the courageous steps to respond to the economic threat. People look to these leaders to give them “cover” to get on the bandwagon. Malcolm Gladwell summarized it well in “Tipping Point, and so did C. Everett Rogers in “Diffusion of Innovation.”