Adopt a new state of mind to succeed next year, and in the long run
Because I am intrigued by the success stories behind some of the most acclaimed individuals, earlier this year I picked up the highly talked about "Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance.” Among the numerous insightful points, the book brought up the importance of never-ending desire to experiment, learn and develop – do / be better. It turns out, these are some of the key traits of highly successful individuals. Sure enough – I see it with the professionals I know. The most accomplished ones are the embodiment of perpetual learning. They avoid complacency at all cost and look forward to understanding or better yet, creating, the next best thing. There’s much more to success of course, but the notion of learning as its cornerstone has come across my reading and work in the past.
Awhile back I wrote a blog post that alongside articles, personal observations and the book: “The Fifth Discipline: The Art And Practice Of The Learning Organization” developed the premise that in order for professional service organizations to evolve they should become learning organizations. In other words, if service firms could figure out how to inspire and scale behavior that applauds inquiry, open-mindedness, challenges existing norms and rewards learning, they would outperform competitors and thrive. As we are about to close the year and embark on a journey of personal and professional resolutions, I thought it’s only fitting to repost this article.
###
SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO BUSINESS GROWTH
I like to challenge my own thinking and so, after writing my last articles, “Creating a Culture of Business Growth” and “For the Greater Good Or Eat What You Kill?” I questioned whether it is necessary to address the full business growth system – strategy, support tools, and skills - in order to make sustainable business growth progress. After all, many firms claim to be successful by focusing on only a select few of those business growth related segments. Or, are they? And how have they defined “success” and more importantly, how will they define it going forward?
The ultimate question comes down to the aspirations of firms and their stakeholders. Are you looking to build organizations for the long run? Or, do you only seek short term success with a measurable self-centered economic benefit? If the latter represents shareholders’ objectives, then the non-systematic, “band-aid” approach - as I call it - might be considered success. However, if the professional services firm leaders are focusing on long term gains, then I am afraid the long and systematic approach to building or enhancing business growth platform is the way to go.
A selective segment approach to business growth might have worked in the past for some firms due to extraordinary external market conditions. Those, blended with the young and entrepreneurial spirit of newly formed organizations often lead to quick success, but is ultimately unsustainable I am afraid. That opportunistic viewpoint takes a linear approach without seeing the full picture, and focuses on a sliver of information and limited events. This approach tends to address symptoms instead of curing problems, identifying trends, and thinking long term. It employs reactive tactics and doesn’t provide fundamental and sustainable systems support to track and measure performance and return on business growth investments. There is no investment in developing skills and sufficient support tools to allow the executioners to utilize the tools that fit them most (“one size fits none” when it comes to business growth tactics) and ultimately, to execute on strategy.
If that’s how you are running your organization, and you consider the last paragraph to be the “right approach” and you do not have strategic long term aspirations then stop reading here. This will be the top of the bell shaped curve for you. Don’t waste your time learning how to develop a systems-based approach to help you build sustainable business growth platform and move your organization up the S - curve.
When I went back to research, looking to rebuff my own systems theory and to find a quick and easy way to help professional services organizations increase the velocity of their business development, one of the sources I reviewed was an old favorite business read: "The Fifth Discipline: The Art And Practice Of The Learning Organization." Reading it was yet again an eye opening experience. Instead of rejecting my theory, the book helped me reaffirm that a systematic way of approaching sustainable business growth is necessary. It provided me with answers of why some of the short term linear approach business development projects work briefly, but not in the long term. More than that, the book gave me possible answers for some of the narcissistic behavior I observed in “For the Greater Good or Eat What You Kill?”, which I determined limits change in professional services firms, and I have been so desperately looking to decipher. Most importantly, the book illustrated that a comprehensive approach to business growth spreads beyond the segments allocated to Marketing, Business Development and Sales. To make a significant and sustainable business growth impact, leaders should employ multidisciplinary approach.
In his book, the accomplished Peter M. Senge, draws on extensive management research and experience to argue that the traditional management approach is not optimal and in order for organizations to survive, continuously adapt, innovate products and services, and overall develop, they should strive to become learning organizations. According to the author, the process of building and running learning organizations rests upon five pillars: systems thinking (the cornerstone), personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning. And while the majority of examples he uses do not come from professional services firms, I am convinced that applying some or all of the principles from the learning organization model will help firms manage many of the challenges they face, and especially the ones related to business growth.
“Systems thinking is both more challenging and more promising than our normal ways of dealing with problems,” says Senge. I agree. It is about seeing the whole, interrelationships and processes. It helps executives absorb increased amount of information, manage complexity and accelerate change. In business growth terms, it clarifies why when marketing is creating powerful lead generation campaigns, there will be limited if any business growth results if the professionals (or the sales force) are not equipped with the necessary advisory skills, sufficient tools and the system to turn those leads into actual business; why when the professionals bring in new clients, these clients will consider such work commodity and as soon as another service provider comes along with a better value offer they’ll be ready to jump ship, if the organization is not ready to commit the resources to support the new clients beyond technical solutions to build strong relationships and loyalty.
Here is another example of the importance of systems thinking, which will resonate with most leaders of professional services organizations. If a firm doesn’t pursue business growth and provide opportunities for growth for its junior professionals (directors, associates, etc.), after a period of time it faces high chances of losing its talent, which it has invested in developing over the years. The question often asked is: do we invest in attracting, developing and retaining new talent (HR), or do we invest in building a solid business growth engine (Marketing / BD) to provide for business continuity. I’d argue that the real questions here are how to balance those two processes, and what are the forces that increase or decrease their progression.
To adopt a systems thinking method, the author recommends that executives start to approach problems by identifying the source of the issues: what’s the core, not the symptom; the forces that support accelerating or decline growth processes, and the sources that would bring stability and resistance, as well as identifying organizational behavior patterns limiting growth, shifting the burden of blame, and others. I would recommend that firm leaders do the same to build and manage sustainable business development platform.
Mind that, as the name of this principle implies, this is not a one-time event. A comprehensive and systematic approach to organizational development and business growth today must be constantly monitored and calibrated, as a slight adjustment of one segment might skew another. To use an already mentioned example, a series of successful marketing campaigns might generate extraordinary amount of sales leads, which the organization, this time manages to convert in new projects, albeit scarce capacity of execution resources. If the capacity issue is not addressed, in the long run professionals will resist further marketing initiatives of fear of overload. I’ve witnessed a multitude of such vicious circles and how liner approach might bring a short term relief, but not long term solutions. As you see, employing such systems thinking is critical for firms.
The rest of the disciplines of learning organizations outlined in the book are easily discarded by most firms because they are considered soft and hard to measure, and often threaten the established order. Each of them however offers important supplement to the systems thinking principal and are critical for building learning organizations. Before dismissing them, I'd encourage professional services leaders to read on and consider application to their firms, especially the ones of mental models, which among other things, explains why change management exercises and introduction to new business growth systems and programs might fall short of success, and the team learning one, which gives a glimpse of what lays behind the limited success of professional development programs.
Mental Models are generalizations, assumptions, perceptions, patterns of reasoning that influence professionals’ behavior and actions. Mental models can impede and bring to halt important change management exercises. The real challenge is that mental models exist below professionals’ consciousness and as such remain unexamined, hence unchanged. Keeping mental models unchallenged is less risky and comfortable. The opportunity rests with the process of acknowledging and bringing up the current mental models to the surface, testing them and building new ones. For professional services firms that means promoting a culture that calls for collaborative challenging thinking, openness and merit, and skills of reflection and inquiry…a culture that eliminates the “this is how we’ve always got things done” mentality, and asks how well that’s worked in the past and promote “how else” considerations. To create such environment, organizations should discourage reactive and mechanical thinking, accept that there is more than one way to look at complex issues and that different cultures, backgrounds and experiences will influence how professionals see and interpret facts. They should aim to shift professionals’ thinking from winning arguments to finding the best solution and to build safe climate to where professionals feel comfortable to acknowledge reasoning flaws, lack of knowledge or proper factual support. This open-minded approach is especially important to business growth and the rate of success of adopting the processes and tactical tools to support it. Such thinking needs to be encouraged beyond a two day seminar; it needs to be built-in the regular management practices.
The process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results the team truly desire is defined as Team Learning. It introduces the need to think about complex issues and innovate, the role of other team members, and mastering the process of dialogue and discussion. It brings out the reasoning behind defensive behavior and shifting blame. “Systems thinking is especially prone to evoking defensiveness because its central message that our actions create our reality,” states Senge and again, I agree. Professional services firms are staffed with professionals with multiple advanced degrees, considered experts. They exhibit confidence and believe that they know everything or are expected to know everything, and to protect these beliefs they reject alternative solutions, remain rigid and obscure their ignorance. Such organizations often nurture a culture where to have incomplete or faulty understanding is a sign of weakness, or worse, incompetence. However, it is such defensiveness that is holding professionals back from testing the validity of their reasoning and openness to exploring new solutions for their clients or organizations. This behavior is in the core of “narcissistic behavior,” which as I’ve stated in the past, limits professional services firms’ growth. To break the mold, firms should consider developing a process that calls for reflection, inquiry and dialogue.
Personal Mastery encourages curiosity and continuous yearning to development. It provides the ultimate employee drive and satisfaction, and in turn, it offers organizations the employees’ continuous organizational contribution and commitment. Professional services firms are knowledge based ones, and continual education is not only encouraged, but required in the form of CLE, CPE, and other courses to retain professional accreditation. Yet, what I find interesting is their general disregard of professionals' personal development. Firms might consider offering alternatives to the traditional career development paths and allowing their professionals to self select what they deem might suit them best. This calls for HR services above and beyond currently employed by firms. Grow people – grow business - grow organizations.
The last principle, Shared Vision, provides a sense of coherence and answers what type of organizations professionals aspire to build. While considered “soft” and often disregarded, it provides focus and energy for learning. Visions are often imposed rather than inspired and aligned with professionals personal visions (hence the issue with compliance vs commitment). They die quickly due to the lack of clarity and communication, or due to shift of focus, driven by the demands of the current reality. They focus on today’s problems rather than tomorrow’s opportunities. If long term organizational growth and development is an objective, encourage building personal visions and weaving them into a common shared vision. LISTEN. Let professionals choose for themselves.
Pressured by economic forces and the evolving model of the professional services industry, firms’ leadership should consider innovative management frameworks. A systematic way of approaching professional services organizations is necessary for their survival, it is critical for their business growth, and inevitable as we live in environment moving towards sharing - open source, social networks, etc. To develop a long term sustainable business growth platforms, firms should learn to utilize such comprehensive approach. They should avoid the temptation to employ quick, short term solutions, addressing individual segments (strategy – systems – skills) of the business growth platform and think how specific changes will impact the entire platform and organization.
Special thanks to the author of “The Fifth Discipline: The Art And Practice Of The Learning Organization” for his extensive research, insight and clearly articulated management frameworks. I would encourage the leaders of professional service firms to pick up a copy of the book and think about applying the principles of the learning organization, beyond the points outlined above.
© 2010-2013 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
Showing posts with label collaboration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collaboration. Show all posts
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Sunday, February 14, 2016
SHARE | 2016 EDELMAN TRUST BAROMETER
Edelman has done it again...
The 2016 report is chalk full of valuable insights, as always, especially when it comes to selecting the most trusted spokesmen and communication channels to deliver key messages, and earn the trust of clients, shareholders and employees.
CLICK HERE for details
The 2016 report is chalk full of valuable insights, as always, especially when it comes to selecting the most trusted spokesmen and communication channels to deliver key messages, and earn the trust of clients, shareholders and employees.
CLICK HERE for details
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
COLLABORATE TO INCREASE BUSINESS GROWTH: PART III
Practical tips for unlocking the potential of collaboration
In Part I of the series on collaboration I made the argument that professional services organizations should strive to encourage collaboration, because it leads to business growth. In Part II, I discussed the major obstacles to collaboration, and hinted on how to overcome them. In this last segment, I will take a prescriptive approach, and outline specific measures to unlocking the potential of collaboration. As in the past, I’ll also refer to the Harvard Business Review (HBR) article and study, titled “When senior managers won’t collaborate”, and some of my past writing on the subject.
A collaborative culture must originate with the leadership team. Leaders should consider and explore a firm development strategy with collaboration as a core attribute, or even as a sustainable competitive advantage. Take an all-encompassing approach: from recruiting and retaining talent, to growing the firm and boasting team performance. Demonstrate and communicate the importance of collaborating and growing the organization and the danger of not doing so to the business; become vocal in celebrating client development accomplishments and equally so to learn from failures; and nurture an environment where experimenting with innovative ideas is welcomed.
Leaders should define an organizational structure and compensation models that foster sharing and cooperation, again spreading throughout the firm: back office operations, technical and client facing practitioners. Employ tools and systems that encourage communication, knowledge sharing and transparency, which are some of the key components of collaboration. Establish functions and recruit / develop professionals who not only understand the value of collaboration, but have the necessary skills to build and cultivate collaborative culture. Focus on the system not the individual superstar performance. Set firm-based, common goals, which benefit the firm as a whole rather than the individual performer. For the greater good.
Leadership must adopt a “systems thinking” way to managing professional services organizations. To do so, approach problems by identifying the source of the issues: what’s the core, not the symptom. Employ all disciplines of the systems thinking theory (refer to my past article, "Systematic approach to business growth"), especially the ones of “mental models”, which among other things, explains why change management exercises and introduction to new business growth systems and programs might fail; and the “team learning” one, which casts light on what's behind the “narcissistic behavior” of professional services organizations, ultimately holding back collaboration and limiting business growth.
To my delight, the HBR survey offers professional services organizations tips similar to my prescriptions. It encourages leaders to walk the talk and show first hand by collaborating with others. Create opportunities for the team to connect and build trust. Resist the temptation to bring in rainmakers, but look for individuals with demonstrated collaborative experience. Celebrate team wins. Re-consider the compensation scheme of the firm and question how much weigh is attributed to collaboration, if any. I’ve seen some of this already take place in a few progressive organizations, where collaboration has become a factor in the compensation formula. Build a collaborative culture by tracking and rewarding non-billable collaborative initiatives such as mentoring. Enhance the knowledge sharing culture. Encourage regular workshops and secondment programs, and utilize communication technology and tools to share best practices. Develop teams to lead the way. Build collaboration in the firms’ development strategies.
The HBR survey takes a segmented approach, and in addition to the above-mentioned recommendations geared towards organizations and their leaders, it also speaks directly to individual practitioners. It recommends to professionals to be persistent. Select to collaborate with a firm influencer / rainmaker. Be fair to teammates. Communicate often and openly, and deliver on promises.
Organizational development research, as also confirmed by the HBR study, shows that organizations which build and nurture a collaborative environment manage to turn knowledge into action, share best practices and drive growth at a sustainable and fast pace. So, when examining what’s inhibiting organizational development and growth, reflect on the factors outlined above and most importantly, take immediate actions to close the know-do gaps and create collaborative culture.
For a copy of the HBR article visit: https://hbr.org/2015/03/when-senior-managers-wont-collaborate?utm_content=buffer98a13&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
In Part I of the series on collaboration I made the argument that professional services organizations should strive to encourage collaboration, because it leads to business growth. In Part II, I discussed the major obstacles to collaboration, and hinted on how to overcome them. In this last segment, I will take a prescriptive approach, and outline specific measures to unlocking the potential of collaboration. As in the past, I’ll also refer to the Harvard Business Review (HBR) article and study, titled “When senior managers won’t collaborate”, and some of my past writing on the subject.
A collaborative culture must originate with the leadership team. Leaders should consider and explore a firm development strategy with collaboration as a core attribute, or even as a sustainable competitive advantage. Take an all-encompassing approach: from recruiting and retaining talent, to growing the firm and boasting team performance. Demonstrate and communicate the importance of collaborating and growing the organization and the danger of not doing so to the business; become vocal in celebrating client development accomplishments and equally so to learn from failures; and nurture an environment where experimenting with innovative ideas is welcomed.
Leaders should define an organizational structure and compensation models that foster sharing and cooperation, again spreading throughout the firm: back office operations, technical and client facing practitioners. Employ tools and systems that encourage communication, knowledge sharing and transparency, which are some of the key components of collaboration. Establish functions and recruit / develop professionals who not only understand the value of collaboration, but have the necessary skills to build and cultivate collaborative culture. Focus on the system not the individual superstar performance. Set firm-based, common goals, which benefit the firm as a whole rather than the individual performer. For the greater good.
Leadership must adopt a “systems thinking” way to managing professional services organizations. To do so, approach problems by identifying the source of the issues: what’s the core, not the symptom. Employ all disciplines of the systems thinking theory (refer to my past article, "Systematic approach to business growth"), especially the ones of “mental models”, which among other things, explains why change management exercises and introduction to new business growth systems and programs might fail; and the “team learning” one, which casts light on what's behind the “narcissistic behavior” of professional services organizations, ultimately holding back collaboration and limiting business growth.
To my delight, the HBR survey offers professional services organizations tips similar to my prescriptions. It encourages leaders to walk the talk and show first hand by collaborating with others. Create opportunities for the team to connect and build trust. Resist the temptation to bring in rainmakers, but look for individuals with demonstrated collaborative experience. Celebrate team wins. Re-consider the compensation scheme of the firm and question how much weigh is attributed to collaboration, if any. I’ve seen some of this already take place in a few progressive organizations, where collaboration has become a factor in the compensation formula. Build a collaborative culture by tracking and rewarding non-billable collaborative initiatives such as mentoring. Enhance the knowledge sharing culture. Encourage regular workshops and secondment programs, and utilize communication technology and tools to share best practices. Develop teams to lead the way. Build collaboration in the firms’ development strategies.
The HBR survey takes a segmented approach, and in addition to the above-mentioned recommendations geared towards organizations and their leaders, it also speaks directly to individual practitioners. It recommends to professionals to be persistent. Select to collaborate with a firm influencer / rainmaker. Be fair to teammates. Communicate often and openly, and deliver on promises.
Organizational development research, as also confirmed by the HBR study, shows that organizations which build and nurture a collaborative environment manage to turn knowledge into action, share best practices and drive growth at a sustainable and fast pace. So, when examining what’s inhibiting organizational development and growth, reflect on the factors outlined above and most importantly, take immediate actions to close the know-do gaps and create collaborative culture.
For a copy of the HBR article visit: https://hbr.org/2015/03/when-senior-managers-wont-collaborate?utm_content=buffer98a13&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Monday, April 13, 2015
COLLABORATE TO INCREASE BUSINESS GROWTH: PART II
Why is it so difficult for collaboration to work?
Last month I launched a three-part article on the subject of collaboration. The piece is based on my past and current research and observations, and follows a recently released Harvard Business Review (HBR) study. In Part I, I and the author of the HBR article, made the case for collaboration in professional services firms and the direct correlation to business growth. In this segment, I will focus on the challenges of making collaboration work.
The study and I are in agreement: the key factors preventing professional organizations from taking full advantage of collaboration are organizational structure, compensation model and culture.
While in several of my articles I discuss narcissistic or hyped self-preservation behavior and the lack of common strategic goals and systems in professional services firms as the main roadblocks to building a healthy collaborative environment, the compensation models and culture are just as critical for that. I’ve especially emphasized on those in my piece based on the collapse on Dewey & LaBouef. The Dewey & LaBouef case clearly demonstrates that a compensation model, mainly incentivizing rainmaking can encourage wrong behaviors and be counterproductive. Similarly, a culture allowing for a digression from the clearly defined traditional firms’ values of loyalty and collegiality, often has a hefty price.
The HBR survey notes that organizational structure, compensation systems and culture in professional services firms favor individualistic approach. Most firms still value rainmakers higher. From professionals’ standpoint that’s not a bad thing, as professionals’ security is tied to their client relationships. External recognition from professional organization rankings further influences professionals and pushes them to focus on individual performance. The last notable obstacle to collaboration, according to the survey is the lack of collaboration skills. I concur. The skills in reference here are such that go beyond the usual delegation of work to junior professionals; these skills support an advisory approach to client management of asking questions, which benefit the client, and having client conversations that reach outside of the comfortable technical points and are actual business dialogues. These collaborative skills encourage giving and receiving team member feedback, allowing both jr. and sr. level professionals to contribute and learn from one another. These are the skills that most professional service providers are not equipped with…
So, what can you do about it?
After a careful study of the characters, the various circumstances and the storyline of the events, leading to the bankruptcy of Dewey & LaBoeuf, in The New Yorker piece, “The Collapse”, James B. Stewart concludes that “cooperation and mutual respect” is at the heart of successful professional services firms. That’s the culture that successful firms foster and Dewey & LaBoeuf blatantly ignored, according to Stewart. In some of my other articles I refer to that as collaboration and encourage organizations to reward it, because it provides for learning, best practice sharing, better solutions design and a team client approach…for the greater good.
Stay tuned for the last segment of this series, which will take a prescriptive approach and will outline tangible points to inspire collaboration(CLICK HERE).
For a copy of the HBR article visit: https://hbr.org/2015/03/when-senior-managers-wont-collaborate?utm_content=buffer98a13&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Last month I launched a three-part article on the subject of collaboration. The piece is based on my past and current research and observations, and follows a recently released Harvard Business Review (HBR) study. In Part I, I and the author of the HBR article, made the case for collaboration in professional services firms and the direct correlation to business growth. In this segment, I will focus on the challenges of making collaboration work.
The study and I are in agreement: the key factors preventing professional organizations from taking full advantage of collaboration are organizational structure, compensation model and culture.
While in several of my articles I discuss narcissistic or hyped self-preservation behavior and the lack of common strategic goals and systems in professional services firms as the main roadblocks to building a healthy collaborative environment, the compensation models and culture are just as critical for that. I’ve especially emphasized on those in my piece based on the collapse on Dewey & LaBouef. The Dewey & LaBouef case clearly demonstrates that a compensation model, mainly incentivizing rainmaking can encourage wrong behaviors and be counterproductive. Similarly, a culture allowing for a digression from the clearly defined traditional firms’ values of loyalty and collegiality, often has a hefty price.
The HBR survey notes that organizational structure, compensation systems and culture in professional services firms favor individualistic approach. Most firms still value rainmakers higher. From professionals’ standpoint that’s not a bad thing, as professionals’ security is tied to their client relationships. External recognition from professional organization rankings further influences professionals and pushes them to focus on individual performance. The last notable obstacle to collaboration, according to the survey is the lack of collaboration skills. I concur. The skills in reference here are such that go beyond the usual delegation of work to junior professionals; these skills support an advisory approach to client management of asking questions, which benefit the client, and having client conversations that reach outside of the comfortable technical points and are actual business dialogues. These collaborative skills encourage giving and receiving team member feedback, allowing both jr. and sr. level professionals to contribute and learn from one another. These are the skills that most professional service providers are not equipped with…
So, what can you do about it?
After a careful study of the characters, the various circumstances and the storyline of the events, leading to the bankruptcy of Dewey & LaBoeuf, in The New Yorker piece, “The Collapse”, James B. Stewart concludes that “cooperation and mutual respect” is at the heart of successful professional services firms. That’s the culture that successful firms foster and Dewey & LaBoeuf blatantly ignored, according to Stewart. In some of my other articles I refer to that as collaboration and encourage organizations to reward it, because it provides for learning, best practice sharing, better solutions design and a team client approach…for the greater good.
Stay tuned for the last segment of this series, which will take a prescriptive approach and will outline tangible points to inspire collaboration(CLICK HERE).
For a copy of the HBR article visit: https://hbr.org/2015/03/when-senior-managers-wont-collaborate?utm_content=buffer98a13&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
COLLABORATE TO INCREASE BUSINESS GROWTH: PART I
HBR study confirms that collaboration in professional services firms leads to financial rewards
Nearly 3 years ago I launched a series of articles on the subject of collaboration among professionals from professional services firms (law, accounting, tax, consulting, etc.). I wrote about the importance of collaboration to firms’ organizational development and business growth, the reasons behind the visible resistance to it, and how to overcome such resistance and take full advantage of collaboration. Even though some of my blog entries might be considered polarizing, the theme of collaboration has repeatedly appeared in many of my articles. I am glad to see the findings and statistics of a recently released HBR study on collaboration validate my hypothesis and emphasize the importance of collaboration to professional services firms.
As a result of examining collaborative behavior of professional services firms over the past couple of years, Professor Gardner (a lecturer at the Harvard Law School) recently released her findings in an HBR article, titled “When senior managers won’t collaborate.” The key sentiment of it is in line with much of my beliefs: when professionals work together to collaborate everybody wins!
Why collaborate? In my “One for all, all for one" article of December 2012, I spelled out the benefits of collaboration. Collaboration encourages learning and development (critical for knowledge-based organizations such as PSFs), turns knowledge into action (which closes “knowing-doing” gaps), and increases the opportunities to grow business and succeed in the market place. Collaboration in PSFs provides confidence to existing clients that the firm will provide the necessary resources to support them and provide fresh ideas and solutions; for new clients, collaboration means a stronger and deeper team and higher chances for both the client and the advisor to identify someone to connect with and build trust which builds stronger, better relationships between clients and advisors…after all, people like to work with people who they like and trust. When it comes to client development, collaboration alleviates the burdensome stigma of sales. Working as a part of a team makes that experience less onerous, and promotes best practices sharing, while keeping everyone accountable.
Equipped with statistics and historical financial data, the HBR study backs up my words and demonstrates direct financial benefits of collaboration to the firm. When professionals collaborate, it results in the involvement of more practice areas, creates higher margin work, and institutionalizes client relationships. Thus, it becomes harder to replace an entire team of advisors and it becomes equally difficult for a departing partner to walk away with a client.
The HBR study goes on to outline the benefits to professionals as well. When team members get to know one another they become more likely to refer work among themselves. I often tell my clients: you have to work as hard to develop relationships with your internal partners as with external referral sources; they need to know you and trust you before they put their reputation on the line for you. The study has made an interesting observation here: collaborative professionals benefit from a steady stream of business even during slow periods due to their diversified skills, which further allows professionals to work on a variety of projects, and continue to collaborate. Collaboration creates a very beneficial feedback loop.
If the benefits are so overwhelmingly clear, why is it so difficult for collaboration to work in professional services firms? Stay tuned for my next article on the subject, which will examine the roadblocks to building and managing collaborative environment (CLICK HERE).
For a copy of the HBR article, click HERE.
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Nearly 3 years ago I launched a series of articles on the subject of collaboration among professionals from professional services firms (law, accounting, tax, consulting, etc.). I wrote about the importance of collaboration to firms’ organizational development and business growth, the reasons behind the visible resistance to it, and how to overcome such resistance and take full advantage of collaboration. Even though some of my blog entries might be considered polarizing, the theme of collaboration has repeatedly appeared in many of my articles. I am glad to see the findings and statistics of a recently released HBR study on collaboration validate my hypothesis and emphasize the importance of collaboration to professional services firms.
As a result of examining collaborative behavior of professional services firms over the past couple of years, Professor Gardner (a lecturer at the Harvard Law School) recently released her findings in an HBR article, titled “When senior managers won’t collaborate.” The key sentiment of it is in line with much of my beliefs: when professionals work together to collaborate everybody wins!
Why collaborate? In my “One for all, all for one" article of December 2012, I spelled out the benefits of collaboration. Collaboration encourages learning and development (critical for knowledge-based organizations such as PSFs), turns knowledge into action (which closes “knowing-doing” gaps), and increases the opportunities to grow business and succeed in the market place. Collaboration in PSFs provides confidence to existing clients that the firm will provide the necessary resources to support them and provide fresh ideas and solutions; for new clients, collaboration means a stronger and deeper team and higher chances for both the client and the advisor to identify someone to connect with and build trust which builds stronger, better relationships between clients and advisors…after all, people like to work with people who they like and trust. When it comes to client development, collaboration alleviates the burdensome stigma of sales. Working as a part of a team makes that experience less onerous, and promotes best practices sharing, while keeping everyone accountable.
Equipped with statistics and historical financial data, the HBR study backs up my words and demonstrates direct financial benefits of collaboration to the firm. When professionals collaborate, it results in the involvement of more practice areas, creates higher margin work, and institutionalizes client relationships. Thus, it becomes harder to replace an entire team of advisors and it becomes equally difficult for a departing partner to walk away with a client.
The HBR study goes on to outline the benefits to professionals as well. When team members get to know one another they become more likely to refer work among themselves. I often tell my clients: you have to work as hard to develop relationships with your internal partners as with external referral sources; they need to know you and trust you before they put their reputation on the line for you. The study has made an interesting observation here: collaborative professionals benefit from a steady stream of business even during slow periods due to their diversified skills, which further allows professionals to work on a variety of projects, and continue to collaborate. Collaboration creates a very beneficial feedback loop.
If the benefits are so overwhelmingly clear, why is it so difficult for collaboration to work in professional services firms? Stay tuned for my next article on the subject, which will examine the roadblocks to building and managing collaborative environment (CLICK HERE).
For a copy of the HBR article, click HERE.
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THE COLLAPSE OF DEWEY & LABOEUF
An organization development case study for professional services firms
A year and a half ago I posted my piece “For the greater good or eat what you kill”, which used the much talked about collapse of Dewey & LaBoeuf to explore hypothesis behind the destruction of intelligent professional services firms, and make recommendations to avoid such a fate. It is that same unfortunate story of Dewey & LaBoeuf, told by James B. Stewart for the October 14th 2013 edition of The New Yorker that inspires me now again to share my thoughts and re-emphasize on the key organizational development factors for professional services firms.
It is a story worthy of an Oscar® nominated movie script. There are mafia connections, luxury lifestyle, disturbing emails, and backstabbing, peppered with greed and egoism. I am not talking about Tom Cruise’s movie “The Firm”. I am referring to Stewart’s recent article for The New Yorker titled “The Collapse” . For juicy details I urge you to look up the article; for the purpose of this blog I’ll focus on the key takeaways.
After a careful study of the characters, the various circumstances and the storyline of the events, leading to the bankruptcy of Dewey & LaBoeuf, James B. Stewart concludes that “cooperation and mutual respect” is at the heart of successful professional services firms. I wholeheartedly agree with the author as I mentioned in my original piece.
Building up to that conclusion and referring to industry benchmarks, Stewart talks about a number of factors that influenced, or one might say accelerated, the faith of Dewey & LaBoeuf: size & structure, compensation model, and culture. While industry and economic trends might have guided many firms like Dewey & LaBoeuf to look for alternative growth models and structures, the “vereins” have yet to be proved successful, at least in the legal industry. Vereins, defined by Stewart is “a constellation of separate legal entities doing business under a single brand.” I see how the author reaches that conclusion however, I am not fully convinced. Looking across industries to the advisory world of the BIG 4, their model, in terms of size and structure, doesn’t seem much different than the one pursued by Dewey & LaBoeuf. They, however, have seem to have managed to make it, although they have suffered a decrease in their numbers today. Therefore, while size and structure matter, I’d advocate that the compensation model and culture are the heavily weighted levers that make the ultimate difference, and the ones that lead to demise in Dewey & LaBoeuf’s case.
As seen in Stewart’s article, a compensation model, mainly incentivizing rainmaking can encourage wrong behaviors and be counterproductive. Similarly, a culture allowing for a digression from the clearly defined traditional firms’ values of “loyalty and collegiality,” often has a hefty price. Interestingly, this is where Stewart’s statements support my hypothesis of the grave and destructive effect for firms, using compensation models feeding the “eat what you kill” mentality and encouraging narcissistic behavior, as outlined in “For the greater good or eat what you kill”. This piece and blog is not about being right, but about identifying problems and applying lessons learned to solve them. And so, if compensation models that heavily weight rainmaking and narcissistic firm cultures are directly correlated to the failure of Dewey & LaBoeuf, and potentially other professional services, then what’s the solution?!
It all comes down to “cooperation and mutual respect”. That’s the culture that successful firms foster and Dewey & LaBoeuf blatantly ignored, according to Stewart. In my past articles I refer to that as collaboration and encourage organizations to reward it, because it provides for learning, best practice sharing, better solutions design and a team client approach…for the greater good. Taking a prescriptive approach to collaboration, similarly to the one in my “One for all: all for one” article, here are a few tangible points to consider when looking to inspire collaboration:
• Explore a firm development strategy with collaboration as a core attribute, or even as a sustainable competitive advantage. Take an all-encompassing approach: from recruiting and retaining talent, to growing the firm and boasting team performance.
• Define an organizational structure that fosters sharing and cooperation, spread throughout the firm: from basic operations to compensation models, as well as support and client facing practitioners.
• Employ tools and systems that encourage communication, knowledge sharing and transparency, which are some of the key components of collaboration.
• Establish functions and recruit / develop professionals who not only understand the value of collaboration, but have the necessary skills to build and cultivate collaborative culture.
© 2010-2013 Copyright Mira Ilieva-Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
A year and a half ago I posted my piece “For the greater good or eat what you kill”, which used the much talked about collapse of Dewey & LaBoeuf to explore hypothesis behind the destruction of intelligent professional services firms, and make recommendations to avoid such a fate. It is that same unfortunate story of Dewey & LaBoeuf, told by James B. Stewart for the October 14th 2013 edition of The New Yorker that inspires me now again to share my thoughts and re-emphasize on the key organizational development factors for professional services firms.
It is a story worthy of an Oscar® nominated movie script. There are mafia connections, luxury lifestyle, disturbing emails, and backstabbing, peppered with greed and egoism. I am not talking about Tom Cruise’s movie “The Firm”. I am referring to Stewart’s recent article for The New Yorker titled “The Collapse” . For juicy details I urge you to look up the article; for the purpose of this blog I’ll focus on the key takeaways.
After a careful study of the characters, the various circumstances and the storyline of the events, leading to the bankruptcy of Dewey & LaBoeuf, James B. Stewart concludes that “cooperation and mutual respect” is at the heart of successful professional services firms. I wholeheartedly agree with the author as I mentioned in my original piece.
Building up to that conclusion and referring to industry benchmarks, Stewart talks about a number of factors that influenced, or one might say accelerated, the faith of Dewey & LaBoeuf: size & structure, compensation model, and culture. While industry and economic trends might have guided many firms like Dewey & LaBoeuf to look for alternative growth models and structures, the “vereins” have yet to be proved successful, at least in the legal industry. Vereins, defined by Stewart is “a constellation of separate legal entities doing business under a single brand.” I see how the author reaches that conclusion however, I am not fully convinced. Looking across industries to the advisory world of the BIG 4, their model, in terms of size and structure, doesn’t seem much different than the one pursued by Dewey & LaBoeuf. They, however, have seem to have managed to make it, although they have suffered a decrease in their numbers today. Therefore, while size and structure matter, I’d advocate that the compensation model and culture are the heavily weighted levers that make the ultimate difference, and the ones that lead to demise in Dewey & LaBoeuf’s case.
As seen in Stewart’s article, a compensation model, mainly incentivizing rainmaking can encourage wrong behaviors and be counterproductive. Similarly, a culture allowing for a digression from the clearly defined traditional firms’ values of “loyalty and collegiality,” often has a hefty price. Interestingly, this is where Stewart’s statements support my hypothesis of the grave and destructive effect for firms, using compensation models feeding the “eat what you kill” mentality and encouraging narcissistic behavior, as outlined in “For the greater good or eat what you kill”. This piece and blog is not about being right, but about identifying problems and applying lessons learned to solve them. And so, if compensation models that heavily weight rainmaking and narcissistic firm cultures are directly correlated to the failure of Dewey & LaBoeuf, and potentially other professional services, then what’s the solution?!
It all comes down to “cooperation and mutual respect”. That’s the culture that successful firms foster and Dewey & LaBoeuf blatantly ignored, according to Stewart. In my past articles I refer to that as collaboration and encourage organizations to reward it, because it provides for learning, best practice sharing, better solutions design and a team client approach…for the greater good. Taking a prescriptive approach to collaboration, similarly to the one in my “One for all: all for one” article, here are a few tangible points to consider when looking to inspire collaboration:
• Explore a firm development strategy with collaboration as a core attribute, or even as a sustainable competitive advantage. Take an all-encompassing approach: from recruiting and retaining talent, to growing the firm and boasting team performance.
• Define an organizational structure that fosters sharing and cooperation, spread throughout the firm: from basic operations to compensation models, as well as support and client facing practitioners.
• Employ tools and systems that encourage communication, knowledge sharing and transparency, which are some of the key components of collaboration.
• Establish functions and recruit / develop professionals who not only understand the value of collaboration, but have the necessary skills to build and cultivate collaborative culture.
© 2010-2013 Copyright Mira Ilieva-Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
Thursday, December 20, 2012
ONE FOR ALL: ALL FOR ONE
Collaboration: a key ingredient for successful development of professional services organizations?
Earlier in the year, after writing an article about narcissistic behavior in professional services firms (PSF’s), “For the Greater Good or Eat What You Kill”, I promised a piece on the importance of collaboration and the impact it has on the overall development of PSF’s. The subject has been on my mind ever since. Recently though, I experienced a few events which have reinforced my strong belief in the idea. One of them is a meeting with the managing partner of a mid-sized PSF who, much to my pleasant surprise, not only understood the value of collaboration, but was also able to demonstrate the direct and impressive business progress as a result of it. You see, most of the PSF’s I’ve worked with employ the “eat what you kill” mentality. If you’ve read my previous pieces you’d know I believe this mentality has mostly counterproductive effects on the development of PSF’s. My conversation with that managing partner was one of the most positive experiences I’ve had in a while. I can’t help but ask myself what’s different about that firm, its culture and its leadership team that allows them to embrace collaboration and sets them apart from the rest and, in my opinion, makes them “progressive.” That, however, is a different question I’ll leave for another time and perhaps an interview with that managing partner.
Before I move on to the other event that pushed me to write this piece, let me take time to articulate the importance of building a collaborative environment in PSF’s. It encourages learning and development, critical for knowledge-based organizations such as PSF’s, turns knowledge into action, which closes “knowing-doing” gaps, and increases the chances to grow business and succeed in the market place. To elaborate on the latter, PSF’s collaboration provides confidence to existing clients that the firm will provide the necessary resources to support them along with richer ideas and solutions; for new clients, collaboration means a stronger and deeper team and higher chances for both the client and the advisor to identify someone to connect with and build trust, and this builds stronger, better relationships between clients and advisors…after all, people like to work with people who they like and trust. When it comes to client development, collaboration helps alleviate the burdensome stigma of sales. Working as a part of a team makes that experience less onerous, and promotes best practice sharing, while keeping everyone accountable. Those are all significant factors for successful and sustainable business growth.
The merits of collaboration within PSF’s are countless. The real question is how to build and nurture such collaborative spirit. I discovered an answer that supports my hypothesis in the most unusual place. I recently stumbled upon an article in the Scientific American, from July 2012, titled “Why we help,” and this article provided the final push I needed to write this piece. The author, Martin Nowak, a professor of biology and mathematics at Harvard University, argues that contrary to what the majority of us might think of evolution and the “dog-eat-dog” concept of survival as its underpinning, cooperation is the driving force for evolution. Using the game theory paradox called the “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” the scientist runs a number of simulations to identify five mechanisms for the evolution of cooperators: direct reciprocity (the “tit for tat” concept), special selection (neighbors or friends in social network tend to help each other and develop a snowball effect), kin selection (think “The Godfather”), indirect reciprocity (based on reputation and “pay it forward” principle) and lastly, group selection (for the greater good). Nowak draws on a number of examples from the animal kingdom and makes a surprising conclusion that humankind is the most cooperative species, mainly driven by the principle of indirect reciprocity, or reputation and the ability to tout achievements. So, would that mean a bit of narcissistic thinking, boasting and peer pressure is not only healthy, but necessary for evolution and collaboration? Yes and no. The professor employs game theory again, this time a series of games called “Public Goods Games” designed for multiple players, to demonstrate that when in a group environment, even when starting with good intentions, collaboration often fails. Individuals will often act in a manner where self-benefit, rather than group benefit, becomes the individual’s preferred option, ultimately resulting in a loss for everyone. With further experiments, and to save my faith in the goodness of humanity, the author offers a solution to fostering collaboration: people need to be convinced that there’s a real problem threatening them in order to adopt “for the greater good” behavior and also be publicly praised and pressured in line with the reputation principle. One could see this sort of framework helping in many different kinds of situations – from officials trying to solve the European debt crisis or U.S. fiscal cliff negotiations, to any kind of business organization including PSF’s.
In my previous writing I suggested making the system / organization the star to build and foster collaborative environments instead of promoting and rewarding individual performance. Applying the principles articulated in Nowak’s work, I can now expand and prescribe that PSF’s constantly must demonstrate and communicate the importance of growing the organization and the danger of not doing so to the business; become vocal in celebrating client development accomplishments and equally so to learn from failures; and nurture an environment where experimenting with innovative ideas is welcomed.
© 2010-2013 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
Earlier in the year, after writing an article about narcissistic behavior in professional services firms (PSF’s), “For the Greater Good or Eat What You Kill”, I promised a piece on the importance of collaboration and the impact it has on the overall development of PSF’s. The subject has been on my mind ever since. Recently though, I experienced a few events which have reinforced my strong belief in the idea. One of them is a meeting with the managing partner of a mid-sized PSF who, much to my pleasant surprise, not only understood the value of collaboration, but was also able to demonstrate the direct and impressive business progress as a result of it. You see, most of the PSF’s I’ve worked with employ the “eat what you kill” mentality. If you’ve read my previous pieces you’d know I believe this mentality has mostly counterproductive effects on the development of PSF’s. My conversation with that managing partner was one of the most positive experiences I’ve had in a while. I can’t help but ask myself what’s different about that firm, its culture and its leadership team that allows them to embrace collaboration and sets them apart from the rest and, in my opinion, makes them “progressive.” That, however, is a different question I’ll leave for another time and perhaps an interview with that managing partner.
Before I move on to the other event that pushed me to write this piece, let me take time to articulate the importance of building a collaborative environment in PSF’s. It encourages learning and development, critical for knowledge-based organizations such as PSF’s, turns knowledge into action, which closes “knowing-doing” gaps, and increases the chances to grow business and succeed in the market place. To elaborate on the latter, PSF’s collaboration provides confidence to existing clients that the firm will provide the necessary resources to support them along with richer ideas and solutions; for new clients, collaboration means a stronger and deeper team and higher chances for both the client and the advisor to identify someone to connect with and build trust, and this builds stronger, better relationships between clients and advisors…after all, people like to work with people who they like and trust. When it comes to client development, collaboration helps alleviate the burdensome stigma of sales. Working as a part of a team makes that experience less onerous, and promotes best practice sharing, while keeping everyone accountable. Those are all significant factors for successful and sustainable business growth.
The merits of collaboration within PSF’s are countless. The real question is how to build and nurture such collaborative spirit. I discovered an answer that supports my hypothesis in the most unusual place. I recently stumbled upon an article in the Scientific American, from July 2012, titled “Why we help,” and this article provided the final push I needed to write this piece. The author, Martin Nowak, a professor of biology and mathematics at Harvard University, argues that contrary to what the majority of us might think of evolution and the “dog-eat-dog” concept of survival as its underpinning, cooperation is the driving force for evolution. Using the game theory paradox called the “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” the scientist runs a number of simulations to identify five mechanisms for the evolution of cooperators: direct reciprocity (the “tit for tat” concept), special selection (neighbors or friends in social network tend to help each other and develop a snowball effect), kin selection (think “The Godfather”), indirect reciprocity (based on reputation and “pay it forward” principle) and lastly, group selection (for the greater good). Nowak draws on a number of examples from the animal kingdom and makes a surprising conclusion that humankind is the most cooperative species, mainly driven by the principle of indirect reciprocity, or reputation and the ability to tout achievements. So, would that mean a bit of narcissistic thinking, boasting and peer pressure is not only healthy, but necessary for evolution and collaboration? Yes and no. The professor employs game theory again, this time a series of games called “Public Goods Games” designed for multiple players, to demonstrate that when in a group environment, even when starting with good intentions, collaboration often fails. Individuals will often act in a manner where self-benefit, rather than group benefit, becomes the individual’s preferred option, ultimately resulting in a loss for everyone. With further experiments, and to save my faith in the goodness of humanity, the author offers a solution to fostering collaboration: people need to be convinced that there’s a real problem threatening them in order to adopt “for the greater good” behavior and also be publicly praised and pressured in line with the reputation principle. One could see this sort of framework helping in many different kinds of situations – from officials trying to solve the European debt crisis or U.S. fiscal cliff negotiations, to any kind of business organization including PSF’s.
In my previous writing I suggested making the system / organization the star to build and foster collaborative environments instead of promoting and rewarding individual performance. Applying the principles articulated in Nowak’s work, I can now expand and prescribe that PSF’s constantly must demonstrate and communicate the importance of growing the organization and the danger of not doing so to the business; become vocal in celebrating client development accomplishments and equally so to learn from failures; and nurture an environment where experimenting with innovative ideas is welcomed.
© 2010-2013 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
Monday, December 10, 2012
Got Growth: how to position your organization for strategic growth and business model renewal?
A PaperJam Business Club Workshop | January 15th, 2013 | Luxembourg
Per request, please find the framework of the workshop presentation.
Like most organizations today, you are probably experiencing increased pressure from your clients, demanding high service at lower prices. That, coupled with the global downfall and near future economic uncertainty, incrementally impacts your organization’s profit margins. In addition to these factors, requiring immediate attention, your organization also faces a more fundamental problem: the need for radical business model renewal driven by the changing regulatory environment and the diminishing value of the “Lux Factor”.
So, how do you go about turning these challenges into opportunities? Join the session and learn how to focus and become strategic and efficient in growing your organization’s business, re-energize and enhance your executive team, and prepare to transform your business into less dependent on the “Lux factor”.
During this workshop you and your fellow peer executives will receive a process for developing and executing your growth strategy, frameworks to find and seize growth opportunities for new markets, prospects and business models, an overview of the necessary internal organization and capabilities to support your growth strategy, a checklist for evaluating your organization’s existing growth strategy and related capabilities and a ”no frills attached” ½ day follow-up growth readiness assessment.
For additional details and to join me and my colleague +Marc Sniukas (Doujak Corporate Development), visit: PaperJam Business Club
© 2010-2013 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
Per request, please find the framework of the workshop presentation.
Got Growth: How to position your organization for Strategic Growth and Business Model Renewal? from Mira Ilieva Leonard
Like most organizations today, you are probably experiencing increased pressure from your clients, demanding high service at lower prices. That, coupled with the global downfall and near future economic uncertainty, incrementally impacts your organization’s profit margins. In addition to these factors, requiring immediate attention, your organization also faces a more fundamental problem: the need for radical business model renewal driven by the changing regulatory environment and the diminishing value of the “Lux Factor”.
So, how do you go about turning these challenges into opportunities? Join the session and learn how to focus and become strategic and efficient in growing your organization’s business, re-energize and enhance your executive team, and prepare to transform your business into less dependent on the “Lux factor”.
During this workshop you and your fellow peer executives will receive a process for developing and executing your growth strategy, frameworks to find and seize growth opportunities for new markets, prospects and business models, an overview of the necessary internal organization and capabilities to support your growth strategy, a checklist for evaluating your organization’s existing growth strategy and related capabilities and a ”no frills attached” ½ day follow-up growth readiness assessment.
For additional details and to join me and my colleague +Marc Sniukas (Doujak Corporate Development), visit: PaperJam Business Club
© 2010-2013 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
Monday, May 28, 2012
For the greater good or eat what you kill?
My reflection on what's influencing human behavior in professional services firms...
I love professional services organizations. I’ve dedicated my professional career to working IN or ON professional services organizations. They employ highly educated and accomplished professionals: some of the brightest people I’ve ever encountered, whom I look up to and learn from… that’s the reason I am fascinated by them.
The recent collapse of Dewey & LeBoeuf brought up a question I’ve been struggling throughout the years: why is it that smart organizations fail or can’t seem to advance beyond a certain point or at a faster pace?
Timing is an interesting thing. I was rereading some of Malcolm Gladwell’s articles for the New Yorker magazine, when I ran into the “Talent Myth,” which contains his observations on talent and organizations. I need to open a bracket here and thank Gladwell for his brilliant research and writing. I can only aspire one day to be half as articulate and elegant in presenting my thoughts as he is. In his piece, Gladwell talks about “narcissistic organization” and among many other sources draws upon an essay, written by Robert Hogan, Robert Raskin, and Dan Fazzini called "The Dark Side of Charisma.” Both the essay and Gladwell’s article talk about three types of managers, whom on the surface seem like the perfect leaders but when studied closer represent real danger to organizations. The authors refer to them as the “High Likability Floater”, the “Homme de Ressentiment” and the “Narcissist.” The latter one grabbed my attention. The authors define narcissists as ones who “resist accepting suggestions, thinking it will make them appear weak, and they don't believe that others have anything useful to tell them.” “Narcissists are biased to take more credit for success than is legitimate and are biased to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their failures and shortcomings for the same reasons that they claim more success than is their due." If organizations and management profiling is of interest, I’d highly recommend that you look up the sources of my inspiration and read more.
Is this narcissistic behavior self-confidence gone bad? After all, confidence is expected from professional service provides, who are hired for their breath and depth of expertise and experience and a level of certitude to comfort clients is natural. I am afraid it’s much more, as narcissistic managers are not only limiting themselves and ignoring new ideas and better ways of doing business, but also fuel negative performance across the firm, especially with the impressionable next generation of leaders and encourages more of the same…a vicious circle. In business development terms, as that's my domain, narcissist managers are the ones who go to market alone, have it all figured out, don’t need the firm’s support with content or connections, and would never admit that a failure might be due to some of their actions. Sound familiar?
Is this my answer? Would such narcissistic behavior be so powerful to lead professional services organizations to ignore toxic conduct and spiral downwards? In the past, I’ve always argued that the compensation model of professional services organizations was feeding the constant pull towards “eat what you kill” mentality instead of fostering a spirit of “for the greater good” – this is what often holds back firms. It now appears that might not be the only reason. The narcissist factor, let’s call it that, would also explain why the business growth skills programs so many professional services firms run have limited and short spanned success. If my answer to why intelligent organizations such as professional services firms fail or get stuck is a combination of the typical compensation model and narcissistic behavior, then what’s the solution?
In full disclosure, I am an admirer of Adam Smith and believe that society and organizations should encourage and compensate those who are willing to take on higher risks, work harder and come up with and implement extraordinary ideas. At the same time, I recognize that when encouraged, or rather when unharnessed by a positive common goal, such actions can lead to destruction. This in essence is the fundamental issue at hand here. Professional services organizations are complex networks of brilliant people, many of whom display narcissistic behavior which is often magnified by the firm’s compensation models. When these organizations are disconnected due to the lack of common strategic goals and systems, they crumble.
When talking about growing professional services firms I emphasize the importance of strategy, systems and skills. It now appears those are vital beyond business growth – their alignment is not only necessary for the development of organizations, but for the organizations’ survival. Firms who strive to endure and moreover, move forward at a significant velocity, should focus on the system not the individual superstar performance. One size fits none. Goals and systems are diverse and vary from one professional services organization to another. However, in the long term, none of this will work if the organization is not working towards a firm-based, common goal which benefits the firm as a whole rather than the individual performer. And, this culture must originate with the leadership team. When it comes to business growth, organizations should encourage and reward collaborative approach, which provides for learning, best practice sharing, better solutions design and a team client approach…for the greater good.
I will elaborate on the merits of collaborative business growth approach in my next post…”one for all - all for one.”
© 2010-2013 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
I love professional services organizations. I’ve dedicated my professional career to working IN or ON professional services organizations. They employ highly educated and accomplished professionals: some of the brightest people I’ve ever encountered, whom I look up to and learn from… that’s the reason I am fascinated by them.
The recent collapse of Dewey & LeBoeuf brought up a question I’ve been struggling throughout the years: why is it that smart organizations fail or can’t seem to advance beyond a certain point or at a faster pace?
Timing is an interesting thing. I was rereading some of Malcolm Gladwell’s articles for the New Yorker magazine, when I ran into the “Talent Myth,” which contains his observations on talent and organizations. I need to open a bracket here and thank Gladwell for his brilliant research and writing. I can only aspire one day to be half as articulate and elegant in presenting my thoughts as he is. In his piece, Gladwell talks about “narcissistic organization” and among many other sources draws upon an essay, written by Robert Hogan, Robert Raskin, and Dan Fazzini called "The Dark Side of Charisma.” Both the essay and Gladwell’s article talk about three types of managers, whom on the surface seem like the perfect leaders but when studied closer represent real danger to organizations. The authors refer to them as the “High Likability Floater”, the “Homme de Ressentiment” and the “Narcissist.” The latter one grabbed my attention. The authors define narcissists as ones who “resist accepting suggestions, thinking it will make them appear weak, and they don't believe that others have anything useful to tell them.” “Narcissists are biased to take more credit for success than is legitimate and are biased to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their failures and shortcomings for the same reasons that they claim more success than is their due." If organizations and management profiling is of interest, I’d highly recommend that you look up the sources of my inspiration and read more.
Is this narcissistic behavior self-confidence gone bad? After all, confidence is expected from professional service provides, who are hired for their breath and depth of expertise and experience and a level of certitude to comfort clients is natural. I am afraid it’s much more, as narcissistic managers are not only limiting themselves and ignoring new ideas and better ways of doing business, but also fuel negative performance across the firm, especially with the impressionable next generation of leaders and encourages more of the same…a vicious circle. In business development terms, as that's my domain, narcissist managers are the ones who go to market alone, have it all figured out, don’t need the firm’s support with content or connections, and would never admit that a failure might be due to some of their actions. Sound familiar?
Is this my answer? Would such narcissistic behavior be so powerful to lead professional services organizations to ignore toxic conduct and spiral downwards? In the past, I’ve always argued that the compensation model of professional services organizations was feeding the constant pull towards “eat what you kill” mentality instead of fostering a spirit of “for the greater good” – this is what often holds back firms. It now appears that might not be the only reason. The narcissist factor, let’s call it that, would also explain why the business growth skills programs so many professional services firms run have limited and short spanned success. If my answer to why intelligent organizations such as professional services firms fail or get stuck is a combination of the typical compensation model and narcissistic behavior, then what’s the solution?
In full disclosure, I am an admirer of Adam Smith and believe that society and organizations should encourage and compensate those who are willing to take on higher risks, work harder and come up with and implement extraordinary ideas. At the same time, I recognize that when encouraged, or rather when unharnessed by a positive common goal, such actions can lead to destruction. This in essence is the fundamental issue at hand here. Professional services organizations are complex networks of brilliant people, many of whom display narcissistic behavior which is often magnified by the firm’s compensation models. When these organizations are disconnected due to the lack of common strategic goals and systems, they crumble.
When talking about growing professional services firms I emphasize the importance of strategy, systems and skills. It now appears those are vital beyond business growth – their alignment is not only necessary for the development of organizations, but for the organizations’ survival. Firms who strive to endure and moreover, move forward at a significant velocity, should focus on the system not the individual superstar performance. One size fits none. Goals and systems are diverse and vary from one professional services organization to another. However, in the long term, none of this will work if the organization is not working towards a firm-based, common goal which benefits the firm as a whole rather than the individual performer. And, this culture must originate with the leadership team. When it comes to business growth, organizations should encourage and reward collaborative approach, which provides for learning, best practice sharing, better solutions design and a team client approach…for the greater good.
I will elaborate on the merits of collaborative business growth approach in my next post…”one for all - all for one.”
© 2010-2013 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)