Is Your Organization Built to Last?

Published June 3 2009 3:13 PM | Aaron Stannard

Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies by Jim Collins and Jerry Porras is a book that I read in college, and it changed the way I looked at business. In the book Collins and Porras analyze eighteen visionary and long-standing companies (3M, Disney, and Wal-Mart for example) and compare them against their top competitors.

Their goal was to determine what makes these companies different. Why do some companies fail and why do others last for decades after their founders have left?

Built to Last contains all of their research, analysis, and conclusions and I wanted to discuss some of the points that are highly relevant to what we’ve discussed at Working Smarter.

Don’t Tell Time, Build Clocks – Institutionalize Knowledge and Process within Your Organization

One of the major themes throughout Built to Last is the concept of Time-Telling vs. Clock-Making. A time-teller is a key employee – whenever someone in your organization needs to know what time it is they go and ask the one time-teller in your organization that always produces an accurate time.

But what happens when that key employee leaves your organization? Nobody in your organization will be able to tell time, query the customer database, build a new version of the product, or do any of the other million things that are fully known only to a select handful of experienced, key employees. If a business has to spend all of its time reinventing the wheel instead of innovating its products and services, then it probably won’t be very successful in the long run.

So what do truly exceptional companies do? They don’t tell time, they build clocks. They stop reinventing the wheel and institutionalize knowledge. They develop business processes and document them in a central location such that the organization no longer depends on knowledge being passed down from employee to employee orally – instead that specialized knowledge becomes part of the organization’s inner-workings. That institutionalized knowledge forms a clock that enables every person in the organization to tell time on their own.

Ask yourself: are you a time-teller or a clock builder? 

Preserve Your Core Values, But Try New Things

Truly exceptional companies have a set of core values that are fundamentally unalterable – everything in the company can change except for their core values. They can make different products, they can enter different markets, they can be run by different people, but they never waiver from their core principles and values.

Built to Last uses IBM as an example here, showing their three core principles (give full consideration to the individual employee, spend a lot of time making customers happy, and go the last mile to do things right), the success IBM had when they followed them (up until the mid-1980s or so), and the failures after they started adhering to secondary principles, like corporate culture and such. (Source: The Simple Dollar)

Companies should always be trying new things, but they should do so within the parameters of their core principles. So what’s an easy way to try new things and preserve the core? As Fred Nickols explained, the best way to do that is to use a goals grid when planning any new initiative.

A goals grid is a simple way that allows you to balance all of your concerns and goals – it allows you to have a complete landscape over what you want to preserve (core values, successful old initiatives), what you want to eliminate from your organization (waste), what you want to steer your organization away from (extraneous values that contradict the core), and things that you want to achieve (growth, profitability.)

How Else Can You Build Your Company to Last?

The first thing you should do is get a copy of Built to Last! The second thing you should do is look to making some improvements within your company’s culture, operations, and philosophy:

  • Determine areas where you have “key employee” problems and try to mitigate them by institutionalizing knowledge with processes, information management systems, and training programs;
  • Determine your core values and make sure that every person in the company understands what they are;
  • Use goal planning tools, such as the goals grid, to help you get a clearer bearing on your company’s direction; and
  • Communicate often and clearly to your team regarding the company’s culture, direction, goals, and bearings. Let everyone see the forest from the trees.

 




Comments

# Martin Smith said on June 11, 2009 12:57 PM:

Absolutely ace!

# Andy Colville (C.Psychol) said on June 11, 2009 3:56 PM:

I normally agree with most of what is written in these enjoyable, bite-size, series of articles. However, on this occasion I think you might be unintentionally misleading readers.

I’m a great advocate of evidence-based practice, and while you quote the IBM scenario for promoting and following core values and principles, there were some fundamental flaws in that example and in the interpretations/conclusions drawn from it.

Your advice to “Determine your core values and canonize them not just among the management team – make sure that every person in the company knows them verbatim” for me represents one of the most disturbing misconceptions in management practice – the imposition of values and principles upon the workplace for employees to uphold and embrace.

There are enough controlled studies out there that adequately demonstrate the undesired and detrimental effects this can have. A good starting place would be McKendall, DeMarr, & Jones-Rikkers, 2002, ‘Ethical compliance programmes[…] Testing the assumptions[…]’ in the Journal of Business Ethics.

One of the biggest assumptions (and misconceptions) of course is that employees will adopt the attitudes their organisation promotes. In reality, there are more examples of employees rebelling against core values and principles, than actually adhering to them. And the actual practice of stipulating them in the first place has a major part to play in this phenomenon.

Other sources of ‘evidence’ come from G.R. Maio et al, in 1998 and 2001, in the Journal of Expiremental Psychology. Their papers called ‘Attitude dissimulation and persuasion’ and ‘Addressing discrepancies between values and behaviour…’ will provide a better understanding.

# Aaron Stannard said on June 11, 2009 4:06 PM:

Andy,

I'm sharing the conclusions of Built to Last, which I happen to agree with and I also understand that they are not necessarily easily to implement. I can't tell if you're taking issue with the concepts from Built to Last or with my paraphrasing of it, so I'll give Mr. Collins and Mr. Porras the benefit of the doubt.

The part of the book I was thinking of in particular with the canonization of the core values was the area all about the Disney Corporation and the extensive work they do to implement a uniform understand of what Disney's philosophy and business culture actually is.

After reading your comment it looks like I did not articulate that message from Built to Last as well as I should have, so I reworded the last bit from my post somewhat.

Would you mind explaining the managerial misconception (and what managers should do instead) in a bite-sized package for my own benefit as well as the other readers' ?

# Daniel Schmaus said on June 11, 2009 5:06 PM:

Aaron: The article makes sense to me. Being a key man myself is a great burden and with the knowledge that the whole thing will fall apart in time if your not there to direct. I agree with teaching others to make wise decisions so as to share the decision making. And the core value of doing things right!  Last I have noticed only good teams win games!  

# Paul S. said on June 12, 2009 4:37 PM:

Having read Andy's comments above, I think he has already explained the managerial misconception Aaron. Cut & pasted from his passage above "one of the most disturbing misconceptions in management practice – the imposition of values and principles upon the workplace for employees to uphold and embrace... One of the biggest assumptions (and misconceptions) of course is that employees will adopt the attitudes their organisation promotes".

I too would like to hear more about this Andy, as I'm in a position expected to set core values, principles and behaviors for our company (something I'm not comfortable with doing - imposing them on our intelligent staff whom I suspect will be quite insulted by such an imposition on my part), so if you could expand a little more and give me some evidence/logical argument I can use to refute this practice I'd be grateful.

I have to ask Daniel above, how do your employees react to your statement "Being a key man myself is a great burden and with the knowledge that the whole thing will fall apart in time if your not there to direct"? Do you feel you have to impose and "teach" them core values and principles too?

# Nick Anthony said on June 16, 2009 3:59 AM:

I believe that you should recruit, manage and develop people that have the same core values and beliefs as the core values and principles of the company.

# DeniseH893 said on June 18, 2009 4:05 PM:

I agree with Nick.  If as an employee you're not a believer in the company's core values and beliefs...than what are you doing there?  And importantly, how hard are you really going to work to promote the company if you're taking up space, going through the paces of the job without a belief in the company itself?

# Andy Colville (C.Psychol) said on June 24, 2009 9:10 AM:

I’ll just clarify a couple of points before expanding (as requested) on my original assertion.

Firstly, I was referring to only one part of the article in my critique – “the imposition of values and principles upon the workplace for employees to uphold and embrace”. I have no issue with any other part of the article. Please note that the wording in the original article has changed since my post, it originally read – ‘Determine your core values and canonize them not just among the management team – make sure that every person in the company knows them verbatim’. It is the latter part (Aaron’s deleted part) that was the focus of my critique.

Secondly, we are talking in the context of multi-national, global firms (IBM were quoted in Aaron’s original article, and Disney in his follow up post), and not small family run businesses or corner shop enterprises.

Finally, the core values I’m referring to are ‘personal attitudinal’ values and beliefs, such as those quoted in Aaron’s original article with regard to IBM – ‘give full consideration to the individual employee, spend a lot of time making customers happy, and go the last mile to do things right’ – i.e. these are ‘behavioural’ issues. There was no mention of core values and beliefs relating to the ‘environment’, ‘specific staff development policies’ or ‘specific values about profit making’ therefore they were not incorporated in my assessment.

Hopefully, having outlined the territory, you will have a better understanding of the point I was making (ideally, if you read the suggested articles this would give a better understanding). Just in case, I’ll expand anyway.

Here is a small selection of ‘personal attitudinal’ values and beliefs, of which there are over forty!, promoted by an organisation, (cut and pasted from a real organisation’s website) –

“Teamwork – we recognize that programmatic success depends on each of us working together selflessly towards our collective goals”

“Accountability – we are answerable for our individual actions and responsibilities”

“Communication – we engage in honest, forthright, issue-oriented, and civil dialogue”

All well and good. Now, do such values have to be made explicit, do they need to be written on posters and framed pictures around the building (‘canonized amongst staff)? Are they not expected implicitly anyway? To put it another way, would an organisation ever write the converse – “we are not answerable for our individual actions and responsibilities”, “we engage in dishonest, devious, personally-oriented, and uncivil dialogue”, “give partial consideration to the individual employee”, “spend no time making customers happy”, “we will not go the last mile to do things right”?

Of course they wouldn’t, because the original (first) versions are the expected norms in the workplace. So, what is the problem with making these value laden directives explicit?

First of all, as sad as it is, in large global organisations there will undoubtedly be many occasions when the stipulated/promoted values are breached (or at least perceived to be breached). People will experience (or perceive) occasions where people/teams don’t work together selflessly towards collective goals, where people are not held accountable/answerable for their individual actions and responsibilities, where people engage in dishonest and uncivil dialogue, where an individual employee is not given full consideration, where people don’t spend lots of time making customers happy, and where people don’t go the last mile to do things right, etc. That is what happens! Can any reader who has worked in a large organisation claim they have never perceived or witnessed such examples? If anyone believes there is, or knows of, a large/global organisation where such unwanted activities and breaches of value-laden principles are not rife, then please let me know! I’d love to study it.

If the utopian values, principles and behaviours are canonized, “not just among the management team – make sure that every person in the company knows them verbatim” as Aaron originally suggested, what impact do perceived breaches (inevitable – by way of human nature in large organisations) have on employees in general? The academic and work-based research evidence (which I directed you to) gives clear confirmation of the detrimental effects the imposition of values and principles upon the workplace for employees to uphold and embrace can have.

As I said in my original post, there are more examples of employees rebelling against core values and principles, than actually adhering to them. And the actual practice of stipulating them in the first place has a major part to play in this phenomenon. Have you considered why this might be the case? Do you think that employees in global organisations like being told explicitly how to talk to one another? When employees know the espoused values and behaviours ‘verbatim’, do you think that their reaction to perceived breaches by other parties will be amplified or dampened?

Here is a very basic example to illustrate the above point. Let’s say there are three households in a row on a street, and the householders all equally loathe receiving junk mail (junk mail by definition of being ‘junk’ is unwanted mail, however each person‘s definition of what is actually junk, including the postal worker’s, is subjective of course – a personal perception).

Now, the three householders are asked to identify their level of anger at receiving junk mail on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = slightly annoyed, 10 = absolutely furious). For the sake of simplicity, let’s say that all three householders ranked themselves as a 5 on the scale (5 = moderately angry). One of the householders puts a sign on their letter box saying “no junk mail please”. The other two households have no written sign. The next week, inevitably all three households receive what they perceive to be junk mail (the postal worker has not distinguished junk from non-junk for the ‘signed’ household).

The question is – On the 1 to 10 anger rating scale, where do you think each household will rate themselves at in terms of anger at receiving junk mail?

So, the point is, where explicit requests, standards or requirements are perceived to have been breached, the affected parties have a heightened sense of injustice, anger, disappointment, resentment, etc, etc, in comparison to those who hold an implicit understanding (or even an ignorance of them completely). So why make them explicit when they are already implied, or can be encouraged through different approaches?

This might seem trivial, but for those of us who study workplace practices and behaviour it can been regarded as ‘the tip of the iceberg’. It can lead to,  issues around procedural justice, broken psychological contracts, politicking, and so much more. Rather than creating a ‘culture’ of cooperation, honesty, and dilligence, it can lead to a perceived ‘culture’ of deceit, abstention, and self-promotion etc.

The type of workplace where it definitely wouldn’t have a detrimental effect would be in a factory, where only robots operate in assembling machinery for example. For advocates of explicating and canonising ‘principles, core values and behaviours’, I would urge you to ask yourself why you deem it to be necessary. Aaron asked me if I would mind explaining “what managers should do instead”. There are some obvious options, as well as some not so obvious. In the true traditions of learning and development, I’ll encourage you to devise and realise the alternatives for yourselves, with the following thought – You already know of other ‘interventions’ or other ‘methods’ of promoting ethical, cooperative, and profitable practices in the workplace!

The bottom line is please don’t just follow ‘management fads’ because other people/organisations do. If something has (or is perceived to have) worked somewhere else, such as the IBM example given in the article, ask yourself why has it worked (if at all), was something else responsible for the results, was the evidence valid, was there a cause and effect relationship demonstrated, and if so, can it be transferred to your organisation?

Finally, a Demming quote (sorry!) – “To copy an example of success, without the aid of theory, can lead to disaster”.

Leave a Comment

Name:  
Website:

Powered by SmartDraw

Increase your productivity. Be a better manager.

Subscribe by Email

Click here to get the SmartDraw blog delivered by email.

Recent Posts

Categories