My left leg is one inch longer than my right. That caused a number of seemingly unrelated problems for me, including lower back pain, headaches, and a bone spur behind my left big toe. I saw two different general practitioners, four separate orthopedic surgeons, three different physical therapists, an acupuncturist and a chiropractor for my symptoms. Collectively they rotated, manipulated, massaged, needled and injected me with steroids (epidural). None of it worked.
The root problem was not my back, head, toe, or even my left leg. My legs are actually the same length. But my right hip is deformed in such a way that it causes my right leg to hang an inch shorter than my left. None of these highly qualified specialists caught the real problem because they each had a generic solution they were best at applying, so they only looked for sufficient confirmation that my symptom could benefit from their solution.
There is no formula or prescription for improving employee performance. Employee performance in your organization will always be contingent on a variety of factors, all of which interact continuously to make it difficult for us to know with certainty what is causing the effects we observe. Despite the complexity, there will always be something you can do that will provide more leverage than anything else, but you have to deal with the mess of searching to find it.
There are a variety of things you can try to improve performance, all of which will probably work to one degree or another. But a degree of success with the wrong intervention effort can actually mask the most significant root problems.
For example, we know that employee satisfaction, commitment, and trust all affect employee performance, and a lot of folks believe that engagement affects performance. You can invest in a program to increase employee trust, and you should see improvements in trust and probably in performance. But just because employees trust you does not necessarily mean that they are more satisfied with and committed to your organization. And it is possible that satisfaction, commitment, or some other variable are stronger drivers of performance in your organization.
But you will never know unless you measure correctly. If you only measure one thing, and roll out a program to improve that one thing, you should see improvements when you measure that one thing again. Please understand that your efforts to optimize a part of the system that affects performance can actually sub-optimize the larger system.
Avoid anyone that wants to sell you a specific solution before they have done a multidimensional assessment. They should be looking for a number of potential root causes to the symptoms you have identified. And before you allow them to assess your organization and employees, find out what kind of tools they have in their bag. They should be able to present you with a variety of options, including the option that their own measurement might reveal that you need to see someone else to address your root problem.
If all they have is an epidural or surgery, find someone else to assess your symptoms.
You should follow me on twitter here.
One problem with living and working in an interconnected world is that an action in one part of the system may affect other parts of the system. One of the fist MIS (yes, it was a while ago) people I knew in business put it this way.
“When you push something down over here,” he said, making a motion like pushing a button, “You have to look around quickly to see what popped up somewhere else.” He then turned in a complete circle slowly.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
August 25th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Wally, you are so correct. I am convinced that those that develop the discipline of systems thinking will be several orders of magnitude more effective than those that only deal with snap shots. Thanks for the comment!! Bret
[Reply]
Agree totally on the inter-connected world within the organisation that is why good performance measurement systems connect at the top and are aligned across the organisation. Takes a lot of work to get it right – superficial solutions to a “problem” are likely to be based on insufficient evidence! Can be quite challenging when a client doesn’t want to spend money on enough consultancy to find real answers!
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
August 25th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Wendy, thanks for visiting and adding your insight. It DOES take work to get it right. And you are right, complexity at the top motivates most leaders to look for simple solutions. If someone is in the business of selling solutions, they quickly learn that they have to oversimplify the process in order to appeal to most organizations. That only necessitates the need for more of the solution. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts! Bret
[Reply]
Hmmmm. I love the idea of consultants coming in and saying “actually this company will be better able to advise you on this problem than us, you should try them” but I suspect it may be a bit like communism – sounds good on paper but doesn’t work in the real world. That’s probably not the fault of the consultants themselves. After all, companies are unlikely to recommend someone who refers them elsewhere, so such a consultancy would probably fail. The system rewards people who present a solution even if it isn’t the best one. We are in a vicious cycle, consultants don’t offer that solution as businesses don’t like it, businesses don’t get the opportunity to grow to like it because consultancies don’t offer it. Tricky one to solve that…
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
August 25th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Ellie, I can’t disagree with any of what you have said. I agree with you that both parties bear responsibility for the situation. Most companies are looking for simple solutions, and most consultants are more than happy to offer those up. Do you think it is even more true of the large companies and large consultants? I’ve personally met some individuals that I know share my perspective. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!! Bret
[Reply]
Ellie Reply:
August 25th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Bret, I absolutely agree that size matters in this problem. As with all things human, the less personal it is, the easier it is (and so the greater the temptation) to cheat. In this case, by providing impersonal feedback that ticks the companies’ desired boxes rather than tackling the problem. Perhaps building a meaningful relationship with an important member of the company is the first thing to try to get round this issue? An honest and heartfelt one to one explanation probably wouldn’t go amiss. Anything that brings the human face of the advisor in contact with the human face of the decision maker in the co. Ellie
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
August 25th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Ellie, appreciate your additional thoughts. Larger consulting companies may have more pressure to sell programs, and their large company customers may feel more pressure for instant pudding results. The small company or individual should have more of a craftsman approach. Thanks! Bret
[Reply]
Bret, Organizational problems involve multidimensional interconnected properties, which makes them complex (challenging and fun). Your story is a great way to explain the challenge of finding the root cause of a SYSTEM problem.
If the system complexity weren’t enough of a challenge, measurement compounds the complexity. In organizations, measurements are frequently gamed. In your story, imagine the consequences of the diagnostician saying there was zero difference in the length of each of your legs. Why would someone do that? Because the environment strongly suggests to them that it’s in their and the organization’s best interest. I’m sure you’ve seen this happen.
Finally, I believe we rarely “solve” organizational problems — we make trade-offs to increase or decrease the most valued property. Nice post, -Steve
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
August 25th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Steve – excellent observations!! You are so correct that measurement itself is part of the complexity. And as one who measures, I can tell you that even though it is a “science” it is very messy. Numbers don’t always behave the way we want them to. You point about rarely solving org. problems reminds me of “The Goal” where the removal of one constraint serves to reveal the next one. A continuous process of system improvement. Thanks!! Bret
[Reply]
Congratulations! This post was selected as one of the five best independent business blog posts of the week in my Three Star Leadership Midweek Review of the Business Blogs.
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2009/08/26/82609-midweek-look-at-the-independent-business-blogs.aspx
Wally Bock
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
August 26th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Wally, I really appreciate this! I love your blog and respect your opinion very much. It’s an honor to be recognized by you. Thanks!! Bret
[Reply]
Bret, interesting post. What amazes me is how many competent, even excellent, leaders will argue that X cannot be measured. Often, the reality is that they are defining X incorrectly as an emotion and not looking deeply enough to find the action behind X that CAN be measured and therefore managed.
I’m recently enamoured of Steve Kerr’s new book “Reward Systems” in which he outlines his “definition-measurement-reward” approach and how to apply a bullseye method to arrive at measurable/manageable actions.
A very interesting read I reviewed in more depth here: http://globoforce.blogspot.com/2009/07/measuring-reward-systems-driving-change.html
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Derek, I appreciate you taking the time to share your excellent thoughts. Give a good operational definition. almost anything can be measured in some way or another. Thanks for the tip on Steve Kerr’s book! I will have to check it out. He knows his stuff very well. Thanks! Bret
[Reply]