High Performance Organization (HPO) Center

If You’re Using These Management Methods, You’re Wasting Both Time and Money!

2012-02-23T09:54:00.000+01:00

Organizations that aim to earn the label HPO, or “High Performance Organization,” can draw upon literally hundreds of management techniques, methods and activities to help them reach this enviable stature. Most seem perfectly reasonable things to do except for one “minor” detail: in most cases, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any of them will actually improve performance in the short term, let alone in the long term, let alone at all!

It is difficult to figure out which of these methods are genuinely important for an organization to embark upon in its quest for HPO status. That’s why in my extensive global research of 290 HPO studies, I attempted to resolve this dilemma by identifying 189 characteristics in the various descriptive literature, then evaluating and comparing them all to 35 tried-and-true HPO characteristics. Below is a partial list of what I found out NOT to do.

Caveat: the many HPO studies I reviewed do not definitively state that the techniques, methods and activities listed below are not important in any sense. Some of them in fact are important, e.g., every organization does need a strategy because without one it would be rudderless and could easily go adrift. However, simply having a strategy will not make an organization an HPO because its competitors will also have strategies! So merely having a strategy is not enough. Instead, HPO research shows a strategy must be unique. Similarly, the following techniques, methods and activities will, on their own, constitute a waste of time and money:

Organizational Design or Structure: It turns out that no specific organizational design or structure shows a correlation with achieving high performance status. It makes no difference at all (neither positive nor negative) whether management chooses a functional design, a process design or a matrix design for its organizational structure. Consequently, launching a reorganization to boost a firm’s performance cannot be recommended. In fact, my research kept finding that most reorganizations failed to yield any long-term performance improvement.
Employee Autonomy: It’s been fashionable in recent years to grant more and more empowerment to employees but this does not necessarily contribute to high performance either. My research results showed me that a high level of autonomy in fact can have a negative correlation on competitive performance. Too much freedom for employees can lead to an internal disorder and confusion unless backed up with sufficient means of coordination. Without coordination, employee autonomy can even seriously damage an organization. People want clarity about goals, what is and isn’t allowed, and what is expected from them. If they know these then they will not need further empowerment.
Strategy: With regard to the strategy, it turns out that it’s not so much the chosen strategy that’s important— but the uniqueness of a strategy compared to competitors in the same industry. All characteristics concerning cost leadership, product differentiation and customer intimacy strategies must be distinguishing characteristics. Adopting merely a “me-too” strategy is thus not enough to become an HPO.
Technology/ICT: Many organizations spend a lot of time and resources on implementing new information and communication (ICT) systems. Sadly, this too will not necessarily transform them into a HPO. Although several HPO characteristics such as “continuous improvement and renewal,” cannot be improved without ICT systems, a standalone implementation of new systems and technology does nothing to help the organization perform any better for a sustained period of time as implementation has to support at least one of the principle HPO factors.
Benchmarking: My study results show that benchmarking is much less effective than everyone assumes. When an organization embarks on a benchmarking project, it usually aims to identify best practices, emulate these and attain if possible the same level as the industry’s best. True HPOs, however, have a completely different view on best practices, regarding their competitors’ best performance benchmark merely as the baseline for their own performance, i.e., a starting point from which the HPO distances itself as much as possible.
Communication: In many organizations, top management can often be heard to comment: “We have to communicate more! If we do, they will understand.” However, it turns out that employees are typically not concerned about understanding what management has to say, but rather about whether or not management is listening to what they have to say. Thus ‘communication,” defined as one–way traffic from manager to employee, is not what’s critical, instead dialogue is critical. In a dialogue there is two-way communication with both sides listening and hearing and exchanging ideas and working towards mutual understanding. In other words, HPOs spend less effort on “soap-box speeches” and on town hall meetings and more on roundtables and back-and-forth discussions.
Bonuses & Reward Systems: There remains a continuous interest in the topic of bonuses and reward systems but he HPO research reveals that these are not distinguishing factors for creating and sustaining HPO status. Instead, they are mere “hygiene” factors. An organization needs to have an appropriate reward system (whether or not this includes bonuses) and one that is considered by employees to be fair and equitable. If such a reward system is not in place, the organization will run into trouble and opposition with its employees, making HPO status virtually impossible.

If a fair and equitable system is in place--and note that it does not seem to really matter what type of reward system this is as long as it’s appropriate for the organization in question--- then employees will consider it acceptable and will be content. At that point, the organization can start legitimately thinking about how to turn itself into a genuine HPO.

In my upcoming book What Makes a High Performance Organization: Validated Factors of Competitive Advantage that Apply Worldwide, I will give many examples of management methods which will make your organization a true HPO!

[1] For instance, Blenko et al. (2010)found that fewer than one-third of reorganizations produced meaningfulimprovements in performance.

[2] The fact that ICT is not a decisisvefactor for creating an HPO has also been found by Carr (2003) and Axson (2010).

[3]In the past years there have beenquite a few authors, such as Pfeffer and Sutton(2006), Hubbard et al. (2007) and McLaughlin (2010), who warn againstthe indiscriminate use of benchmarking while trying to improve theorganization’s result as this generally leads to copycat behavior.

Ten Habits of Bad Management

2012-02-07T10:15:00.000+01:00

If you’re looking to run a “High-Performance Organization,” or “HPO,” it’s imperative to be able to recognize the signs of bad management. If non-HPO managers are not checked and dealt with, an organization will never be able to become an excellent. Here are ten habits to look out for, that HPO managers will never put up with:

Bad managers clean up the mess of their predecessors -- even when there is no mess. When appointed in a new position, the bad manager claims that the predecessor has made such a big mess of the department that it will take at least one year, if not more, to get everything in order, and of course the bad manager cannot possibly work yet on achieving the departmental targets this year…maybe next year too.
Bad managers are always busy, busy, busy. They are involved in many, many projects; in fact, they’re so busy that there isn’t enough time to work on regular tasks! And because these projects are vital for the success of the organization (or so they say), bad managers cannot possibly be expected to work on their departmental targets. They will get to that when their other projects are finished…which they never are.
Bad managers know how to play the goals game. They know that departmental goals should be loose, with lots of slack, which means the targets will be very easy to achieve. Bad managers will never get optimal results from their departments; but that doesn’t matter to them, bad managers would rather have low performance than run the risk of punishment for falling short of ambitious targets.
Bad managers only manage from a distance. Bad managers love to use performance indicators because these make it possible to practice hands-off management. This in turn makes it easy for bad managers to avoid the day to day department activities altogether. And of course, if anything goes wrong, they can dodge accountability: they weren’t there, after all!
Bad managers always blame somebody else. Bad managers have a host of excuses at their disposal when they don’t achieve departmental targets. They blame the management reports because these do not accurately reflect performance; their own reports show that they did achieve the targets. Bad managers blame the outside world: the economy was going down, it has rained too much, it hasn’t rained enough, whatever— but that is the reason everything was going against the department and therefore it was just impossible to achieve the targets! Next year, they say, will be better. They blame the weakest colleague, it was his or her fault the department floundered. .. So the organization first needs to hire someone new before they can be expected to work on achieving their targets.
Bad managers make lengthy, impressive plans. When writing up the latest game plan, bad managers know that expansive, wordy, and complex plans always impress top management because it gives the impression that they are on top of their game and have thought of everything. They also know that you can bury all kinds of assumptions and preconditions in these verbose plans, which function as safeguards when top management starts complaining that goals have not been achieved (“Well, you knew that could happen, we put it on page 237, section 3, line 5 …”). An additional advantage is that employees will not read nor understand these, so it will take a lot of time before the department can actually start working on realizing the plan, if ever.
Bad managers only communicate in one way. Bad managers are all capable of holding an open forum for employees to voice concerns, questions, and suggestions. This sounds like the mark of a good manager, right? However, the bad manager only feigns interest in employee feedback, and won’t actually act on what he or she hears. Instead, bad managers stick to their own plans. If people complain, the bad manager will use open forums against the participants, claiming that any incompetency is the fault of everyone.
Bad managers only have eyes for the shareholder. Bad managers know who butters their bread: the shareholder. Therefore, bad managers work diligently on satisfying these shareholders, even it this works to the detriment of the organization’s long-term interests.
Bad managers are real Machiavellians. They have Machiavelli’s book, The Prince from 1513 on their nightstand and turn to it often for advice on how to practice effective “divide and conquer” strategies in the organization: manipulating colleagues, employees, and bosses. As a result, the targeted members in the organization become preoccupied with guarding their backs instead of focusing on growing the department.
Bad managers have an exit strategy every three years. When the organization is on the verge of holding a bad manager accountable for his or her (in)actions, the bad manager moves on to another organization. In fact, the bad manager had plotted his or her exit strategy for a long time, and always has a fallback organization where he could flee.

It goes without saying that these ten habits don’t exist in HPOs! But as most organizations are not HPO yet, it is good for you to be able to recognize the signs of bad management. This way you can deal with these ‘bad managers’ quickly…which is, after all, also a characteristic of a HPO manager!

6 Courses of Action That Companies Can Adopt in Times of Crisis

2012-01-27T15:23:00.002+01:00

During a period of crisis, like a recession, many organizations are unsure about the course to take. Because every crisis can be both a threat and an opportunity, organizations feel indecisive about the strategy which will best guide them to the crisis period and – hopefully – will help them to come out on top.

In general organizations always have to, in both good times and bad times, monitor their costs and profitability and manage their cash flow. Therefore High Performance Organizations watch their financials since this is basic sound business strategy. Companies that have no cost awareness will lose sight of their costs which inevitably weakens their financial position. At the same time organizations have to continually monitor their profitability to avoid the real threat of non-profitable growth. In recent years there have been numerous examples of structurally-healthy companies that grew themselves to death.

So the key question is: what courses of actions are there, besides cost control and profit monitoring, for an organization during difficult times? A review of the activities organizations have undertaken during past crises reveals that there are six courses of action that companies can adopt in times of crisis.

The first three courses of action are defensive, where the primary objective of the organization is to survive:

3 courses of action are defensive to survive:
Focus on cost reduction. When the financial situation of the organization is in a dire state, reducing the company’s complexity, streamlining processes, postponing investments, reducing stock levels, cutting back on travel and accommodation expenses and refraining from extensions of temporary employment contracts can achieve a significant decrease in the costs and increase the financial capacity of the organization fast.
Focus on core operations. By investing solely in the company’s core operations whilst at the same time divesting the non-core operations that distract management, the organization can exclusively focus on improving and strengthening these operations, thus increase its capacity to serve specific clients well.
Downsize. Divesting the organization’s marginally profitable and loss-making operations increases financial capacity and creates more scope for investments in the core operations and more promising ventures.

The other three courses of action are offensive, where the intention of the company is to benefit from a crisis by growing profitably and becoming market leader:

Strengthen the internal organization. Improving the quality of management and staff, improving the primary and supporting processes, and devoting more attention to innovation and renewal enhances the internal organization and improves the organization’s ability to deal with changed circumstances and profit from them.
Focus on increasing turnover and margin. Streamlining the sales process, paying more attention to pricing, focusing on a smaller and higher-quality product range, and strengthening relations with customers, increases turnover and the margin.
3 courses of action to become a market leader
Exploit opportunities. The period in which many competitors are occupied with defensive measures offers an ideal opportunity to undertake activities that will enhance the organization’s position in the market, such as launching new products and services, taking over companies, entering into partnerships that enhance core operations, and recruiting excellent staff currently employed by the competition.

When you combine the financial status and the HPO status of your organization a matrix with eight squares originates. This matrix can be used to plot the six courses of action. Check out the matrix on the HPO Center's website.

So, which courses of actions apply to your organization? Let me know and share your thoughts!

In HPO we TRUST

2012-01-19T11:26:00.000+01:00

trust still comes on foot
but now leaves per formula 1 race car

In my new book about the success factors of High PerformanceOrganizations (HPOs) I will write extensively about an important characteristic for theHPO manager: TRUST.

Low trust is also a very important characteristic for anorganization as this adds significantly to the cost of doing business,restricts the playing field of action and saps value. Trust is, however, adifficult characteristic to improve as trust cannot be gained by asking for itor demanding it from employees. In addition, as the saying goes,trust comes on foot and leaves on horseback. It takes time to build a trustrelationship, trust has to be earned. In a trust relationship it is all about givingtrust and getting trust. Trust is not given blindly of naively. In a businessrelationship trust is given on the basis of rational consideration and emotionalconnection. To achieve goals in an organization employees need to trust theirmanagers. For this, next to skills, openness and sincerity, trusting one's managers is paramount.

Managers in an HPO maintain and strengthen trust relationshipswith their employees by being honest, visibly valuing loyalty, treating smartpeople smart, showing people respect, listening to and asking help from others,learning from others, creating and maintaining individual relationships withpeople, having belief and trust in others, and exhibiting elemental fairness inthe way people are treated. These managers stay in touch with their employeesby knowing and dialoguing with them. They apply a collaborative, reconciliatorystyle and give confidence to people by only criticizing them when they arepresent or in bilateral conversations, and by "fighting to the death" for themat higher management levels. HPO managers create fairness and equity inmanagement decision-making, they value contributions of employees, and they recognizethese employees for their achievements by acknowledging people’s efforts tochange and giving them credit for it. They behave in a predictable andconsistent manner, communicate openly and clearly, treat promises seriously andare honest and forthright.

HPO managers are aware that in current times truststill comes on foot but now leaves per formula 1 race car, as every mishap ends up immediately on the Internet for the whole world to see. Just as I hope this postabout trust will be read by the whole world…

In an HPO all managers on every organizational level have to be of top-notch quality

2012-01-13T12:33:00.000+01:00

In this blog I tell you all about our research into the success factors of High Performance Organizations. I will reveal highlights of my upcoming book (may 2012) and one of the most important HPO factors I will write about is ‘High Quality of Management’.
How I know?

To determine what makes an organization a High Performance Organization I examined 290 international studies that were conducted over the past 30 years in this area. The most common results were then tested in a global study (50 countries) among 1,470 profit, non-profit and government organizations to determine the most important factors. The results were obtained in June 2007. There are five HPO success factors (divided into 35 HPO aspects) that have a direct link to the long-term success of an organization. And number one is: High Quality of Management.

High Quality of Management in a glance

In an HPO, managers on all levels of the organization maintain trust relationships with employees by valuing their loyalty, treating smart people with respect, creating and maintaining individual relationships with employees, encouraging belief and trust in others, and treating people fairly. Managers at an HPO work with integrity and are a role model to others, because they are honest and sincere, show commitment, enthusiasm and respect, have a strong set of ethics and standards, are credible and consistent, maintain a sense of vulnerability and are not self-complacent. They are decisive, action-focused decision-makers, avoid over-analysis and propose decisions and effective actions, while fostering action-taking by others. HPO managers coach and facilitate employees to achieve better results by being supportive, helping them, protecting them from outside interference, and by being available. Management holds people responsible for results and is decisive about non-performers by always focusing on the achievement of results, maintaining clear accountability for performance, and making tough decisions. Managers at an HPO develop an effective, confident and strong management style by communicating the values and by making sure the strategy is known to and embraced by all organizational members.

The twelve HPO characteristics of HPO factor ‘high quality of management’ are:

Management is trusted by organizational members.
Management has integrity.
Management is a role model for organizational members.
Management applies fast decision making.
Management applies fast action taking.
Management coaches organizational members to achieve better results.
Management focuses on achieving results.
Management is very effective.
Management applies strong leadership.
Management is confident.
Management always holds organizational members responsible for their results.
Management is decisive with regard to non-performers.

It has to be stressed that the twelve characteristics are valid for everybody in the organization that is a manager (defined here as someone who directs at least one other person), so not only top management. Especially after the delayering that has taken place on a grand scale in many organizations, middle and lower level managers increasingly play a pivotal role in creating successful organizations.

So this is your challenge: In an HPO all managers on every organizational level have to be of top-notch quality!

Great isn't Good Enough

2011-12-29T11:39:00.002+01:00

One of the first questions I receive from new clients is: “What is the difference between HPO and Good to Great from Jim Collins?”. A good and logical question from people who are new with my research into the success factors of High Performance Organizations. Good to Great is one of the 290 studies I conducted in the HPO study.

The difference in approach with researchers such as Peters and Waterman and Jim Collins (Good to Great) is big. These researchers, and many others, made a selection, based on financial analyses, of organizations that perform well or excellently in a certain sector and then compared them to competitors that did not perform as well. It is from this comparison that they then determined the distinguishing characteristics. The weak point of this approach is the first selection: if this is not made carefully, the validity of all other study results can be impugned. And there is always an element of coincidence: Was the correct information available, was the selection made based on the right criteria, were the good organizations compared to the bad ones correctly? In the study approach that the HPO Center used it was not organizations that were selected but potential HPO characteristics. In doing so, a very broad meta-analysis was conducted in which studies from as many scientific disciplines as possible were involved and the professional literature was thoroughly studied. This guarantees that a wide range of elements - such as structure, human, emotional, strategic and material aspects, resources and HRM - have been included in the study. No selection of respondents was made for the questionnaire either; they were randomly selected by participating in workshops that the Center held all over the world. Due to this the study has the broadest basis of all HPO studies that have been conducted until now.

In the research approach applied by the HPO Center, not one selection of organizations was made in advance. The selection regards potential HPO characteristics that stem from a very broad meta-analysis, whereby studies from as many scientific disciplines as possible were involved and the professional literature was also thoroughly studied. Such comprehensive literature research was not conducted in any other study. This guarantees that in principle all sorts of elements - structure, human, emotional, strategic, material, resources, HRM, etc. - were included. No selection of respondents was made for the questionnaire either; they were randomly involved by showing up at a workshop that the Center held all over the world. Due to this the study conducted by the Center has resulted in the broadest basis of all HPO studies conducted until this point in time. The Center also expressly looked at what does and does not work, something that remains neglected in many other studies. The Center also does research in all branches, not only in the for-profit sector, and in all countries, including in Asia and the developing countries. Openness is always observed: It is clearly documented how the study was conducted and how the data were analyzed and processes and regular presentations are given about this at scientific conferences. This is the scientific way, because research needs to be validated, something that was done for the Center by Cranfield University (Dr. Veronica Martinez).

In conclusion, the Center continues to do research in order to identify better behaviors that high performance organizations and their people exhibit. This combats the so-called halo effect because the (subjective) opinions of respondents are no longer being inquired about but rather behaviors that can be objectively observed in practice.

Biggest Differences with the HPO Study:

Not always scientifically based
Often the study objects are selected in advance
Frequently limited to the Western world
Often limited literature research as the basis
Little (scientific) validation
Frequent vagueness about how the study was carried out

How many ‘dumb’ geese work in your team?

2011-12-21T13:22:00.013+01:00

I hope the answer is ‘many’, because geese demonstrate strong leadership and have turned ‘teamwork’ into an art. This is an important characteristic of high performance teams.

You run faster alone, but further as a
high performance team.

Geese often fly in a V-formation. There are a number of advantages to this. The amount of energy used by the total group can be reduced by as much as 50 percent. Why? The moment a goose’s wings flap in the wind, he creates an upward force for the goose flying behind him. If a goose falls out of formation, he will suddenly notice the slowness and resistance of flying alone. The goose will then quickly fall into formation again in order to take advantage of the upward force of the goose in front of him. By flying in V-formation, the group can get 71 percent further than when flying alone.
The goose at the front of the formation is not always the same animal. The experienced geese who know where the final destination is change position frequently during flight. The moment the lead goose gets tired, he switches places. Another goose takes over the lead position. In other words, leadership is a shared responsibility.
Migrating geese who fly in V-formation squawk at each other continuously. This squawking has several purposes. One is to encourage the goose in front to maintain speed. Another is for the entire group to stay in contact and profit optimally from the V-formation.
When a goose gets sick or injured and falls out of formation, two other geese will also fall out of the formation. They will guide the goose downwards to offer help or protection. They stay with the ‘fallen goose’ until it has died or is able to fly again. They then fly back to the group in a formation of three. Sometimes, they may join another group temporarily until they can join up with their original group.

The next time you see a formation of geese fly by, you might find yourself secretly wanting to join them and experience the strength of truly good teamwork!

Strong leadership is the foundation of success!
Success lies in strong leadership. Strong leadership in High Performance Organizations is the result of being (daring to be) open, communicating with others and showing vulnerability when it comes to the challenges you face. Geese provide the perfect example. Geese give each other feedback continuously and act in the interest of the group. Self-confidence, modesty and a sense of servitude are the ingredients of this ‘animal’ leadership. This type of leadership involves appreciatively encouraging one another while making an effort, maintaining contact and acting in the interest of the group. You can also build confidence by demonstrating strong exemplary behavior. Geese show us that this is what really matters, not so much what you say. Continuity should not be based on leadership that revolves around chasing individual targets or climbing over others on your way to the top of the hierarchy, but around forging relationships of trust and long-term collaboration.

To achieve improvements towards becoming more successful, we have put together a number of practical tips to help you start your own Animal Firm and encourage more ‘geese behavior’.

Tips:

1. Know what motivates your coworkers! Stay in touch. Take the time to sit down together and share information. Show genuine interest in private and work-related matters. Everyone is busy and, before you know it, another month has passed without any real contact. If it does not happen spontaneously or gets lost among all the priorities, schedule it.

2. Talk to each other about the kind of behavior you wish to show as an individual, team and department. Develop performance-oriented values and norms: this is the behavior we want and need to show to perform better. Follow simple rules like:

a. Do what you say and say what you do.
b. Always arrive at a scheduled meeting on time.
c. Give direct and bilateral feedback.
d. Ignoring an action twice is once too many.

Communicate with your coworkers and start your own High Performance Animal Firm!

Just like toilets and IT, bonus is a hygiene factor!

2011-12-12T10:59:00.000+01:00

One of the biggest debates, among businesspeople and scientist, is the role of reward systems in becoming a ‘high performance organization’. Together with colleague Paul Jansen (Professor of Industrial Psychology at the VU University Amsterdam) I just presented at the European Reward Management Conference a research paper (The bonus as hygiene factor: the role of reward systems in the high performance organization) about this hot topic.

The first conclusions in this paper are:

“The literature review described in this paper showed there are twelve characteristics, found in research studies into high performance organizations, that have a bearing on the type of bonuses and reward systems that organizations can apply to achieve high performance. However, eleven of these twelve characteristics seem to have a minor role compared to other characteristics found in the literature review (which have to do, among others, with organizational structure, quality of management, quality of workforce, information technology and communication) and did not make the cut into the empirical study. In the empirical study, the remaining characteristic A 'fair reward and incentive structure' did not show a significant relation with organizational performance. The conclusion therefore is that using bonuses or implementing certain types of reward systems does not have a positive nor a negative effect on long-term organizational performance. A possible explanation for this result is that reward systems are a hygiene factor for an organization. If the organization does not have an appropriate reward system, with or without bonuses, it will run into trouble with its employees. If it does, which employees expect and consider to be normal, it can start working on improving its performance.”

This research result puts the ongoing debate on the use of bonuses and reward systems to improve the results of organizations in a different light. Putting a lot of effort in introducing bonuses or a certain type of reward system and then expecting your organization to improve its results and maybe become an HPO is unrealistic. The reward system is not a determining factor for long-term high performance.

There may be other arguments for designing a reward system though. For instance, your organization should not differ too much from other organizations in your sector (Dimaggio and Powell, 1991) or, for equity reasons, internal pay dispersion should not be too large.

The practical implication of this study is that your organizations should not spend a lot of time on designing and implementing elaborate and sophisticated reward systems to improve performance. You just have to make sure an appropriate reward system is installed that is considered to be fair and equitable by employees. This creates a good foundation for building an HPO.

What do you think? Join the debat!

High Performance Namibia...one step closer

2011-12-06T09:36:00.001+01:00

Onbehalf of Maastricht School of Management and the HPO Center I visit countriesall over the world. Not only “privileged” countries like the US, UK or Germany,but also many third-world countries. Visiting students and executives in thesecountries gives me enormous energy. Emerging markets and ambitious people. Countrieslike Namibia.

Lastweek I visited the Namibia Business School (NBS). Together with Mac Hengari,Director of the Namibia Business School (NBS), I signed a co-operationagreement between the NBS and the HPO Center to improve the long-termperformance of many organizations in Namibia. Together we are going to helporganizations to benefit from our High Performance Organization (HPO) Framework.

HPO presentation for staff Namibia Business School (NBS)

After giving several presentations on national television, I gave a lectureabout HPOs and Performance Management for Namibian directors and seniormanagers. The energy, ambition and critical and imaginative questions from theaudience gives me great hope that this co-operation will strive organizationstowards long-term high performance!

And I know the HPO Framework works not only in Europe, US or Asia. Previousvisits and HPO-diagnosis with e.g.

Iringa University College in Tanzania and DeBeers Marine in Namibia show promising results.

More to come in my new book (May 2012), including some sizzlingHPO cases from Asia and South-America as well…

"No one ever got fired for hiring McKinsey"

2011-12-05T14:30:00.000+01:00

Suppose your organization is experiencing a major problem. You may be grappling with poor employee performance, poor management or perhaps you’re losing good people. Maybe growth is weak or profit has dipped. Since you are unable to resolve the problem on your own, you bring in an external party, preferably one with a good reputation. After all:

No one ever got fired for hiring McKinsey
The consulting firm you’ve hired proceeds to talk to management and employees and offers you a solution. For a while, a consultant or interim manager sets up camp at your company and starts tackling the problem. If he or she fails, you get the blame. If he or she succeeds, you will feel that you have spent your money wisely. The external party then goes on its way, leaving your organization to fend for itself. In most cases, all of the work done by the consultant quickly disappears into the background.

Quick external fixes for your internal problems will never work!

A quick external fix for your internal problems may seem like the best option, but is it really? Before you start working on resolving the problem, shouldn’t you first take a good hard look at the cause? I would say: YES.
The limited time a manager has can best be spent on a method that has been consistently proven to be effective. And that means methods that are validated by scientific research. I for one want a scientific basis for my approach. Exactly what difference will improvements make?

I devoted five years to a scientific and practical study of the success factors of excellent organizations. I examined more than 290 studies into this topic. I and my research team then tested the characteristics of High Performance Organizations (HPOs) in 50 countries using surveys conducted at 1,470 organizations. From the results, we identified 35 aspects that contribute to improved performance. These aspects are based on five pillars: an HPO has high quality management and employees, is oriented towards the long term, has an open and action-oriented culture and continuously strives to improve and innovate.

This is, for the bad managers among us, not a model or recipe for easy success.

It is an 'HPO Framework' which gives you focus on the success factors that determine what makes your organization a High Performance Organization (HPO): an organization that achieves better financial and non-financial results than comparable organizations over a period of at least five to 10 years.