Migrating some old posts over from 2012, I thought this relevant in light of the recent tech sector layoffs following the massive hire campaigns of the COVID era.
Not deciding is a strategy. Allowing an organization to function without clear direction or purpose is a strategy. Having no system, no structure is a strategy. Neglect is a strategy. To the outside observer perhaps a weak or flawed strategy, a strategy by default instead of intention, but a strategy never the less. Far too many organizations operate by default and then act surprised when circumstances buffet and threaten the organization. Good managers read the metrics and spot the trends. Good leaders anticipate and are never surprised, don’t panic, for they are leading with a clear, intentional strategy that is adaptable and responsive to the environment.
In the no-strategy organization, the executives be-bop along by neglect, selfish interests, or simple cluelessness and leave the poor suckers in the trenches to fend for themselves, implementing the strategy of no strategy. This gives the executives something to bemoan with their peers about how poor their staff is, unproductive, disorganized. Worse, it gives excuses to keep line pay low and reward the executive team or shareholders. In the ’80s as a consultant, I would hear those executive conversations. I rapidly learned not to believe them, for I often had a chance to meet that staff. Having the opportunity to hear the other side as a neutral third party I learned the truth. I don’t think poorly of the staff, I only think about what it says about the character of the executive. Notice I did not refer to these people as leaders.
A friend told me about his daughter’s dance competition. He told the classic movie tale – the team was not getting the routine after weeks of practice. Three days before the competition, the instructor changed the routine, ordered new costumes to come in just in time for the event. How do you think the dance team performed? Certainly not like in the movies. The costumes caused performance issues. The steps were imprecise. And of course, the instructor berated the performance and belittled the performers. How is it in our media-savvy world that people are simply too dumb to realize that it only comes off in the movies because it is scripted that way, practiced, and shot with multiple takes?
Better yet, how is it in our media-savvy world that would-be leaders think they can implement change in ninety minutes or less? The executive goes off to an event, visits a peer, or reads an article only to return to the office and attempt to implement a change. Immediately. Without any preparation. Absent of any context for the change. Dumb, too dumb is the rule of thumb. Multiply the impact of that single event by a factor of ten for every time the executive attempts a change and you begin to see why organizations are paralyzed. So here is the no-strategy organization, with an executive throwing the demands for out-of-context change into the mix and expecting competition-level performances. The end result? Belittling the performance and berating the performers. Think the next change demand is going to make it better?
Leaders have a clear, concise strategy underway – a strategic direction. Changes are carefully thought through, allowed only if they are related to the strategy and further the strategy. Otherwise, they are tossed aside to the heap of good ideas. Change is a slow process, slower if culture and personality are involved. Change involves informal communication long before formal communication begins.
Circling back to tweeting that your amazing tech company is laying off 10,000 people. That simply is lack of leadership, lack of care for the individuals who actually make your company successful. Blame the president, blame the economy, blame anyone you wish, but we all know you hired those 10,000 people in desperation because you failed to read the environment and develop a response strategy, and now, you are firing them for the same reason.