In his post of January 7, 2014 to the Switch & Shift blog, Shawn Murphy argues that clarity of purpose is critical to any group having success in their work together. Shawn suggests a series of “mini-workshops” to visit questions such as “What do we do?” and “What do we need to do?” to establish purpose so critical to the subsequent team efforts.
In my thinking, such workshops will be more successful if each group member were to consider her or his personal connections to each of the questions, the vision of what to organization purpose has been and seems appropriate for the immediate future. Where does each person see their contribution optimized for the best possible sense of organizational purpose. This would likely include among other information what the sense of accomplishment has been individually, within the group, and across the organization. It would include feedback from customers as well as information on competitors; it would include information on what has transpired in terms of product revisions and possible revisions.
Such consideration by each member does of course require effort. But I would argue that such efforts are important to subsequent group discussion and to optimization of personal opportunities. As with the referenced blog post, most leadership mentors / coaches argue appropriately that the decision making must include all members working with the leadership – must be transparent. In the post, Shawn notes that decision making that’s not transparent often descends into chaos, serving mostly as a information delivery system.
With the additional individual consideration efforts, the subsequent honest and open group discussion has so much more information for input: individual input to the status of current efforts and the potential for growth or at least realignment of future efforts. The considerations are unlikely to lead to any one vision being chosen for implementation; but the development of those visions provide a rich background for considering each person’s input as the group works toward Steven Covey’s better alternative: the outcome that each group member believes honestly is better than their original vision.
Contrast that with the honest group discussions (everyone’s input genuinely sought and considered) but without the preceding individual considerations. I would argue that such discussion is better than the manager providing the sense of purpose and implementation path for sure. But think about the impact of the honest discussions that are not fueled by the visions leading the understanding of each participant. Is it likely that opportunities or potential roadblocks / critical shifts will be missed? Is it possible that concerns about suggestions made by any member might be overlooked? Is it likely that the emerging sense of purpose and implementation plan will be less robust, less understood, and thus less motivating? My expectations are that the answer is yes to these and other questions of concern.
There are unfortunately regular examples of promising organizations with good initial results being driven out of business because of lack of sustained efforts that were responsible for the original success. The organization needs a sense of purpose, a set of goals, and a plan of action that is accepted and acted upon routinely as Shawn suggests. I love his thought that this is so obvious by the similar stories / messages each person tells. My additional suggestion is for that employee input to optimized by the expectation and valuing of individual consideration.