Horses for Courses!

 In the world of thoroughbred horse racing there is an old and time tested axiom.  It says that there are ‘…horses for courses…’ 

There is a wide variety of events in which these horses compete.  Some are sprinters; some are more suited for distances.  Some prefer grass; others perform best on dirt.  Some run well on muddy tracks; some only on dry days.

The point is that the owners and trainers of these animals need to know their horses’ characteristics and abilities if they are to perform at their best and thus provide the greatest likelihood of victory.

In your business it is critical that you have a realistic appreciation of the skills and abilities of those on your team.  It makes no sense trying to get blood from a stone.

Frank McKeown, a consultant and mentor I know put it best this way.

“…it is better to have an average strategy well executed than a great strategy poorly executed…”  Makes sense to me.

Clearly you want to have a great strategy well executed.  But if your team members are not up to the task, you still need to be making an effort to improve, even if that improvement is incremental rather than exponential.

In these instances you obviously have two parallel strategies.  The first is to deliver a strategy that can be implemented with the personnel resources you have.  The second, and coincidental, is to improve the quality of your resources.

Don’t assume that replacing people is the problem.  It may be ; but what is your contribution to their performance? 

Have they been properly trained?

Are they in the correct roles?

Do they have the tools to do the job?

Have you done a good enough job in communicating and motivating them?

Have you created an environment in which people excel?

There are many other factors that can contribute to individuals failing to reach their full potential.  As the leader, that is your responsibility.  The ‘…horses for courses…’ applies as much to you as it does to your team.

Strategy is important…but execution trumps strategy every day.  Take a long, hard look at your horses before you decide where to run them!

Consensus vs Consultative

 

In the rush to embrace diversity...which I applaud...there may be confusion as to how to appropriately incorporate disparate input and opinion.  There is a sense that it is imperative to validate those who may be new to the decision making process by accepting their contributions at face value and at equal weight.  The concern is that failing to incorporate and implement other's ideas may be seen as dismissing their contribution.

The tendency, then, is to work towards a consensus among all the stake holders or all those who have had input.  This is dangerous and potentially disastrous.  Allow me to share this real life example to illustrate the issue.

Two companies were examining an opportunity in the medical imaging industry.  Company A was based in Japan.  Company B was based in North America.  They started their evaluations at the same time.

Company A took 4 months to do their market evaluation.  Company B took 6 months.

Company A took 4 months to move from decision to product introduction.  Company B took 6 months.

Yet company B arrived in the market a full six months earlier than A and was able to dominate the opportunity for years.

What's missing?  Company A worked on a consensus decision making model.  Because there were some dissenters at the table, the decision to move forward was  delayed for months until everyone was satisfied that all the risks and other issues were addressed to their satisfaction.

Company B looked at essentially the same data but recognized that first to market was also a key component to success.   The CEO considered all the facts and accepted the fact that nothing is without risk.  She gave the go-ahead and the results affirmed her decision.  Everyone in the decision making process was heard, and while not all were in agreement, all were in support.  This is a perfect example of the consultative decision making process in action.

Where are you on this continuum?  Are you trying to appease every opinion on your team?  Do you equally value the ideas brought forward by each person?  

Or do you recognize that in the end, no decision is going to be perfect; no decision is without risk. 

You are in a position of responsibility because others have determined that your decision making ability is superior to that of others who were considered.  You have the ability to lead in a manner which makes everyone feel valued, even when your choice was not in line with their input.  You accept that the ultimate onus for success is yours - alone.

Diversity is a tribute to our society.  And decisions will be made better because of a broader range of input.  But the end game remains the same.  It's all about the quality of the decision.  Neither consensus nor consultative guarantees success.  But consultative at least guarantees a decision!

Lead On!