I get it, stability can be boring. In the absence of “excitement,” boredom sets in, perhaps leading to demotivation. Challenges are a universal source of engagement, and this is a prevalent issue in many companies. Often, when everything seems to be running smoothly, the next significant challenge is not presented in a timely manner.
Typical business strategies, especially in uncertain economic climates, involve cost-cutting and deferred maintenance. Yet, we are familiar with the consequences in our personal lives. Neglecting a leaky roof during the summer transforms into a winter crisis, flooding our homes and causing damage, consuming time, money, and disrupting our original budget plans, such as that dream vacation.
Businesses aren’t much different. Despite having grand plans, strategies, and objectives, we seldom scrutinize the lurking risks that could undermine these plans—the metaphorical leaky roofs in our businesses. The postponed maintenance like the software upgrade that should have taken place years ago and now has become a security issue or worse, has made critical processes stop working. Furthermore, beyond the issues themselves, we often overlook the impact on our people—generating frustration, burnout, and confusion about why management allowed these issues to persist.
We all knew this was an issue, why was it ignored?
Here comes the second mistake management then makes. Those who emerge as heroes during crises are often rewarded with recognition and promotions. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that these individuals may have played a role in causing the crisis through poor decision-making, negligence, or incompetence. Consequently, those who worked diligently to prevent the issues find themselves burdened with extra work, while those creating noise to fashion a hero narrative receive undue attention.
While resolving a crisis is essential, an honest post-crisis conversation is equally crucial. We must address the root causes of how the crisis unfolded and establish preventive measures. Granting undue attention or recognition to values that contribute to poor decision-making is unsustainable. Decisions leading to crises should be confronted at their source, fostering organizational excellence rather than preserving image.
Reflecting on the organization’s history of managing “fires,” consider the responses—were promotions granted? Have valuable individuals left the organization, and if so, why? It’s crucial to assess whether the organization is truly living its values.
Leave a Reply