I need some catharsis right now. Let’s point out the problems with Business Transformation. (From the perspective of ‘Okay, we’re going to support this vision, but the details/execution/plan are a big mess.’)
11 replies (most recent on top)
@kaw
The comment about BTC expats is interesting. Is that part of BT?
I’m closely involved in BT so share some of the blame for not addressing issues but the biggest problem I see is the folks leading each of the initiatives are typical old school EM lifers. We need innovative, transformational people, leading business transformation. The people I see managing each of the tracks are conservative, overly rational, risk, averse, black and white thinkers. We need people with passion and vision, people who can look 5-10 years into the future, anticipate the market, look to leapfrog our competitors, challenge the status quo, and strive to truly transform this business. I just see people checking boxes just trying to get it done. We’re missing a great opportunity here.
@1ftl - yep! You can always tell when managers have been on the same training course or indoctrination program. Suddenly, the same, meaningless buzzwords start appearing everywhere and they want you to think there has been a company wide epiphany. A breakthough which suddenly explains everything that’s ever gone wrong.
Words like ‘tension point’ spread like a conflagration. You hear one manager use it, and then suddenly every single one brings it up as the explanation to all the company’s problems. Because it is now a ‘buzz word,’ it is treated like it doesn’t need a solution….for the act of calling it a ‘tension point’ is all the explanation and solution that is needed.
“Oh, you have a major problem. Well, that IS a recognized tension point.”
Perhaps I should try: “Oh, I didn’t complete the stewardship package? That is a tension point.” And then just walk away.
Spot on @sgr+1lGD4DI and not really new.
I first heard of this “consultant concept” of “creative tension” already 15 years ago from a member of the LT at (then) GREF (now E&PS). It just looked like to me as a sententious way of justifying what was basically a messy (re)organisation.
Oh I’ve heard the tension point phrase already, however when one brings up a “tension point” management does not want to hear it.
One interesting data point is BTC folks coming to HQ as expats to “manage” very experienced Houston staff. That should be interesting.
Durwood is driving this company in the ground
we suck at change management because we try to do waterfall and agile at the same time even in areas where waterfall would be stronger to communicate changes to employees. Stuff is changing fasts, reasons are not adequately explained and frustration is going fast. Agile approach also allows to go through with seemingly small but stupid changes, duplication of effort is common. If this is how BT will look, not even the best people can save it.
Also note a new favourite phrase "design for tension". What does it mean? it means that they will go ahead with something and count that all the flaws will be somehow resolved by the organisation later. Who is the organisation? Well... people who were probably not at the table when the decision was made but now have to deal with the practical consequences. The result will be that we won't see the benefits but we will see burnouts, toxic compliance and capable people leaving because they don't want to spend 4-5 years in "healthy tension".
Deloitte , SAP, and returning annuitants will be making major money on this project, in particular when paired up with the cast of XOM management who are already lost.
Silo-ing allows snap-decisions on the metrics for that organization. So if the group’s objective is cost cutting, the answer will be ‘no’ on anything that adds incremental cost…..even if it is a brilliant, strategic idea.
If you want to challenge that answer, you got your task cut out for you. You now need to run the issue up your management line….way up! Talk about inefficiency and employee frustration.
It also allows the opportunity for questionable ethics. A single organization can ‘paint whatever picture they like’ to show they are meeting objectives, and there is no one else able to question.
Think of IT tickets that are opened and closed, without the issue being fixed. But response time looks great.
Or HR policies driving mid-to-top employees to quit, but FTE numbers look great.
A lot of bad behaviors can hide in this environment, unless you happen to be high enough in the company to bring some cross-silo attention to a particular issue. Otherwise, that silo-ed organization can spin any story they like.
Compensation is not appropriate to hire and retain the skills we need. People continue to quit left and right. We are left with the bottom 30% of performers…..and struggle to even know what talent looks like now days.
Big change is driven by people. And we cannot attract the right people to make these changes.