Team vs. Individual Structure

Below is a simple diagram of the difference between a team based department or organization verses letting the associates drive the structure. I have witness both environments. Team is not a corporate buzzword, it is a key ingredient to successful company growth. Large teams consist of teams within a team.

Team Based	Individual Based
Develop Leaders	Anarchy
Staff Growth	Power Struggles
Member Contributions	High Turnover
Self-sustaining	Stagnant

Why Teams Fail

Lack of Management Support

Wrong member make up

Lack of correct tools to succeed

These elements are tried and true team based analysis and experience. Let me focus on the Team based structure, as the Individual based structure is counter-productive.

Teams can be functional or cross-functional:

• Functional - Specific expertise
• Cross-functional - Project driven areas

The goal of both teams is goal setting, process improvement, trends sharing, and subject matter collaboration. This list is by no means inclusive of all team elements.

The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is streamlined operations or process efficiencies. Remember the profit equation contains two sides revenue and expenses. Although a department may not be revenue generating, it can add to the bottom line with performance efficiencies by having less overhead costs, i.e. fewer associates required output the current workload, or handling more workload, contributing to the revenue side of the profit equation.

I hope this blog entry will encourage you to recognize the benefits of a team base structure or review your current teams’ structure.

Is it real or is it Rhetoric?

Companies love buzzwords. Every industry has them and many are common between them. What is their etymology? Is it generational? What is the purpose?

I’ve been involved with companies where buzzwords we literally comical. In a roundtable meeting with "C" level executives, the CEO would laugh at you, if you used a buzzword in your update. He even created on-the-rock glasses with the current buzzwords printed on them. Other companies have distributed posters to incentivize associates to be "team players" or "innovative."

The real question is "Why do buzzword exist?" In the case of motivation, are the effective? I have an answer, "It depends." I purport the axiom, "Put your money where your mouth is." Take the word "game-changer" or "disruptor" if the company takes an associate’s suggestion and implements it, then it’s real. Take the word "empower". This buzzword has been around for decades. If an associate takes an initiative and gets reprimanded, then it’s rhetoric.

Personally, I prefer quotations over buzzwords. The quote doesn’t need to be from a famous person, and least of all, from an actor. As long as it is positive, truthful, and/or inspires action, I like it. I’ll share two I came across in preparing for this blog.

There are only three measurements that tell you nearly everything you need to know about your organization’s overall performance: employee engagement, customer satisfaction, and cash flow.

Jack Welch

Always treat your employees exactly as you want them to treat your best customers.

Stephen R. Covey

How many companies adhere to these words of wisdom? Only the successful ones!

If you’re up for some more buzzword fun, here are two links I enjoyed researching this subject.

Business buzzwords to watch in 2018

List of Buzzwords from Wikipedia

Does Your Manager Help or Hinder You?

Over the past month, I’ve been contacted by two individuals complaining about their direct supervisor hindering their work. In one case, to the point of seemingly sabotaging them. Let me include, these are high level positions with C-Level managers. During this time period, I have received two articles on workplace antics, that validate this situation is more prevalent than most realize.

Company cultures are rapidly changing, as the economy improves and hiring is on an upswing. Qualified leaders will be required for success.

Here’s a litmus test to answer the headline question:

Traits of a supportive manager.

• Freedom to perform your duties
• Open to new suggestions for improvement
• Communicates on timely matters
• Gives you the tools you need to succeed
• Gives clear direction

Traits of a non-supportive manager (besides the obvious reversal of the above bullets).

• Critical of your performance without some form of validation
• Interferes or overrides your decisions (applicable to your responsibilities)
• Clearly undermines your tasks
• Evasive or aloof

Consulting on this matter is precarious for me. I end up asking more questions regarding the company culture, than directly applying any advice. Here are my thoughts:

• Job descriptions are becoming more defined with technology maturation. Be sure to understand your deliverables. This applies to an interviewee or a current associate.
• Know your net worth to the company. What would happen if you were not there? Be careful in this review, as everyone can be replaced. Be honest in your assessment.
• What is your impact of error on the company?
• Can you detect a company culture shift? Good or bad? Does it give you hope or is it time to move on?
• Is your performance accurately represented in your reviews?
• If you do not have written reviews, start/demand them immediately.
• Can you compare your performance to others in the company? Again, be careful, stick to performance not personalities.

In conclusion, mentors, inside or outside the company, will help you air your thoughts. Stay informed of your industry trends. Read blogs and articles on this subject to stay current, as times change faster than ever.

Year End Blog

2011 has displayed a very trying year for companies and organizations. High unemployment, Wall Street's obsession with profits and an acrimonious congress has dominated the U.S. business landscape.

From following organizational anthropology and personal experiences, I beg executives, managers and associates (employees) to evaluate your attitude. Yes, I said attitude. Attitude effects all aspects of your life. I end the year, not with pontifications, but self introspective questions. These questions are valid for all organizational levels.

- Do you recognize a connection between people's performance and profits?

- Are your hiring practices inclusionary or exclusionary?

- Do you perform your responsibilities with focus and effort?

- Do you listen?

- Do you discriminate? Think hard about this question.

- Do you have the right people in the right position, doing the right thing?

- Do you accept, deny, encourage or fear change?

- Are you happy? Why or why not?

Lastly, forget 3 or 5 year strategies. What are your goals for the next 3 to 5 months? Repeat: your goals, not the where you work.

You are the difference!

Smart Hiring

This blog post is a partial addendum to my last post Organizational Structure and to offer some direction.

The job postings I recently viewed, have exacerbated the job blending phenomenon. They expanded the Operations/Creative/Sales singular position to include IT. I realize IT is a vital function in all agency or department efforts, but blend them with all the other functions? Where does one get this background?

The new MBA program will have to include, i.e. blend, all these functions to satisfy many companies' expectations. What I believe will suffer is leadership. MBA already eludes to "My Best Achievement", emphasizing the latest CEO's compensation greed.

Leadership is comprised of three main qualities:

• Experience
• Vision
• Risk

A leader can possess any singular or duplicity of the functional capacities, but it would be rare to possess anymore. Otherwise, the three main qualities become diluted. The agency or department head should have a "working" knowledge of all the functional areas, in order to best communicate with these leaders.

At the turn of the Millennium, a popular trend to flatten organizational structures took hold. I believe this is a good corporate posture. It allows strong functional leaders to specialize in their trade and it forms a forum for the diversity of ideas in a leadership meeting. With a strong meeting facilitation role, the agency or department head can create an effective problem solving environment. I have conducted and witnessed this successful meeting climate.

How do you implement this strategy?

• Take a hard look at your current structure and leader's skill sets. Do they align with my blog posts?
• Are you blending functions? Where? Does this make sense?
• Take a hard look at your leader(s) compensation. Is their parity? This is a critical step, especially with the current compensation scrutiny, driving economic correction. I will devote my next blog on the parity subject.

Building an effective team is still key to success.

Job blending is contrary to building an effective team, brainstorming, creativity and problem solving.

Defining the Team Leader's qualities, ensures this success.

Organizational Structure

As I continue to consult on advertising agency organizational structures and interview for full -time operational positions for corporate in-house divisions, I'm learning mindsets have not changed. Business is changing at light-speed, but the way of doing business is not.

There is a certain sense of irony in the organizational structure paradigm (oh, that word), especially in the creative environment. Whatever you call it, Creative Services, Advertising, Marketing, Branding, Graphics or Sales Support, the company looks to your area for creative solutions for their lack of revenue. Your department/agency is to solve everything, by producing effective materials. Yet, with the plethora of talent, you can't seem to get a project out, on-time, on-budget. Take a deep look at your division/department structure. Who's running the show?

Most Senior managers of creative areas, and typically all levels above, think having a super creative leading the pack will result in producing the materials they seek. When the area fails to deliver to their expectations, they replace the creative lead. This cycle is repetitive. The next questions is, "why can't we find a good creative lead?"

Let's define lead. Lead what? The creative approach? The creative process? The creative area? Nine times out of ten, it's the entire area. As my pastor would shout, when he wants your attention and wants to get an important point across, "Listen".

Listen:
- Creative people are creative. That's why you hired them.
- Creative people should not manage - process or people, i.e. the area.
- Stop replacing the good ones.
- Change the structure.

There are plenty of industries that develop right/left brain people: architecture, photography, musicians. All these industries require both sides of the brain. Each involve math and vision. Our industry, is no different. Leaders can come from our different disciplines, Account Services, Production, and yes, sometimes Creative. Your job is to recruit and screen for this balance, not "get me another creative person." In the event, this person is not easily found, get two people to complete the required balance. Don't scream, "I can't hire two people for one job."

Listen:
- Change the structure.

Companies has been successful at reducing overhead, increasing creative quality and processes, when they have the right people in the right disciplines in the right structure.

Quit blaming the Creative Director for not producing their best work, when you hired them to run the entire area/department/agency. They were made to be creative, not lead large teams and crunch numbers. Our job as leaders is to give our associates the tools they need to succeed.

Listen:
If you don't know how to do this, get help.