Leadership Matters

Six Steps to Successful M&A (Team) Integration - The Art of Balancing Leadership, Style and Sustenance

2013-05-09T19:04:06Z

Whether you agree, or disagree with a merger and acquisition (M&A) trend and strategy, as a company leader, you will highly likely, sooner or later, be involved in yet another merger and/or acquisition. For example, given the changing research and development, economic and healthcare landscape, a prospective new wave of mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry seems just a matter of time.

Cultural incompatibility is often cited as the #1 reason a M&A fails -

Is it really?

What may have been a 'good idea', turns often into an avalanche of post-merger issues, as was highlighted some time ago during a webcast by Joe Aberger, President of Pritchett, LP, a specialized intellectual capital transfer firm, specialized in change management and merger integration. Issues are often camouflaged and presented as divergent leadership styles, inc

ongruent operating practices, employer resistance, poor communication, high personnel turnover, low morale and internal conflict. Mr. Aberger also highlighted the true #1 reason why M&A's fail - A too high premium paid, resulting in an overpriced business deal. In other words an unjustified premium, which cannot be (timely) recouped. Image Credit Flickr http://www.flickr.com

I will not discuss this type of M&A in this article, as I assume you and your team have done a thorough due diligence, including a diligent cultural assessment (with Human Resources' involvement) and paid a price which can be recouped and true economic value can be created from the ensuing merger synergies. This way, the integration activities will not be overshadowed by an insurmountable economic barrier, a race against time to recoup merger cost and a general underlying value and organizational destructive process.

Having taken the above into account, the question becomes, how does one effectively integrate a new organization, integrate two companies and form a new team, a new organization?

Here are six steps on how to make your next merger and/or acquisition successful and your life as a leader increasingly fulfilling and efficacious:

1. Define a well-articulated and (viscerally) understandable integration strategy and actively communicate this personally and through the leadership team, speaking the truth at all times.

Create targeted and focused communication, and share it at the right time to the right people with the right level of emotion. As a Leader use meetings as a principal platform to model excellence, enthusiasm, engagement, learning and to re-enforce the new corporation's values. When questions arise, deliver answers truthfully and do not avoid emotions, but manage directly and upfront. Welcome people interaction and certainly do not be afraid of it

2. Create unity in the senior leadership team and define 'bad' relationships during the due-diligence phase and actively eliminate them immediately upon closure of the deal.

You need to take careful action from the beginning and focus on creating an integrated, diversified and well-qualified collaborative senior leadership team, capable of not only collaborating on the development of the new organization, but also supporting the strategy execution of the new company moving forward. Remember that 'the bottleneck' is always at the top - be mindful about creating an all-inclusive diversity

3. Expeditiously determine who stays and in what role and who goes, being fair, yet focused and decisive.

Your goal is to diligently and transparently develop the required roles for the new organization and to 'hire' the best talented people to do the job. By being transparent and ensuring senior leadership involvement in the process, you keep the whole process human and balanced. Remind yourself that every one is watching - all the time. The way you manage this process is equally important for those who "stay" as for those who "leave" the new organization. You need strong team support to build the new company and you can for sure use any support in the market, by the people who leave

Image Credit Google Images http://www.google.com/imghp

4. Address people as people - human beings with beliefs, values, experiences, and emotions, usually with goodwill to support and help to succeed the new organization.

Let the new company's vision, mission and strategy guide the people and the teams. Confront misalignment actively and directly. As you treat people as people, you create collaborative success, you build successful teams, you act with integrity, you build innovative platforms in your organizations and you are 'we' focused versus 'I' focused. Simply put, you show by your behavior and actions to value human contribution, a key and fundamental organizational building block of the new organization.

5. Acknowledge and personally accept that mergers and acquisitions are often not so much about merging the processes of the two merging companies, but about people relationships, the culture of the two companies and the targeted new and integrated company culture.

This is why it is so critical for a leader to be visible and actively participating in presenting the vision of the new organizational culture, so every one can start effectively contributing to its development. Also, be reminded that informal working relationships, often times "key" to successful collaboration within the individual organizations, are now broken, and will have to be forged anew Image Credit Flickr http://www.flickr.com

6. Set the behavioral examples for the culture and the merger's effectiveness, or the lack thereof.

A failed merger is mostly a result of misaligned leadership communication, and the resulting low levels of employee engagement. The challenge leaders of merged organizations face head on, is how to move from a state of (mostly) distrust, to a state of trust, all the while the new organization is being build, clients need to be served and innovation, productivity and profitability need to be guarded. Stay mindful about and personally support the free flow of communication - All communication, the good, the bad and the ugly. You know when communication is free flowing, when people will easily come up to you, to share, to comment, to provide ideas, to deliver 'bad' news, etc. They are clearly not afraid

Conclusion

As you will move with your new organization into, what in my view will turn out to be one of the most competitive markets since decades, you will need an active communicating work force at all levels and leadership supporting your people in making innovation and enabling customer success. Integrating a new organization is and remains first and foremost a people issue - employees and clients need to be involved timely and appropriately. Your role as a leader is critical in shaping the post-merger/post-acquisition desired behavior and actions, in short creating the new organization.

Can "it" be done? Yes, I think so. If you cover the above directly in your own work, or indirectly with your leadership, you will be well on your way to make the (team) integration a success, to the organization, to the customers, and to its stakeholders. Image Credit Google Images http://www.google.com/imghp

After all, leadership matters. Managing integration is principally managing (human) capital efficiency - Do it balanced and well and your organization will strive - the alternative is not an option for a fiduciary responsible leader.

Wishing you much success and we welcome your thoughts and comments!

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal Consultant of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting). He is an experienced global life sciences executive - a practical business leader and organizational development advisor, working principally with life sciences industry leaders internationally.

CPLS Consulting is focused on organizational development and executive and team performance advisory.

Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.(+1) 443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com.

The Secret to Dealing with Outsourcing Providers? It's about You (part 2)

2012-01-18T20:15:00Z

This article continues from "The Secret to Dealing with Outsourcing Providers? It's about You (part 1)"

Success Secrets Revealed:

-Culture is key. We suggest you start with reviewing the knowledge level and culture of your prospective collaborative partner and its compatibility with your own. Knowing what to do is part of the equation - Doing it with a matching level of cultural sensitivity determines successful and efficient long-term and sustainable integration of the OP's team into your own organization.

It is surprising to see how many leaders deal with OPs in other cultures, yet without having any knowledge about the particular culture - therefore being greatly hindered in their cross-cultural communication ability and the partnership's effectiveness.

Do you and your people for example, know the difference between "high context" and "low context" type cultures? Do you know which type the OP has? Outsourcing 'across cultures' requires for you and your organization to be prepared for this added inter-personal communication and management dimension. If not, culture clashes will minimally raise anxiety, cause delays and in the worse case scenario cause projects to fail by becoming a 'misaligned interest' over time.

- Require a transparent and recurring organization, quality, system and infrastructure review as part of your due diligence and business relationship. It is not uncommon to find less than optimal internal IT hardware, software and systems within OP organizations. The OP's drive for external client delivery and results, frequently challenges spending fiscal and human resources on internal 'upgrades' and systems. Often, in such organizations, efficiency-delivery of the results, can take a lot of personal effort and comes at a high personnel cost. This, according to many ex-OP employees, is also partly related to the double digit turnover in many OP organizations. Structural and internal organizational development, "non-billable" work, will often be trumped by project related work. Be cognizant and monitor this OP organizational development and leadership tension -review if it matches your (ongoing) requirements.

- Based upon Request For Proposal (RFP) data, you may select multiple OP organizations for an on-site visit to discuss capabilities in relation to your specific needs. This usually comes in the form of a presentation by OP's leadership and business development staff, followed by a question and answer session. The presentation usually provides a company overview with a presentation on the number of similar projects performed for other clients - in other words the prospective capability to successfully undertake your project.

However, for you to be able to evaluate clearly "what you're buying", you may want to ask OP leadership for a listing with an overview of the industry-, company- and possibly therapeutic area- experience, of the people who will be assigned to your project(s). In addition, you may want to ask: "Of the people who supported the presented historic successfully completed client projects, how many people are still working for your organization in a similar capacity? Remember, you're in need of buying people/team capabilities and need to be sure experience is available for your project(s). Please note it is not uncommon for OPs to significantly start hiring staff for specific projects, once the agreement is fully ratified. If this is the case for you, it is important for you to be aware of this and to take this into consideration, as part of your due diligence process.

- We recommend to always work with the intention to creating "win-win" scenario's for you and the OP you collaborate and, or partner with. This way, your decision to work with a specific team, company, is no longer a "hit and miss", it is part of the business strategy and has a true long-term intent. You consider the OP and yourself when thinking about how to make this a "win". This is not about "them", or "you", but about creating sustainable "success" out of the relationship. It truly has to be a "win-win" collaborative partnership. Every thing else ultimately will come to fail and becomes part of the flailing organizational change effort statistic, including OP's collaborative partnership failure to deliver the intended outcome [2], [3], [4].

- We recommend to carefully review the scope of the project, the size of the enterprise and the geographical (time zone) location of the enterprise you are going to work with. Size does matter and you need to define whether a global OP with a hefty infrastructure to support, is really what you need and want to support for this particular project?

Also, geography counts, as it makes a great difference to your team if they can talk with the OP team members during their regular office hours.

Building relationships and efficiency requires continuity of effort and demands at a minimum some form of relationship between task and people.

- We suggest to thoroughly screen and review the assigned team and provide leadership and team recommendations prior to the start of the project. Also, continuously during the project when team turnover occurs, so that timely and efficient adjustments can be made, on the OP side, or on the Sponsor side, or both.

- Do you know the OP's current personnel attrition rate? Ask the OP's leadership for a breakdown of staff by function with their tenure level within the organization - Require transparency and proof through data. Although loyalty does not equal performance, it is important to you and you need to be able to integrate the turnover data within your planning. A likely double digit personnel attrition will easily set you back in time and money, particularly on a longer duration project.

Unfortunately, as mentioned in part 1 of this article, so called 'respected' OP names, do not lead to undisputed, repeated and uncomplicated successful results. It all depends upon the team assigned and the level of 'absorption' your leadership and organization can handle to manage, i.e. can the OP team become an integral part of a newly formed team and can leadership manage this added complexity and new organizational 'modus operandi'.

- With all due respect for the business part of OP's - OP's activities and change orders come at a price to your organization and are often not the result of lack of OP strategy, planning and, or internal inefficiency. Outsourcing, including change orders is an OP's business and you need to carefully plan and manage jointly with the OP to avoid repeated and costly change orders.

- When people do not know what to do and go to an OP, the professional OP will require information, develop a plan, or revisit an earlier plan and present a (revised) bill for the resources used and time spent. Therefore we feel successful OP interface management is a professional, sensitive, operational and a logistical task if you will, yet a task which, particularly in the Biotech, Medical Devices, or Pharmaceutical Industry carries a lot of the technical and specifics of product-, or drug-development know how within. Well technical- and people-skilled individuals are definitely required!

- Working with an OP equals initiating change within the organization, hence as a leader the need to manage this adaptation process actively and intelligently - This implies collaboration, not merely 'delegation' - Take full leadership accountability and for example, target to better define the interface, its management and hence improve the functioning of the interaction with the third party throughout your organization.

- We have experienced well written interface processes effectively "not working" and mediocre processes "being handled" with excellence by the people involved. However, creativity to manage and handle complexity and the dynamics of projects cannot be 'harnessed' by Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) alone. As mentioned before, knowledgeable people are required, people who are neutral to the process and to you -Those who have no internal 'push' from colleagues and/or the OP. In addition, people who can build relationships and who can create client success by treating the project variables intelligently and sensibly - Animosity doesn't belong in this relationship - Maturity and professionalism does. As business advisors we experienced quite dramatic uptake in project response, budget management and the overall planning by having the interface management clearly defined and being discussed upfront by knowledgeable people. This is not just about administratively 'getting the contract right'- you need specialist and mature resources at the table, people who 'have been there, done that'.

- Your leadership role, although limited, is critical in the process. We recommend to establish necessary communication and reporting lines, so your role is to lead and prepare for the interpretation of the project results, not repeatedly handling escalated collaboration, or interface project management issues. Require daily discussions if necessary, particularly if you 'test' some thing for your organization and you want to ensure to expend money and personnel on the right 'thing', or the right approach.

- We recommend senior level management interaction, as frequent as necessary, but no less than once per quarter for a full project(s) performance update, reviewing the full project(s) and any outstanding issues to be reviewed and discussed.

- We recommend neutrally guided pre-, during- and post-project interface review, resulting in improved relationships and greater interface effectiveness between you and your third party. 'Post-mortem' implies exactly that and is severely limiting project management effectiveness. You want ongoing vitality in the relationship, not mortality.

- We recommend for you to agree on the project Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) prior to starting the project - Ensuring identical measures of success are used by your team and the OP's team. Prevent they will not become subjective 'Key People Indicators', through the development of clear and objective project related measurements. You're not 'giving' all, or parts of your projects blindly away. Mutual agreement with mutual measurements in place, prior to the start of the project, prevents development of project 'blind spots'. This, usually leading to unreliable decision making data at the end.

- We strongly suggest for you to stay away from the "Bookkeeper-Auditor Dilemma" - Create a clear and separate authority and communication line between who's executing the work and who's supervising and/or auditing the work. When this is not 'possible' for example, when complete development programs are outsourced, demand regular external Quality Assurance auditing, with full access to personnel, systems and data.

Working with OPs can be rewarding for you and can contribute to the organization's business success. However, we want to stress once again, any time you collaborate with an OP, you create a new venture and you ought to create a collaborative partnership of "equals" with your OP to ensure success.

The internal adaptation to integrate and manage the outsourcing leads to greater success, than the routine focus on selecting the "best" outsourcing provider. It is as much, if not more, about you and your (adapted) organization, as it is about the selection of the OP organization.

Creating a clear outsourcing common vision, strategizing integration, defining efficient operationalization and communication with and organizing your internal resources, is as important as organizing the interface with the OP's resources.

It is clear, OPs are not a panacea, they will not cure a corporation's missing talent, performance and/or organizational issues, they don't deal with organization misalignment, missed succession planning and any other myriad organizational and business development issues you may be dealing with.

Both Sponsor and OP leadership have to be dedicated to collaborative success - focused on "Client Success" and mutual business success, by producing functional resource integration, assigning quality and dedicated leadership with appropriate project performance measurements.

As an organizational leader you must lead and manage your own organization, but you cannot and should not attempt to manage the OP.

We hope through this 2-part article we have been able to contribute to improved and successfully dealing with the organizational development, communication requirements and collaborative leadership required in the preparation, planning and execution of successful partnership with OPs.

CONCLUSION

Partnering is collaborating and collaborating needs to happen as "equals". The internal organization and framework, its culture, is equally as important as the OP's culture you select.

Your leadership is key in preparing and leading your organization towards outsourcing success - you need trust, transparency and being able to continuously tell each other truthfully what's going on.

The true panacea to your organizations outsourcing success - The secret of dealing with OP's is all about you, your organization and the leadership of the outsourcing relationship.

Last, but not least - Please remember, any time you consider outsourcing, first consider the internal organization required to do so - Selecting the OP is of secondary importance.

Wishing you much success!

References

[1] Reinhoudt, F., Johan (2009). Collaboration to Innovate; Collaboration Matters - Creating Value at the Interface.

[2] Beer, M., Nohria, N., (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, HBR's 10 Must Reads on Change, 88-95.

[3] Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990a). Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158-166.

[4] Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.

[5] PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2007). The partnership bridge: Building successful IT outsourcing relationships - 2007 Global Outsourcing Survey

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).

He is an experienced global executive and international business advisor, working principally with senior industry leaders on executive and business performance.

Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting) is a specialized Business Advisory Firm, with a Primary Focus on Executive and Business Performance.

Our base rule of operations is to initially learn, listen, to gain a deep insight into our client's business. We quickly analyze complex organizational development and performance matters and translate them into workable solutions, in a concrete and diplomatic manner. We work against specific objectives with clearly determined outcomes, contributing to our client's specific business goals.

As part of Collaborative Primacy, leadership and people development are indispensable to a client's successful business development. Our approach is innovative, pragmatic intelligent and client-value driven. We are committed to customer satisfaction and a successful relationship through a partnership of equals.

We deal with those issues, few consultants are willing to deal with and best of all we guarantee our work. Hence, when business leaders need professional assistance for challenges facing their enterprise, they call on us - a practical, collaborative, responsive and strategic partner.

Please visit our website or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

The Secret to Dealing with Outsourcing Providers? It's about You (part 1)

2012-01-11T18:36:47Z

INTRODUCTION

As a business and organizational leader, you are required to continuously and strategically position your company for growth. Increasingly, this requires for you and your organization to collaborate with outside parties - to outsource services, or production to an external party. Investment into outsourcing a project, or activity is required so you can buy specialized resources, skills, or a technique you either don't have, or don't have (yet) enough of within the organization. It also reduces capital expenditure, by being able to manage the Outsourcing Provider (OP) as external cost, reducing the internal resource dependency and increasing the flexibility to meet ever dynamic market conditions.

By now it has become clear, there is no universal route to business success, but one which needs to be uniquely tailored to both the Sponsoring and the OP organization. In this 2-part article, we want to highlight the importance of "leadership" and "partnering" with OPs and what successful leaders have observed - In other words, how success can be positively influenced by you, the leader.

In fact, the contrary is often true: Outsourcing exacerbates existing internal leadership, management, policy, process and procedural issues. Foremost, it requires additional and a different type of leadership - not less.

Working with OPs implies the creation of a (new) collaboration and partnership - This will bring about changes in the 'modus operandi' of any organization and requires the creation of a truly "new" organization within the overall organizational framework.

Once you have taken the decision to use an OP, it is pivotal to take the changes in the 'modus operandi' of the organization first and foremost into account, and to carefully define expectations, plan, communicate and lead in close collaboration with the OP's leadership - Commencing managing the OP relationship right from the start.

In our advisory work we have seen many leaders requiring the creation of excessive policies, procedures and structures to manage the OP interface. This 'securitization' of success by leadership frequently has resulted in a lopsided focus, one which often has been 'exclusively' centered around processes and the search for 'imperfections' and inabilities in the OP's organization. Operationally, perhaps surprising, it is not so much about the OP and its organization, but mostly about the internal 'setup' of the Sponsoring organization and about seeking a mutually compatible and beneficial partner.

Often times, the initial lopsided focus by the Sponsor, results in time delays, cost overruns and other undesirable business consequences down the road. When working with an OP, when not overly careful, these will be your charges and your costs. It is up to you to continuously communicate with the OP and to ensure business interests remain aligned and mutually beneficial.

There is currently a high failure rate (~70%) in altering the way an organization is operating [2], [3], [4] and a similar failure rate, specifically in outsourcing deals (~69%), in whole or part [5]. Thus, there is a strong need for a different approach in forming partnerships and collaborative ventures in the industry by means of approaching and managing OPs in a strategic and well executed manner.

Are you experiencing "Outsourcing Provider" Alerts?

1. Are you experiencing program development timeline deviation, while working with your OPs?

2. Have you ever thought, even though you have seen advantages of working with OPs, there are plenty of times, you would like to do all the work internally with your own team?

3. Are you experiencing cost overruns, while executing your product and development programs through OPs?

4. Are you experiencing delays - Your projects not to start, or end on-time?

5. Are you experiencing multiple internally directed project changes resulting in various change orders as a result?

6. Are you considering to outsource your OPs (interface) management?

7. Are you receiving negative cost-benefit ratio updates on the use of a specific OP, or no clear cost-benefit ratio data at all?

If you are like most business leaders you have answered "yes" to one, or more of the above questions.

The following main questions may then occupy your mind in this respect:

A. What impact does leadership specifically have on success in the interaction and output of working with an Outsourcing Provider?

B. Can leadership prevent outcome uncertainty, administrative mishaps, miscommunication, higher than expected cost, lower than expected output and other undesired collaboration- and partnership-results with OPs from occurring?

Effective Leaders:

- Know legal, financial and technical due diligence of a prospective partner often eclipse operational, organizational and culture reviews. When these latter issues 'fall through the cracks', it can lead to big problems in the collaborative partnership further down the road [1].

- Know successful management of an OP relationship, requires mutual knowledge and understanding of each other's organization, each other's culture and its collaborative nature, all fundamental to a successful outcome. Success is mutually driven by the assigned People, the Team, the Operations, the Organization and finally the Culture. When leaders outsource, they factually in-source, they buy a team of resources to supplement their own.

- Model their personal collaborative leadership behavior to the collaborative partnership the seek to create. Hence this will be visible in the team's operational approach and project management.

- Seek collective gain by creating a research, clinical-, product-, or commercial- development collaboration and partnership, a partnership of equals - a "Win-Win", irrespective from the organizational size of the 'other party' - Hence, the OP may represent a much bigger, or much smaller size organization than their own.

- Know a successful project with an OP is clearly defined by leadership right from the start - their personal leadership - A well known OP name doesn't define success - collaborative leadership does.

- Respect each other's business - they look beyond the OP agreement "price" and see "value" by leaving a respectable margin in the price to pay, allowing for potential long term collaboration and mutual business development.

- Target success and know "management by fear" is not successful - they negotiate positive OP milestone delivery incentives in the agreement - always stimulating delivery, not fear.

- Are accountable for the organization - they do not allow for uncontrolled and unprofessional 'internal' work, to be 'fixed' (at a price) by the OP. This is particularly relevant when "strategic partnerships" are initiated, often leading to huge organizational cost (frustration and project delays) as a result of the initial "hands-off" mentality by the Sponsor's staff. The latter is a result of leadership's inability to 'sell' the decision to outsource complete departments and/or functions and to collaborate internally on a partnership with the OP.

When leaders outsource, they factually in-source, they buy a team of resources to supplement their own."

- Define "neutral", high quality, knowledgeable professionals to interface with OPs - avoiding the multi-layered department oversight scenario (administrative-, contract-, project-management), leading to an inability of clear accountability, producing inefficiency and potential project waste as a result.

- They assign talent which is defined as 'fit for purpose', not just based upon résumé review, but through a sensible review of an individual's inner desire to perform and contribute to the specific requirements of the OP interface job.

- Distinguish interface management from "process management". They actively work on the daily reality of how well their organization integrates its own activities with the external OP organization and determine what repercussions the outsourcing has on a departmental level within their organization.

- Develop a clear project vision and a realistic and implementable strategy, planning and execution - leading to timely information provision, reducing mid-course project strategy changes to a minimum. They are well aware that otherwise, planning and quality will suffer and human and fiscal resources will have to be expended, all as a result of OP generated, but Sponsor 'caused' "change orders".

- Avoid the 'dynamic' product development environment excuse used by departments or the organization as a whole, causing projects to drift and continuously change course, without a clear strategic reasoning. They know this is more related to their personal and their leadership team's inability to clearly define what needs to be done, than to product-, regulatory-, or commercial-data driven changes.

Will you know what's going on and are you getting your money's worth i.e., will the defined goals and objectives be met by the OPs promised date - At the agreed price?"

- Know that so called reputable (company) names, do not lead to undisputed, repeated and uncomplicated successful project results. It all depends upon the team assigned and the defined interface and management thereof. It is up to the assigned Sponsor leader to ensure team verification and qualification for the job to be done - this includes the assigned Sponsor and OPs Project Manager.

- Know smaller sized OPs often times have 'niche' product-, therapeutic- and, or specific geographical-area expertise. These OPs deliver agility, flexibility and responsiveness, often complemented by short communication lines with knowledgeable Senior Leadership - features most 'larger' OPs cannot, or cannot consistently provide and guarantee.

- Define success and give clear measurements. Implement mutual key performance measurements in place to prove that the outsourcing is 'working' and contributing to the Sponsor and the OP's business success.

- Are interested in the creation of an increasing flexible organization, one with lower "fixed cost" and increasing successful response to market demand, allowing for rapid increase, or decrease of resources, yet not without realizing there is an internal "cost" to this.

- Know that in a strict regulatory context, using an OP does not reduce an organization's accountability for the actual project work being done by the OP. Effective leaders are known to be ultra selective about who is going to work on their projects, in what capacity and for how long. These leaders know they will finally be held Regulatory and Financially accountable for all OP activities on their project(s).

Are there Success Secrets? Find out next week.

Part 2 of this article will be published on January 18, 2012.

References

[1] Reinhoudt, F., Johan (2009). Collaboration to Innovate; Collaboration Matters - Creating Value at the Interface.

[2] Beer, M., Nohria, N., (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, HBR's 10 Must Reads on Change, 88-95.

[3] Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990a). Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158-166.

[4] Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail? Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.

[5] PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2007). The partnership bridge: Building successful IT outsourcing relationships - 2007 Global Outsourcing Survey

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).

He is an experienced global executive and international business advisor, working principally with senior industry leaders on executive and business performance.

Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting) is a specialized Business Advisory Firm, with a Primary Focus on Executive and Business Performance.

As part of Collaborative Primacy leadership and people development are indispensable to a client's successful business development. Our approach is innovative, pragmatic intelligent and client-value driven. We are committed to customer satisfaction and a successful relationship through a partnership of equals.

Please contact us at Tel. (+1) 443-420-1000, to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

Greater Value in Earlier Stage Pharma and Biotech Collaborative Partnerships

2010-08-04T17:28:57Z

Collaborative partnerships need more than a good product to be successful

Collaborative partnerships are of increasing importance for successful innovation within the life sciences industry[1]. Innovation within the pharmaceutical companies today is not comparable to that of 15 or 20 years ago. One would have to go back to the early 1990s or even the late 1980s to find the 'old' in-house pharma research model working successfully in producing blockbuster, breakthrough treatments for unmet medical needs.

Today, old-fashioned in-house research is no longer tenable and pharmaceutical companies increasingly focus on making deals where they can and as early as they can to support their ailing pipelines and fuel innovation[2].

There's a tension developing: the pharmaceutical companies 'need' biotech companies to bring selective resources and fuel innovation, while the biotech companies, who feel almost 'forced', due to lack of available financing, must "progress" by making an early stage deal with a pharmaceutical company. You would think this would be a great fit - two parties who are in genuine need of each other. Not so fast:

1. Collaborative partnerships have often been unsuccessful. The statistics are not good - about ~60-70% fail to deliver the intended outcome[3].

2. Pharma-biotech collaborative partnership failure has many causes, but according to surveys, the most-often cited reasons are product failure and drastic market change[4]. Look more closely at the survey results, and you'll see that following those two explanations, the most often-cited reasons for failure in collaborative partnerships relate to what many people feel are true "givens" when it comes to forming, executing and terminating collaborative partnerships: issues such as poor communication, ineffective alliance leadership, unclear definition of roles and responsibilities, weak partner commitment and differences in partner cultures. These can lead to big trouble in a collaborative partnership and, importantly, have little to do with the objective scientific merits of a drug in development.

3. Formation of early collaborative partnerships usually has relatively low risk for the pharmaceutical company. For them the fee to be paid when signing the contract is usually relatively modest and the risk is mostly related to the ultimate license fee to be paid when the product would become commercially successful.

The biotech company, on the other hand is taking great risk. Its leadership and governance board are often not sure about the pharmaceutical company's drivers, motivation and commitment, is usually inexperienced to dealing with the particular pharmaceutical company and more over is resource constraint and cultural adverse.

Add to this the culture clash: when a large established pharmaceutical company establishes a new collaborative partnership with a small, or medium sized biotech organization, the people, the operations, the organization and the culture are vastly different, and this leads to problems if not addressed early on.

The above factors illustrates the increasing 'tension field': a relationship-management tension field.

How the leadership teams of the two partnering organizations deal with these issues will effectively determine a collaborative partnership's ultimate success. In fact, addressing the culture gap is just as important for the success of the collaboration as the scientific value of the product being developed. Unfortunately, currently this aspect is often overlooked in favor of the technical and legal aspects in forming a collaborative partnership.

In light of the changing R&D environment we will see an increasing amount of collaborative partnerships being formed, as the life sciences industry will continue to change into an industry where collaboration becomes critical for innovative success.

A favorable outcome for innovation will depend to a large extent on the way the collaborative partnerships are formed, executed and terminated - therefore those who can "create value at the interface". A successfully completed or transformed collaborative partnership can even be a successful 'entry' into another collaboration later on, leading to more innovation.

References

1] Reinhoudt, J., (2010). Collaboration to Innovate - Changes in the Life Sciences Industry and the Increasing Importance of Collaborative Partnerships for Successful Innovation. www.cplsconsulting.com

[2] Douglas, J., (2010). Big Pharma Won't Wait in Rush for Biotech's Drugs. Washington Journal Online

[3] Hughes, J., Weiss, J., (2007). Simple Rules for Making Alliances Work. Harvard Business Review, 122-131

[4] Brower, A., (2005). Biotech-Pharma Partnerships Reach All-Time High. Biotechnology Healthcare, 18-20

Copyrights 2010 All Rights Reserved, All Media Johan Reinhoudt
Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).
He is an experienced global executive and international business advisor, working principally with senior industry leaders on executive and business performance.
Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting) is a specialized Business Advisory Firm, with a Primary Focus on Executive and Business Performance.
Our base rule of operations is to initially learn, listen, to gain a deep insight into our client's business. We quickly analyze complex organizational development and performance matters and translate them into workable solutions, in a concrete and diplomatic manner. We work against specific objectives with clearly determined outcomes, contributing to our client's specific business goals.
As part of Collaborative Primacy leadership and people development are indispensable to a client's successful business development. Our approach is innovative, pragmatic intelligent and client-value driven. We are committed to customer satisfaction and a successful relationship through a partnership of equals.
We deal with those issues, few consultants are willing to deal with and best of all we guarantee our work. Hence, when business leaders need professional assistance for challenges facing their enterprise, they call on us - a practical, collaborative, responsive and strategic partner.
Please contact us at Tel. (+1) 443-420-1000, to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.
Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

Revitalization and Growth through Innovation

2010-05-23T19:54:25Z

Despite the numerous mergers and market changes, the life sciences industry has not yet seen a significant increase in innovation and new therapy introductions. Furthermore, driven by the general economic uncertainty in many different business sectors, most recently the discussion about the abysmal failure rate of change initiatives and innovation in general has been revitalized. The failure rate of about 70% is not only frightening many business leaders, it is paralyzing to most. Unfortunately the life sciences industry, as an industry sector, is no exception. Much resources have been wasted over the years in search of the 'magic process'. Some organizations have even felt compelled to roll-out process based 'innovation training'. We feel this is very unfortunate and misses the point - when innovation in a people environment is treated as a process - positive results will be sporadic at best and quite often people become disillusioned and apathetic in such environments.

This is why we have created Collaborative Primacy (CP). We believe the model has proven its practical value to our clients, because it positively contributes to the development of a sustainable and healthy architecture capability and innovation environment. Accountable leadership and effective bi-directional feedback are becoming the norm and innovation is changed from a process into a valuable resource. CP is a model, involving your team and resources, therefore minimizing expenses and quickly and gently going to 'the heart of the matter' by collaboratively reviving the organization for growth and profitability.

Collaborative Primacy-Revitalization and Growth Through Innovation.pdf

Capability Architecture and Leadership Development Model

2010-05-03T19:23:16Z

The Collaborative Primacy Architecture Capability and Leadership Development Model, primarily builds upon Accountable Leadership, Clear Communication, Focused Resources and Bi-Directional Feedback. The CP-Architecture and Leadership Development Model is a practical and communication based model, leading to tangible and sustainable performance output improvements, modeled by a behavioral shift in the organization and a high performance mindset and culture.

Collaborative Primacy - Capability Architecture and Leadership Development Model.pdf

The Leadership Knowledge Deficit - Why Over-Leading Pushes Management Away And What To Do About It?

2010-03-02T01:10:19Z

It has become a pervasive problem in the industry and has led to great recent private-, public-industry and government leadership debacles - leaders who over-lead without really knowing what they are leading. Or to put this in other words, a leader who is remote from management, in short, a leader with weak management. Not only does this relate to the leaders' knowledge of the organization and the people, but now more than ever also about the knowledge of the activities which have to be performed by the people to reach organizational performance standards and targets. Leaders are questioning what is going on and what, if anything at all, they have been contributing to these issues?

In the 80's and 90's we often experienced strong management with weak leadership at the helm of companies. Gradually this has a morphed into a situation where we have come to separate leaders from managers and where governing boards explicitly were seeking leaders to become Presidents-CEO's of the organization.

So, frequently leaders no longer understand the tasks, the what of what needs to be done, to successfully complete the delegated task(s). We now regularly face the "Abdiled", the abdicating leader at work.

This type of leader is so busy with doing all kinds of things to serve outside stakeholders, for it to be no longer possible, to be involved with and aware of the tasks at hand in their own organization. They measure performance standards and output, yet they do not know what needs to be done for the measured standards and output to be produced.

If this sounds too harsh to you, please ask yourself the question: "How aware am I of what my direct reports need to establish to meet, or exceed the performance standards and goals?" If you have the slightest doubt about the answer, please be so reflexive and honest to count yourself in on the Abdiled club.

Let me give you a few brief real life examples.

- A leader promises a timeline to outsiders e.g., financial analysts, without proper communication with its division leaders. The cascading effect becomes that this timeline needs to be managed in whatever way, although no longer at whatever cost.

For example in the life sciences industry, in clinical drug development, as part of monitoring progress of a clinical development plan of a compound, often times first patient included in a clinical trial, is considered a key measurement of organizational performance, particularly measured at the beginning of Phase I, Phase II and Phase III respectively. However, what is often overlooked is the artifact of the meaning of this measurement. From experience, studies are often delayed in its completion due to poor protocol, hasty and erratic planning and poor investigator and site selection. These are all clear consequences of how the study got started in the first place, all with the goal in mind of having the first patient in the study by a certain, promised date. Is the leader possibly unaware of the consequences of the promises and its related intricate details? If so, is this irrelevant to its leadership and should this not be part of their management?

- Quality standard promises by leaders - unaware of what is implied by the words used. I am not going to refer to a car manufacturer example, but let's say a company claims to deliver an error free product and puts high brand and promotional value on this, consequently selling the product at a higher price than the competition. Does the leader know what needs to be accomplished to make this happen. How does this need to be managed in order for the desired quality level to be sustained at a given cost? Is this realistic?

- Promises of non-protocol described data disclosure in a regulatory controlled drug development environment. Some leaders may label this as a statistical interim analysis, yet if this analysis was not described in the protocol and was not planned for, it cannot be suddenly labeled as such without consequences. Does the leader know what it implies to press ahead without following proper procedure, for not following regulatory guidelines and for communicating this within and outside of the organization? Does the leader know how this needs to be properly managed? If not, why not?

- Leaders who claim to have made excellent progress with customer relationship management, but not having personally met and talked with a customer in the last two months. Does the President-CEO role imply delegating internal and external customer relationship management, or is personal participation, personal management required as part of his/her balanced leadership and management portfolio?

These are just a few examples to stress the point of the requirement of an involved leader, one who is aware of what needs to be done to meet a performance target. It seems that balanced scorecards and dashboards have become the middle man and yet have been elevated to near saint like status. They have turned into one of the leader's closely guarded secret formulas, often used as a shield from behind which all alchemy to performance takes place.

Leadership matters and it implies a healthy and structured balance between leadership and management. A leader, is supposed to operate as a strategic leader and a management generalist, ensuring excellent two-way communication with specialists, allowing plans to reflect reality and execution of the corporation's strategy.

This combined quality of leadership and management in one person, requires strong reflexive behaviors on the side of the leader and its team, such as;

- Open communication about establishing the corporation's direction

- Aligning the leadership team and the rest of the people

- Motivating and inspiring every one in the organization

- Planning and budgeting

- Organizing and staffing, controlling and problem solving.

If all is done well, this will lead to an organization which is adaptive to change, consistently producing the target performance standards and results as expected by the various stakeholders, using a minimum of scarce resources.

Lead and manage the business through personal involvement, being a leader and manager, stimulating an open and honest organization with a transparent communication system.

Leadership Matters and letting go of tasks, delegating without going overboard is key to healthy leadership and to a healthy, growing and developing organization. Be the balanced leader and manager, the lead-manager you can and must be, and remember, every one notices and appreciates your productive efforts.

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).

He is an experienced global executive and international business advisor, working principally with senior industry leaders on executive and business performance.

Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting) is a specialized Business Advisory Firm, with a Primary Focus on Executive and Business Performance.

Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

Trust Bust - Time For Contemplation And Action?

2009-12-13T19:32:26Z

It is no longer a 'secret' - confidence in today's business leaders is at an all-time low. Particularly 2008 has brought more harm than good in this respect - CEO's are criticized across industries, with their own employee base targeting them like villains, awaiting public 'sentencing'.

Ironically confidence, or in this article synonymously described as trust, cannot be received, when not given. Stephen M.R. Covey called it "The one thing that changes everything" in his book "The Speed of Trust". Covey further described that trust is "beyond ethics: Why personal credibility is the foundation of all trust".

Trust for this article is defined as the 'un-definable', the root and source of our behavior, as it is continuously defined and refined by our perception of our interaction with other people.

Is the severe lack of trust in business leaders a sudden manifestation of a long lingering and latent disease? I don't think so. There have been trust issues since human beings started to interact with each other and I probably do not have to list the great amount of business and other organizational debacles which have been widely reported in the press; examples such as Enron, New York Times, AIG, Adelphia, Healthsouth Corporation, Biovail, Merck, Pfizer, Worldcom, Rite Aid, Major League Baseball, Wall Street, ClimateGate, the United States Government bailouts, Sports Memorabilia and of course there are many more.

However, what makes this eruption of frustration about the loss of trust in leadership so unique and interesting, is for it to be nearly equally distributed among private industries, non-profits (including churches and other religious institutions), state and federal government and sports.

Apparently employees, customers, suppliers, colleague leaders and citizens want to renounce the trust status quo and want leaders to 'come clean'.

As a business leader, the personal and business stakes for you are very high. A significant part of your market may have eroded, your financing may have dried up, and you may have had to downsize your organization to the utmost minimum possible, leaving the 'left behind team members' with an increased and 'unfamiliar' workload. All this has led in many organizations to an all time high stress level with consequentially a challenge to the creativity, innovation and motivation level of your team. 'Things' happened and trust has eroded.

Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that relatively few CEO's have 'gone public' about trust. Few are openly discussing trust, the importance of trust for their business and their personal commitment to improve and, or restore trust. I feel it is precisely this 'covert' leadership behavior, a certain unwillingness to address the lack of trust, which hurts businesses at this time the most. If trust has not been part of your strategic plan, perhaps you may want to re-consider this.

Are you as a leader challenged to accept personal responsibility for the trust level of the company? Are you in agreement that you embody the company everywhere and in all you do? What about your employees?

When I question people in organizations about existing trust levels, they share both positive and negative words; examples such as poor team work, misalignment, stress, conflict, bad attitudes, public distrust, cynicism, negativity, integrity, faith, betrayal, economic recovery, success, failure, but also lack of commitment, lack of engagement, troublemaking, communication problems and performance at all costs are shared.

Workplace perception is workplace reality - as CEO you want to know about these perceptions and you want to be sure you are part of the discussion, first and foremost as an active listener.

Antonio Lucio referred to trust in relationship to the economic recovery, in a recent Poder360 article: "The Multiple Faces of Trust", Lucio shares: "The biggest hurdle to full economic recovery is the decline of consumer trust in brands, institutions, economic theories and leadership in general. The debate needs to turn now to assessing the cost of rebuilding trust in our institutions. It is an important consideration, because it may represent the most significant increase to the cost of doing business faced by institutions in the next several years. Rebuilding trust could be costly, time consuming and resource intensive because trust is only rebuilt one experience at a time."

In a recent Chief Executive Magazine article: "Rebuilding Trust in the CEO", Jennifer Pellet described a jointly organized CEO Magazine and RHR roundtable conference. Paul Winum, managing director of RHR International, an executive and organizational development organization, described the state of mistrust in business leaders: "What's going on in the reputational realm of CEO's is almost at the level of 'These guys are all bums; they're selfish and greedy,'".

As a practicing international leader for many years, I have been continuously surprised about the 'extended value proposition' made to prospective employees when joining an organization. Once employees are working for the company - employees are in general not trusted and are usually over regulated by supervising management, policies and procedures.

Employees have invested their efforts, reputation and their career, to sum up; they have invested their lives in your organization. Your team needs to know where you stand, when it comes to trust.

Really, most employees want to do a good job, they want to trust you as a leader - and they want to be trusted. As a CEO you are required to be clear in your expectation, setting the boundaries, creating the atmospheric foundation of the enterprise and build trust in whatever way you can. How do you feel your team members experience this currently in your company?

Can broken trust be rebuild? The good news is, it is possible. The challenge - it is all up to you - excuses be gone.

Rebuilding trust is build upon consistent behavior by you and the rest of leadership. Trust is rebuild "one experience at a time". When you meet people for the first time, you have an instant trust 'gauge'. Only by mutual experience will trust increase, or decrease. Irrespective of what many people may want you to believe, trust cannot increase by talking about it. You need to experience each other's behavior, thus have experiences together for trust to change.

Over the past year where people may have lost their savings, their jobs, their relationships, even their products, nothing is going to be so valued as trust between people. "It is the one thing that changes every thing".

As a senior leader in an organization, you have the opportunity to build trust, it is inherent to your role and implied by your fiduciary duties as CEO.

Future generations will not only require, but also see a level of trust as a pre-requisite for potential engagement with your company. This may sound improbable in the current labor market, but I foresee that this new 'driver seat' behavior by the future workforce, will become a very plausible scenario in the years to come.

Your golden and competitive opportunity is to ensure that your part of the equation is carried with dignity and transparency through clear, respectful communication and trust-adding behavior. Clearly the reason why trust goes beyond ethics and why it is so critical for you as a leader to embrace trust as a daily part of your accountability and activities. You must actively live trust, to be able to see trust actively living in your organization.

According to Covey in his widely acclaimed book "The Speed of Trust", there are multiple suggested behaviors you can adopt. It is suggested to:

-Talk straight

-Demonstrate respect

-Create transparency

-Right wrongs

-Show loyalty

-Deliver results

-Confront reality (describe the 'box' and explain what's outside of the 'box')

-Clarify expectations

-Practice accountability (including your own performance)

-Listen first

-Keep commitments (if you need to 'break' them - communicate and discuss this with the person(s) you've made the commitment with in the first place)

-Extend trust to any one you can (it is only by giving that you receive [trust])

Let your continuously improving trust level propel your organization to a new level - a level sustained by innovation, creativity, cross-departmental team work, shared accountability, empowerment, and lastly a loyal workforce, client, customer and patient base. That's why people have entrusted you with this organization and isn't this why you are doing all this?

Lead the way to trust and you'll lead the way to recovery and prosperity for you and the company.

As a leader, your communication and behavior are important reminders to the organization of what matters most. As part of your leadership foundation, trust must be your number one priority!

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).

He is an experienced global executive and international business advisor, working principally with senior industry leaders on executive and business performance.

Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting) is a specialized Business Advisory Firm, with a Primary Focus on Executive and Business Performance.

Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

Leadership Control? - A CEO's 'Strangest Little Secret'

2009-11-21T01:02:29Z

In business, control is often synonymously used with leadership and is often considered a key leadership trait.

Of course, there is a level of control necessary in the business, for example in accounting, in production, by the governance board, through law, etc. However, this can be considered a technical approach to control.

How strange it may sound at first, empirically it seems that lessening control over people has a substantial and positive influence on a CEO's relationship with the people and on the business results.

From my own experience and having been involved in countless domestic and international 'control type' scenarios, I have seen these scenarios often result in business damage and image loss. I have concluded a long time ago that situation control through people control is unneeded, not asked for in the business and does not belong in people's arsenal of leadership tools to live a successful life.

For reference purposes, I refer to a definition of control, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; to hold in restraint; to regulate, to influence, to master, to restrain."

What do you control?

- What and when you put something in your mouth (although some people will probably dispute this to be true)

- When you decide to physically move and for example get up right now

- When you decide to make a personal change - right here, right now; a change in your thinking, ultimately leading to a change in your behavior

What do you not control?

- Feelings and actions of other people

- The past - anything that has already happened

- The future - anything that has not yet happened

- Most ongoing processes in your own body

Reviewing the above, as a person, as a leader, you probably must admit, there's very little you can consciously control. It is critical for you as a leader of an organization, to make a clear distinction between what you can and what you cannot control.

What is 'acceptable' control, translated into leadership?

- To Observe. To see what actually happened.

- To Compare. To examine what did happen in the context of what was supposed to happen.

- To Decide. If the comparison shows that objectives were not met, determine what needs changing, and make changes to assure success next time.

- To Support. Actively support fixing the issue, not spreading the blame.

By focusing on what can be controlled and accepting the rest as it is and for what it is, you create a basis for trust and openness in the environment. However, as often is the case, CEO's mistakenly conclude "what it is" and start creating a framework around this misconception, consequently starting to think, act and implement inappropriate measures. You need to avoid this by verifying the so called reality through communication with a balanced inquiry and advocacy and to let your plans and the reasons for it be discussed openly and without risk for people.

Acceptance is a key leadership trait. The more you do as a leader from an acceptance point of view, the greater the harmony and the better the output for you. This is because when you do this, you can seemingly effortlessly and successfully maneuver through the challenging internal and external forces. Your leadership behavior is dictated by vision, courage and determination, to succeed with your people, not 'over your people'. So in a sense, the less you control your team members, the higher the productivity and the more successful the outcome. This of course needs careful explanation, monitoring, coaching and starts with the basic requirement to hire the right people (permanent full-time, part-time, contractors, freelancers, any one).

The key to optimize leadership success in business and life is to master controlling what is controllable and letting go of everything outside of your control. This can be done through building bridges and creating personal collaborative influence with the people you meet with.

As a senior leader, for you to be successful, do you need to have control over other people? I don't think so.

In my consulting work I share the results driven attitude of CEOs and other senior leaders, yet I am often asked to assist in situations, where the key to success often lies in distinguishing a pure passion for results, from a focus on controlling people. Obviously discussing control in this way, is not easy. Most CEO's readily admit that they are supposed to, perhaps want to be and feel better when they are in 'direct control' over other people.

I suggest you may want to reflect upon this a little further and start to consider building collaborative influence as part of your communication strategy. Review how some of the following observations may apply to you and how they perhaps can lead to a change in your thinking. Potentially and only if you want, even a change in your behavior. There is no loss in this, only potential gain;

10 Ways to recognize and expand your influence:

1. Influence is focused and exercised with an ethical plan and goals in mind - control originates out of fear and leads to biased thinking

2. Influence fuels matrix (leadership) behavior and builds relationships for you - control is anti-matrix (leadership) behavior and destroys your existing relationships and prevents building new one's

3. Focusing on influence implies it will increase for you (universal law of magnification) - your focus on control leads to potential uncontrollable situations every where in the organization (usually leading to newspaper front page ethical debacles)

4. Influence is carried out in a business like fashion - control is the offspring of desperation and develops in all kinds of 'forms and behavior packages'

5. Influence creates options and various possibilities - control blocks your and your team's creativity and creation

6. Influence makes you part of the outcome and result - control puts you outside the team, away from a possible solution

7. Influence puts future working capital in your 'personal' bank account - control creates hyper inflation, leading to personal and organizational bankruptcy

8. Influencing (the letting go of control) equals power, it frees up your energy, energy you can use to plan strategically, to set goals, to interact with employees and customers, to develop steps to influence - any energy expensed to control people is wasteful spending and equals loss

9. Influence personally satisfies, it acknowledges personal growth - control aims at perfection, it stifles your growth and creates a lack of personal fulfillment leading to dissatisfaction, frustration and possible disease.

10. Influence creates and expands your reliability and commitment - control destroys with personal consequences and leads to low confidence levels and a bad reputation

The leader is well advised to provide a compelling vision and ask how it might be implemented rather than stating "how". Collaboratively influencing other people can clearly affect your success. Today's commonly used matrix structures within the life sciences and other industries, are dominated by cross-line reporting and by influence without authority aiming at success through influence. Developing collaborative influence is not optional for you as a leader - it is a key leadership requirement.

Conclusion

As a CEO, it is clearly not about people control and this is more than semantics. You gain incremental success through collaborative influence and lessening your thoughts about, your desire for and acting in a manner to control other people. Do no longer fall into the trap of overemphasizing control, as opposed to fostering innovation and creativity, to meet your corporate goals.

Next time, when you are just about to go into control mode, switch gears choose differently and remember that you cannot really control the feelings and actions of other people, no matter how hard you try. Ask support where necessary and make every effort to expand your collaborative influencing skills. Feel yourself already loosening up about the next leadership situation for you to solve.

It is often said that the truly successful leaders are collaborative, influential, open minded, tolerant, challenging the status quo, output oriented and specifically allow team members to develop and become creative by seeking multiple solutions to business' challenges. So can you!

Best regards,

Johan

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).

He is an experienced global executive and international business advisor, working principally with senior industry leaders on executive and business performance. Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting) is a specialized Business Advisory Firm, with a Primary Focus on Executive and Business Performance.

Our approach is innovative, pragmatic intelligent and client-value driven. We are committed to customer satisfaction and a successful relationship through a partnership of equals. We deal with those issues, few consultants are willing to deal with and best of all we guarantee our work. Hence, when business leaders need professional assistance for challenges facing their enterprise, they call on us - a practical, collaborative, responsive and strategic partner.

Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

Does Your Consultant Amount To "Value" or "Cost"? 10 Questions every CEO should ask when hiring an external consultant

2009-10-30T15:50:06Z

As a CEO, hiring an external consultant is a serious and necessary resourcing step, focused on desired company value and results. For you it is critical to assure success, when introducing an outside consultant to the organization. The below listed questions and observations may serve as guidance in the process.

1. What do I want to gain as a result of this consulting relationship?

Hiring a consultant must be driven by a need, a want, or a wish for better business results and must be based upon objectives you would like to accomplish. Your only justification for the financial investment will be the return on investment (ROI) through value creation for the corporation. You want to positively affect the business results through the consulting and secure its desired value. In other words, be clear on the personal and or business value you want to get out of the collaboration.

2. Do I agree on the objectives?

From experience I have seen consulting projects fail, not necessarily through 'inadequate consulting', but through lack of communication and substandard pre-project collaboration by the consultant with the client. This, followed by a near prescriptive solution, methodology implementation by the consultant, based upon its own independent analysis.

It is critical to collaborate with the consultant on the project definition and to require a conceptual agreement with your contribution early on in the process. This agreement needs to detail the objectives, a clear definition of the business value you would like to create and measures to evaluate progress. This is clearly not an agenda with a list of tasks to be completed.

This conceptual agreement is the basis of your project and is the main feature of your consulting agreement.

3. Do I know who the consultant will be on my project?

You are looking for lean consultancy - yet you require sufficient resources on the project. Has the consultancy company proposed a named consultant, will subcontractors be involved, or can just any one be allocated? The key to success will be for you and the consultant to work with your team, not necessarily on independently implementing a methodology, but by developing innovative and improved ways for you and the team to succeed. Require the consultant, the expert, to do the work and avoid subcontractors where possible. Remember, the consultant will temporarily operate within your organization and be part of your team. As a team and with your personal involvement, you will make the collaboration work and the project a success.

4. What is the type of consultant I hire?

At a senior level, it is critical to your project's success to secure a named, senior and well versed business expert consultant. Someone with actual business, managerial and team leadership experience, not just a a consultant with 'consulting experience' in a certain industry segment. An experienced business leader will quickly gain trust with the team, has the right 'learning attitude' and is well equipped with business experience through past business and leadership successes.

5. Can I collaborate with this consultant?

You know your company strategy and your environment best. However, an external consultant who agrees with you on everything is probably the last thing you need at this time. A consultant will add value by thoroughly evaluating your product and organization. You require innovative and authoritative contribution, perhaps most importantly contrarian thinking. This 'unbiased' contribution is one of the main reasons for you to hire an external consultant. Your personal commitment behind the project is key. This commitment is 'visible' every where in the organization and is a major part of helping the consultant and thereby the project succeed.

Collaboration is key in this relationship and an intensive intervention need to be well directed and preferably short. This is about creating favorable and improved conditions for you and the team. This is not about the consultant.

6. Does the consultant act in a confidential manner?

You seek a consultant who is a communicator, a valuable resource, a team player, not someone who will go out on its own, implement his or her solutions and in doing so creating havoc in the leadership team and the rest of the organization. Occasionally, the consultant may bring up unexpected issues and might be disagreeing with you. This may include observations of wasteful spending and any form of waste, staff has become habituated to. It is critical that the consultant has addressed how these observations and disagreements will be communicated to you personally.

7. Do I feel I know enough about the character and capabilities of the consultant?

Past performance is a critical indicator of future performance. Your personal chemistry aside, the past performance has to be confirmed by people other than the consultant. You want a consultant who delivers results and outcomes, one who is professional, who is walking the walk and one who will be ethical in all its activities. This is another reason to hire a named consultant.

8. Is the consultant focused on my desired outcome and value?

You are rightly curious about how quickly the consulting will get positive traction in your organization. You need some "quick hits" and "quick fixes" to gain momentum and show your team that value is being created. You require these "quick hits" and "quick fixes" to be building blocks leading to growth. However, will these be considered as such by you and your team?

Also, you have probably experience with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), who have proposed changes to processes, procedures and perhaps even some changes to the organizational structure. However, if you review the work in fairness, you will notice that the changes and improvements are nearly always incremental. People who are entrenched in the daily activities may not 'see' things the way they are and what they potentially could become. Also, frequently SMEs will choose to avoid upsetting their superior and or the colleagues and team members. This behavior holds especially true when the SME has been involved and or has been at the origin of some of the very things that need to be transformed. Therefore, most frequently SMEs marginalize a potential for transformation and deliver incremental change at most. You require a consultant without any of this organizational 'baggage', delivering the greatest value possible.

9. Does the consultant guarantee its work?

In collaborating with the consultant, the project may potentially have minor iterations, nonetheless, you require someone who will guarantee the work they do. A well versed business expert and past leader who has codeveloped the project with you, will be happy to guarantee its work. After all a consultant who guarantees its work, walks the walk of their own delivery. They have everything at stake and in working together, so do you. One more reason to require a named and well versed business expert consultant.

10. What is the consultant's fee structure?

You want to secure business value through desired results and outcomes, all within a controllable budget. Recently quite a few negative stories have emerged in the press about consultancy projects which went 'out of control' and amounted to excessive cost with no seeming value to the client. My suggestion to you is to avoid the ethical and fiscal management challenge of managing hourly billing and search for a consultant who works fixed price. This way, the consultant's approach is driven by the business value and desired results you both have agreed upon. The consultant will deliver the results in the shortest timeframe possible, so you can start benefitting from the value immediately.

Conclusion

Hiring an external consultant can be a very rewarding and valuable experience. In collaborating, the consultant can become an excellent resource and business partner, creating value through partnership. A collaboration with immediate and future payback. It is up to you to make it work.

Best regards,

Johan

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).

He is an experienced global executive and international business advisor, working principally with senior industry leaders on executive and business performance. Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting) is a specialized Business Advisory Firm, with a Primary Focus on Executive and Business Performance.

Our approach is innovative, pragmatic intelligent and client-value driven. We are committed to customer satisfaction and a successful relationship through a partnership of equals. We deal with those issues, few consultants are willing to deal with and best of all we guarantee our work. Hence, when business leaders need professional assistance for challenges facing their enterprise, they call on us - a practical, collaborative, responsive and strategic partner.

Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

Leader or Lagger? The Hidden Power of HR [Part 2]

2009-10-09T19:10:38Z

In part 1, I highlighted several reasons why I feel an incoming CEO and leader needs to develop a creative, collaborative and trusting relationship with HR and its leadership. In this second part, I will provide additional reasons why I feel this is essential to success.

Face to Face wins over any thing else

Depending upon the size of the organization, make every effort to personally meet with every individual who reports to your HR leader, if possible during the first months following your arrival. You want to ensure that you are supporting the culture you'd like to develop through behavior and walking the integrity walk. In addition, your 'fit check' of individuals who are in these positions, or the one's who are just about to be hired at this particular managerial level is essential. It gives a clear signal to the rest of the organization that HR is not 'out there', but is an integral part of the organization. Of course you discuss your 'findings' with the HR leader on an ongoing basis.

Ask and it will be given to you

Request for a HR specific questionnaire, for example using Zoomerang®, to be prepared and distributed to all personnel. Although these questionnaires are usually being managed by HR and send to the rest of the organization, you want to start with HR and obtain valuable employee comments on how HR is currently being perceived. Starting with a HR questionnaire, provides focus and allows a preview of your communication style; open, direct and inviting to all. You show organizational accountability and present the HR team as a "key and important business area."

A few examples of questions you could use (suggest you use 10 questions or less):

- How are HR's goals linked to our strategic company and your personal goals?

- How does our organization measure HR's effectiveness?

- What do you need, want or wish from HR to support your goals?

- HR leaders in our organization are usually?

- What can you give, provide to, or do for HR to support their goals?

Of course, you will provide the organization with full access to the data of the questionnaire in a practical, non-threatening and non-blaming fashion. You avoid this will become one of those executive 'Boomerang' questionnaires. In these cases, people honestly and dutifully complete a questionnaire and remain forever in the dark about the data and the possible related actions. However, they do know that in 'their world' nothing has been done - for nothing has changed.

Policies, Procedures and Quality

I suggest for you to agree with the HR leader on an independent professional review of all (corporate and country operations) HR policies and procedures, with the aim of reducing the number and complexity. Through this action you promote transparency, clarity of action and removal of bureaucracy.

You want quality (= method preservation), defined as committed to working to the highest ethical, scientific and quality standards and ensuring compliance with all regulatory requirements, applied everywhere in the organization. You require 'HR business based,' critical and risk based thinking in all of your organization's leaders and team members, not 'just' in HR.

It is all about synergy

Agree with the HR leader on the creation of cross-departmental "synergy teams," composed of operational and junior-to middle-leadership, being led by one of your direct reports. The teams address better ways to achieve the strategic and tactical goals and the removal of barriers to accomplish the work. Make it a priority to meet with these teams every month over breakfast for the first six months and invite team members to bring all you need to know to the table. The only rule is, no gossiping and no trashing of coworkers and leadership. Team meetings will have no formal agenda and you will distribute action item reports to your executive team members, to the rest of the organization and to the governing board - creating full transparency. Your openness and interaction about this with HR leadership is critical - HR is your partner and show this to every one through openness and active collaboration.

Conclusion

As a new leader you undoubtedly have been mandated to drive organizational and business growth. Inherently this will imply a culture transformation. Your efforts are significantly affected by the quality and the type of support you mobilize from HR and its leadership.

From experience it is vital as a leader to accept accountability for HR. When you choose to lead, you decide to find and use the "hidden power of HR." In doing so, you will be well on your way to be supported by a vision sharing HR leadership. This will collectively move you and the organization closer to the short-term successes and long-term goals.

You are well aware that: "You cannot change your destination overnight, but you can change your direction overnight" - Jim Rohn

Best regards,

Johan

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).

Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

Leader or Lagger? The Hidden Power of HR [Part 1]

2009-10-02T19:06:49Z

In my work, I am regularly challenged by actions of leaders who seem to underestimate the power of Human Resources (HR). The HR leader and its organization can either help you as a new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to become a leader, or to become a lagger.

Collaboratively Creating Value

Incoming leaders are wise to invest in the relationship with the HR leader by spending quality dialogue time together. As CEO you want to carefully present your values, mission, vision and short- and medium-term goals and the mandate given to you by the governance board. You also like to learn about the HR leader and its organization, and welcome a strategic view, one which goes beyond personnel records and fringe benefits. Also, as an incoming leader you are advised to meet with every one who touches the talent acquisition chain of events.

You need to address and review how the existing organization has been staffed. How does the organization comply with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations?

Discuss and explain why you want transparency and full disclosure on all existing and future issues. You want the organization to be ethical (100% of the time), compliant (100% of the time) and have systems in place protecting the company and its workforce, such as;

- A professional and properly documented background check of all people in the organization, including contractors and "1099" contractors. If not available, require for a reputable outside firm to handle this and complete soon.

- Require independent review of a random and representative sample size of employee records. You like to include for example, how a file is structured, what is filed where and by whom and who has access? If you have drug and alcohol screening as part of the hiring process (highly recommended!), require for example a report on how the data is managed and what experiences the companies has to date.

- A proper ethics and compliance program. If not in place, discuss this at an upcoming board meeting and suggest proper organization and staffing of this function. Remind the board about its shared accountability and the potential liability of not handling ethics and compliance properly.

As an incoming leader, do these 'minimal checks' shortly after arrival in the company, so you are informed and accountable.

Independence is Key

Require a direct organizational and hierarchical reporting relationship and communication line with HR leadership. You can let the HR leader act with independence and be in full control, yet you have influence where appropriate. You show support to innovative, positive and business constructive HR activities, in line with the companies mission and vision, strategic goals and unambiguous and accessible to every one.

Professionals Create a Professional Environment

Ensure well qualified and trained professionals and people who fit the organizational culture are active in HR and will be considered for future roles. You assure the HR organization is staffed and managed with professionalism and integrity. You lead and further build a sustainable, credible and trustworthy organization, a place where people like to work.

Although professional training may not be seen as a guarantee for success by some, from personal experience I can share that hiring the alternative is often counter productive to success. A lack of professional standard in HR may over time become a liability to you and the organization.

Focus Magnifies Results

Nowadays, HR leadership often includes oversight of many functional areas. Many of these functional areas are specialized functions and may not be considered directly related to HR's core activity. Some may lead to potential conflict of interest. I suggest to avoid this pitfall by envisioning and collaboratively creating a focused and functional HR organization. You like to create a focused HR team that for example;

- Continuously monitor the labor market for workplace trends

- Adaptation of candidate sourcing styles based upon need and market trends

- Establish vision and supports hiring the best person for the role at the best cost with the shortest lead time

- Develop alignment of the human capital planning with strategic goals

- Create metrics that clearly define contributions to organizational goals

- Continuously build on the need for increased transparency and a reduction of bureaucracy within the organization

- Constructively collaborate with colleagues, suppliers, partner organizations and the market

You require a HR leader with focus to add measurable value to the executive leadership team. You ask for an innovator, a visionary leader with business and people representation, direct and extended community focus and the right balance of advocacy and inquiry. An executive, a colleague, able to support you in an evolving organization and market.

HR is part of your every day accountabilities and your decision to take this seriously, may soon result in, what some times is referred to as "defining leadership moments".

In part two of this article, I will provide additional suggestions on how you and the HR leader can creatively collaborate and build success.

Best regards,

Johan

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).

Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

People are people - really?

2009-09-18T15:46:23Z

People are people - accepting this as a leader makes all the difference. People think like people, talk like people, behave like people and yes, they can change as people, but only when they have decided to change and see personal merit in doing so. The same holds true for the leaders who lead the people. Regularly I hear leaders talk about "changing the organization" and "implementing change", without truly considering the people, who need to make it happen. I feel much of the misery in today's workforce, is unnecessary and is often related to the fact that leadership fails to consider people as people.

Although many organizations will publicly declare people to be the cornerstone of the organization, leadership's behavior is not necessarily people-focused. An organization is built upon its people. This is often quoted by leaders, yet what people working in the organization regularly experience, may leave them more with the impression that the organization is managed with the idea of engineering and mechanics in mind, i.e. with processes and procedures, Total Quality Management (TQM), Six Sigma, etc. I often hear people express a general 'absence' of people orientation in organizations.

When discussing this topic with leaders, they usually share that they "see no issue" with the way people are managed and approached within their organizations. However, after some conversation, they usually acknowledge there are times when they personally avoid to communicate, close their office doors, in stead of actively reaching out to the people. Leaders ought to welcome people interaction and certainly not to be afraid of it. At times when business results are frequently less than optimal and organizations and its people are stretched, leaders need to actively embrace every chance they have to be with their people and to communicate. Leaders who do this, who are not afraid and take action, actively build a much needed framework of trust in their organization and in the market.

Leaders often mistakenly interpret providing 'messages' to people, as being in communication with people. From the many practical examples I have seen in my work, there is not such a thing as an effective 'one way communication'. Leaders need to be aware that so-called "one way communication" comes to abrupt endings. In your own experience, I am sure you have seen situations and leaders come to such abrupt endings, for no real 'apparent cause' at that particular time. However, it seems clear that if leaders stop treating people as people and loose perspective of the balance between advocacy and inquiry in communication, leaders loose perspective of the fact that they are indeed communicating with people.

Leaders must face the people challenge. What people most like about true leaders, is their relentless desire for people development and engaging every one in the process. Healthy leaders want to grow, they want to develop. This is equally true for the people they lead. Personal growth, recognition and rewards, are as important as having a fair pay. Attrition is not only driven by sub-optimal leadership, it becomes 'a given' in scenario's where people feel they can "no longer develop and grow".

Leaders can strengthen their ability to deal with their people, by developing and or improving their introspective ability. It is perhaps a challenging thought, but the sequence for most leaders is to start managing other people before they develop an introspective ability and have a level of self-awareness. This often results in situations where leaders question behavior of other people and do not understand how they have personally been at the basis of the unfolding scenario. Fortunately, leaders who have developed an introspective ability and have become self-aware, push themselves to objectively review a situation and their involvement in what happened. These leaders consider this part of their active personal development. I feel it is wise for leaders to want to improve their introspective ability and to learn about themselves and thereby becoming increasingly self-aware.

Leaders need to learn about and acknowledge what may be referred to as the inverted self-awareness iceberg theory. People usually know the tip of the iceberg about themselves, what they think, what they say, what they do and why etc., the '20%'. However, they present themselves in such a way, for you to believe, they know '80% and for the iceberg to be 'inverted'. It is my experience that evolved leaders, leaders with a high level of self-awareness, have indeed created an 'inverted iceberg', know '80%', are not pushing their presentation when dealing with other people and are eagerly discovering the remaining '20%' about themselves. Behavior equals results. Results change, when behavior changes. Leaders who seriously want to improve, target self-awareness and make it a part of their personal development plan, using a healthy response mechanism with their people. They avoid a journey with the potential for 'Titanic like' people collisions, all along having the illusion they're doing fine.

If you go about your business as a leader, observe and truly let people experience that you notice them. Listen to people and talk with them and in this order. People are people, deal with them as people. As a leader, a remarkable effect will occur in your environment. You will soon be seen as a connected person, not infallible, a person connected to its surroundings. Leaders who treat people as people create collaborative successes; they build successful teams; they act with integrity; they build innovative platforms in their organizations, and they are 'we' focused versus 'I' focused. Simply put, they value human contribution.

I hope that an increasing number of leaders will choose to develop their introspective ability and in the process become more self-aware. Also, for leaders to actively put business metrics valuation on the way people are being treated in their organizations. In my view these activities will have a positive and tangible return on investment. People (employees, contractors, suppliers, customers, etc.) are really smart and resourceful. They know when leadership is truly serious about the people in the organization. In those environments people take responsibility and like to be held accountable, they carry success.

To me it is not just essential for leaders to treat people as people, it is the right and ethical thing to do. How much more productive and fun will it be for the leader and for the people to work in such a healthy people-led environment?

Best regards,

Johan

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).

Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

Transparency is key

2009-09-10T21:50:25Z

Not sharing in a team setting is destructive.

I vividly remember an executive who 'managed up' and 'forgot' to share what was going on with his leadership and his extended team, all the while the organization was in a spin. Needless to state that it did not take long for the team to literally abandon the so called leader, drop the support to an ongoing re-organization and 'announce' the beginning of the end of that leadership era. The individual misinterpreted that making decisions as a senior leader, included being liked by superiors and telling people what to do, would create a cohesive and successful team.

Leaders need to be continuously aware of how much they communicate and share. My personal philosophy has always been, unless legally forbidden, i.e. for example company merger/sale plans, as required by SEC laws, there is no information you should withhold first of all from your leadership team. With your leadership team, you can then decide upon the best time and channel to disseminate the information to all team members. I have seen rare occasions where during a discussion about disseminating information, a leadership team member would decide against sharing the information with the team. However, at the end, in all cases the leadership team as a whole calculated the risk and took the decision to share the information with the extended team.

In my professional past I have never heard an employee complain: "I am over-communicated with and I receive too much information from leadership". Employees, team members, for that matter, are smart individuals. Remember, that was the reason you hired them in the first place. Team members will appreciate transparency and will share in kind. It will improve innovation capability development, inter-departmental cooperation, reduce and eliminate internal 'warfare' and will display error and incompetence near immediately and appropriately, thus avoiding a negative gossip and rumor mill.

The challenge many organizations and leaders face head on at this time, is how to move from a state of (mostly) distrust, to a state of trust, all the while innovation, productivity and profitability need to be guarded and improved. Leaders must make the decision that in their organization, starting at day one, the employee is hired into a trusting organization. The leader shows this to any one in the company by being genuine, using a "it is what it is" message and always setting the first step in communicating and enhancing the level of trust and transparency.

Often you hear leaders say that they are transparent, yet their actions speak loudly in opposition. They are often 'selective' in what they share and are often publicly embarrassed when, as it happens nearly always, it is later revealed that earlier presented data is not in line with the later presented time line and message shared.

Leaders are wise to opt a personal and leadership team communication policy, which:

- Communicates the good and the bad

- Excludes blame at all cost

- Is continuous - a continuous flow of bi-directional information throughout the organization

- Includes double-loop learning - there is always leadership follow-up to shared communication

- Is measured through team members' continuous and direct response at all levels

- Acts upon comments in a transparent manner - even when this appears to be 'painful' and 'long overdue'

- Dispels surveys, unless all collected data is fully shared with the survey responders and not 'massaged' in any way or form

- Sets expectations at all levels (including leadership and governance board)

- Has the positive output effect necessary to propel the organization to the next level

- Supports your leadership vision

- Voices you are on the team members' side - all the time

In addition to the above, as a leader you can set aside a half-hour (if possible an hour) per day blocked in your calendar, where your assistant will schedule time to allow for "walk ins" (for example 8AM-9AM, or 4PM-5PM). This time is much related to transparency and to 'human resources' and your organization's performance. From personal global experience in multiple organizations, the openness you create by doing this, will do wonders to building trust.

Your request for active feedback will break with the often used traditional way of leadership thinking; leadership censures what the employees need to know and the employee knows exactly what leadership wants to hear and tells them accordingly. When something goes wrong, leadership has a hard time to understand why the employee did not speak up and channel the information through the 'appropriate channel'. Employees know that what is not wished for, either explicitly or implicitly stated, is not supposed to happen. After all, people adapt quickly to what they see "pays off" in an organization. Transparency and response mechanisms remain essential ingredients for a great organization (this includes human resources), like the one you're creating.

Leadership can make once again all the difference by setting the communication standard. You know when communication is free flowing, people will easily come up to you, to share, to comment, to provide ideas, etc. They are not afraid.

As an organization moving into, what in my view will turn out to be one of the most competitive markets since decades, you need an active communicating work force at all levels.

Remember, you can wait a long time before an employee will come up to you and tell you that he/she is receiving too much communication. It simply won't happen.

Communicate, communicate, communicate. In turn you will receive communication. Fair deal - people are people and they communicate as people.

Best regards,

Johan

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).

Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.

Innovation - what else?

2009-09-04T14:48:27Z

Ironically, there is no hurdle in organizations to innovate, except the one created in leadership's mind. Just as leadership sets the tone for the organizational environment, it must create the open mindset and an error-accepting environment required for innovation, it all starts here.

How often do you, your leadership and/or your extended team members ask this question: "Is there possibly another / better way of doing this?". It is a simple, yet empirically proven powerful question to put at the basis of your quest for innovation and creativity in your organization.

In my consulting work, leadership innovation is often discussed. Recently during an assignment, an executive voiced his concern that it would be devastating if all people in an organization would be innovative. The executive was persuaded innovation would lead to unmanageable chaos.

Leadership often will say that their organization "hires the best". However, I've often observed, once employees are "in", they are treated as the most irresponsible, untrustworthy beings on this planet. In many organizations, through a reflection of the way the organization and its leadership has been structured, employees cannot think on their own, they cannot be trusted with ideas, time and flexibility. After all, they are 'just' employees. Hence, the notion that many leaders have that innovation needs to be executed by a 'select few' and "cornered" and "controlled" by leadership. This will often suffocate the initial good willing, well-intended, smart and eager to contribute employees. After some attempts at innovation, the employee gives up. He/she knows that innovation is fully controlled, is just talk and after all is not really wished for by leadership in any meaningful way.

Often there is an unspoken, or even a presented "we can't innovate now" attitude communicated throughout the organization. Let me put it this way, the consequence of not innovating is so costly that leaders cannot afford "not doing it" at any time, irrespective of the economic conditions.

Instead leadership can show through behavior that it allows for people to take company time and resources to drive innovative behavior in the organization. For example;

- Measurement of the employee will be through continuous and transparent organizational feedback, not just through the annual performance review and goal setting process.

- Leaders measure innovation by the amount of innovative behavior they see in the organization and through the innovative products they successfully launch serving their markets. Intelligent employees, when given space and the desire from leadership to innovate, will do exactly that. Healthy human beings derive great satisfaction from being productive, being innovative, and through all of this have a measure of self-growth. Leaders are no different.

In a market where the consumer's innovative appetite seems higher than ever, leaders correspond accordingly by taking appropriate risk and delivering innovative products and services. Leadership's actions in turn will lead to positive and tangible return on investment and healthy profits for the organization. Success as an innovative leader will be determined by the companies' success.

Best regards,

Johan

Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).

Please visit our website, or contact us at Tel.+1-443-420-1000, or via email: info@cplsconsulting.com to discuss how we can assist you, to improve your business performance and output.