GreatRidge Station

A Cassette Study(TM) is a minimal approach to a case study. We do not know all of the details–and likely no one can–but we know enough to draw some leadership lessons from the facts available.
Cassette Study is a trademark of Great Ridge Group, Inc.

Recently, two large, highly visible organizations in the Twin Cities metro area selected new CEOs. Both organizations are in the same industry, facing the same economic, social, and regulative pressures. The cultures of the two organizations have been remarkably similar over the past several years.

With all of that similarity, the new CEO for each organization, selected by each organization’s board of directors, is very different from the other.

One is a charismatic, people person. The other is an introvert. One is pursuing a flatter organizational structure with higher levels of responsibility spread throughout the organization; the other has increased the hierarchy, even to the point of putting executive offices on a higher level, where they can only be accessed via a highly visible staircase. One is a dynamic, successful leader; the other is an accountant. One generates enthusiasm; one generates fear.

This likely sounds like a “Goofus and Gallant” cartoon from the kid’s magazine our daughter got when she was young. You remember the one: “Goofus cuts his cheese in the living room. Gallant cuts his cheese in the breeze.”

There is no way to tell which of these leaders will be successful, whether they will both succeed, or both fail. What is known is that the boards of these two organizations chose these leaders for very specific reasons, and their choice reflects the values those two boards hold most dear.

It will be interesting to check back on the health of these two organizations in five years or so.

But I think I know what to expect.

It is important for leaders to remember the big pieces of strategic thinking and learn to lead his or her organization well. Strategic leadership requires several ways of thinking.

1. Vision: The big picture of who we are, what our values are, and why we do what we do. The vision will never be an achievable goal, but a compelling picture of the ideal. It will always be based on core values–those things that the leader (and ultimately, the organization) consider to be of utmost significance and value.

2. Mission: The practical response to the question: How do we fulfill our vision for the future? In practical terms, how do we practice and live out our vision by setting a meaningful direction for our organization?

Note: Yes, there is a good deal of confusion about Mission and Vision, or if you prefer, Vision and Mission. While these two terms often swap meaning, we need to understand the significance of the distinction between them. The first is a statement of what matters, and the second is what do we do about it.” Just be aware that in the current literature on leadership, there is no firm agreement about which term means what.

3. Strategies: Strategies are the highly-contextual fleshing-out of mission and vision. Organizations will develop several strategies based on their socio-cultural context, the needs of the marketplace, and even down to departmental questions of role, responsibility, and goals to be accomplished. Strategies take mission and vision and make them practical and actionable for discrete segments of the organization, such as departments, functional areas, and project implementation groups.

4. Architecture for Alignment: Richard Daft gets credit for this observation. A leader must understand his or her organization and its abilities well enough that he or she can structure the organization to implement strategies. Let me provide an example: Many organizations are jumping on the “Matrix Organization Bandwagon.” A matrix organization is essentially flat in structure, with no particular hierarchy, and in a pure matrix organization, no leader-follower distinctions. Yes, this is trendy, but it may not be the best structure to accomplish particular tasks. With no accountability and few internal motivators, this structure can completely mire some (not all, but some) organizations. Leaders are responsible for designing an organizational structure that lends itself to accomplishment of the strategies, mission, and vision of the organization. This is not and easy task.

Note: This is where most discussions of this sort stop. Let me add my own insights in one additional, bonus area.

5. Tactics. This is the lowest level of strategic alignment, the place where vision, mission, and strategy get translated into specific, meaningful acts of work. I hesitate to call these tasks, since tactics imply not mindless compliance, but a living, breathing response within the life of the organization. These are well-thought-out actions, done by real people, as a result of a well-communicated strategic plan.

Leaders must be continually leading downward. This means that leaders must press those below them to carry mission and vision to the next step. Senior leadership presses directors and top-level managers to develop the strategy that supports the overarching goal of the organization. Managers must do everything they can to align their pieces of the organization toward those goals, and get the right people doing the right jobs. Finally, leaders must let go, and press tactics toward those individuals who actually do the work.

A real leader cannot, and must not, micromanage. Press your own leadership down, hard. To clarify–squelch the urge to push others, and quit leading: equip others to lead themselves. Press your leadership until you have utter confidence in the people who are living out the tactical life of your organization.

In order to do this, you must have a solid vision and mission in place, and you must encourage the hard work of strategic planning and organizational alignment. If you do this well, you can press the real leadership down to the tactical level–to the people who are equipped and enthusiastic about making a difference.

Consider this for your organization (I am for mine). Regardless of whether you are in a massive multinational corporation, a small manufacturing concern, or a “mom & pop shop”, this approach to strategy matters. I’ve wondered lately if more ministries and chuches might also benefit from such an approach.

It is a great temptation for leaders to forget that life always gets lived out at the tactical level. Unless those tactics–day-to-day practices–are aligned with greater organizational meaning, chaos ensues. Most leaders hate chaos: Now you have one more tool to help you avoid it.

My friends at the Work Research Institute in Canada recently posted a web symposium for young, emerging leaders. Here is the concept that the symposium addresses:

Some time ago, a friend in a world city told me that some of the people in their church who have the hardest time, vocationally speaking, are 28-year-olds working in big corporations. They are no longer novices. They are set on a career, but they don’t really have any significant institutional power yet. They are caught in middle positions where they work very hard, but they must conform very closely to institutional expectations if they want to keep their jobs and build their careers. They have limited opportunities to offer leadership or take initiative . . . and their dreams of changing the world—of making a difference—are turning a little stale.

That conversation inspired us to pull together a symposium of encouragement and advice for 28-year-olds who believe that they are called to live in the city—and who are doing so, but who are discouraged and confused by the challenges they and their cohort are experiencing—in corporate life, city administration or politics, education, film and other media, the arts, or whatever their areas of work.

I suggest that you read the resulting array of wisdom and good advice–some of the people who responded I have admired for some time, and some I have only come to know in the past year or so. Others, as you might expect, are new.

And by the way–one of the pieces is by a fellow I like to refer to as “ME.”