Introduction
Recently I helped a client hire a new CFO for his company. From the time we began the search until final negotiations with the top pick, the CEO talked about how things would be different once he found the new CFO. Not only would things be different in the areas of finance and accounting, but they would be different in human resources, operations, safety and marketing, among other functions. It was as if this new person was the answer to all of the company’s trials and tribulations –the proverbial “silver bullet,” who would fix any and all problems.

A point to remember: a silver bullet may have worked for The Lone Ranger, but there are no silver bullets when it comes to managing an organization successfully.

Over the years various management fads have come and gone. A list of these “silver bullets” might include the “one-minute” approaches to management, various continuous quality/total quality movements, reengineering, transactional analysis (“I’m OK – you’re OK”), empowerment, executive development, and management by wandering around, to name a few. At best, they represent tools that may work in some cases but not in others. At worst, they represent methodologies packaged by someone to sell consulting services and enhance book sales. Following are examples of some silver bullets I have observed clients using over the years:

Silver Bullet #1: Executive Development
A midsized company was having difficulty getting its support group and operations people to work together effectively. The resulting dysfunctional conflict led to problems with overall profitability. Senior management decided to send the key players to some executive development sessions focusing on interpersonal skills. After the training, conditions were somewhat improved, but only for a short time.

Silver Bullet #2: Team Building
A professional service firm wanted to create a one-stop, soup-to-nuts approach to meeting client needs, with a “client service team” concept at the heart of its business model. This represented a change from operating on an individual book-of-business basis. The firm members attended a series of team building workshops. Internal cooperation improved somewhat, but client service still was not a seamless experience.

Silver Bullet #3: Strategic Planning
The board and the CEO of a small manufacturing organization disagreed on the future direction of the organization, as well as on the roles of the CEO and the board chair, who had founded the company. They entered into a strategic planning process in order to develop a shared direction for the entity. The process seemingly resulted in a shared mission and vision, but progress toward the vision took on a one-step forward, two-steps backward character.

Silver Bullet #4: Reorganization
A manager at a privately-owned, diversified business had been unhappy with his position at the company for some time. He began acting out, causing a variety of problems for the company. The CEO felt a personal loyalty to this manager and was not comfortable confronting him about his behavior. In order to work around the manager, the CEO reorganized the company. Over a period of six years, there were three reorganizations. The manager continued to cause problems until we helped the CEO and his board confront the issue and essentially deal with the “elephant in the living room” the company had been avoiding.

Silver Bullet #5: Bring in More Experts
Another organization conducted annual planning meetings and developed great plans, but the CEO could never get much traction under the plans after the annual meetings. Consequently, over time, the company brought in a string of “experts” to tell the organization what to do. However, implementation continued to be an issue.

Why Silver Bullets Do Not Work
There is nothing inherently wrong with any of the improvement strategies attempted in the preceding examples. In order to fix problems in any organization, however, the problems need to be addressed at the appropriate level, in a holistic fashion. Band-aid fixes may take away the symptoms for a while, but they do not remove the root causes of the problems. Underlying causes need to be addressed, not symptoms. Managers need to make the hard decisions rather than avoiding them with the hope that problems will just solve themselves.

What do all of the five preceding silver bullets have in common? For one thing, in each case, senior management and/or the board did not manage the performance of the people at the organization. Had they been managing performance, the -

• support group and operations people would have been held accountable for results.
• partners would have been held accountable for client satisfaction under the new business model.
• roles and responsibilities would have been clear and focused, with the CEO and chair holding one another accountable.
• problem manager would have been held accountable for changing his behavior.
• CEO and his people would have been held accountable for implementing their strategies and realizing the objectives.

Performance Management—Back to the Basics
Managers get paid to achieve organizational objectives within the spirit of an organization’s core values, core purpose and long-term vision. The only way to assure that organizational objectives are met is to hold people accountable for their respective parts in achieving the goals. That is accomplished through several basic approaches.

Expectations. Management needs to communicate clear and focused expectations for their people. Expectations should cover roles, responsibilities and outcomes. People should understand how performance is defined, measured and rewarded. Performance objectives need to be tied to overall organizational direction and strategy.

Capacity of Individuals. People have different abilities and capabilities. Managers need to consider these factors and determine whether or not their people need training, oversight, support and coaching to be able to carry out some aspects of their jobs. (Training, executive development and continuing education do have a place in performance management. However, merely sending someone to a workshop does not ensure that he or she will implement learning outcomes back on the job.)

Monitoring. Clearly communicated expectations and objectives are important, but they are not enough. Management needs to monitor results and take corrective action when results do not mirror management’s expectations. In this dynamic business environment, it is possible for an employee to carry out his or her responsibilities exactly as expected and planned, and still not realize the desired outcomes. This means that management needs to work with employees to change course if necessary.

Confronting the Real Issues. Monitoring must be followed by providing feedback to employees to hold them accountable for their actions and results. This means that managers may have to conduct some difficult discussions with their people. Coaching, counseling and intervening are an important part of a manager’s job. Unfortunately, many managers choose to avoid having these discussions and, instead, choose to either send people to training, reorganize or conduct group processes, such as team building or planning. In our case of the CEO and board chair having ambiguous roles and responsibilities, the two parties must determine what authority they have to carry out their roles. They can agree to disagree. Or they decide to make some changes, which might include the CEO looking for other opportunities.

Reward Systems. Over time, most people come to understand what they do and do not get rewarded for doing. Thus, in a company where people earn rewards as individuals rather than as participants of teams, is it realistic to expect them to immediately embrace a new team-based business model? If a manager gets rewarded for doing the same old things, why should one expect him or her to do the new, uncomfortable things required to implement a new strategic plan? Where is the upside or downside to the employee in this case?

A View Beyond Performance Management
Managers not only need to focus on the basics of performance management. They also need to take a big-picture approach – or holistic approach - in managing their organizations. A change in one part of the organization or one part of the compensation strategy can and will cause changes in other areas. Some of these changes may not have been anticipated when planning the original change. Rebuilding the organizational chart might result in a dysfunctional manager moving to another area where less havoc can be wreaked. But what other problems might arise from this move? From an enterprise-wide perspective, it might be better to completely remove the manager.

Initiatives Must Support Something
Executive development, team building, strategic planning, reorganizations and other initiatives can help an organization improve its competitive position. It is critical for any of these initiatives to be undertaken consistent with and in support of the mission, vision and values of the organization. Bottom line: they need to be integrated into an overall plan for maximum effect.

Team building workshops without some component of team-based pay will not yield long-term results. Executive development without managerial accountability and coaching will not result in the necessary transfer of training to the workplace. Strategic planning, where the planning team does not fully commit to the (supposedly) shared direction, will not result in a better future for the entity.

Looking for Explanations from Experts
In this day and age of instant gratification and faster-better-cheaper mindsets, managers often become frustrated with an apparent lack of forward progress at their organizations. They look to experts from outside the organization for answers to their questions and problems. Bringing in outsiders with a “fresh eye” and objective point of view, can help managers clear up their thinking and affirm or modify some of their assumptions about what should work for them.

On the other hand, who best knows the organization’s issues – strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats – than the people who work there? In most cases this is a pretty obvious answer. It’s why I favor process consulting where the outsider helps the insiders make sense of their situation and helps them draw on their collective wisdom to gain agreement for change. It represents a diagnostic, rather than prescriptive, approach.

In any event, true change comes from within an organization. It is carried out at all levels within the organization. It is overseen, led and managed within the organization by members of the organization. Outsiders can provide assistance with implementation, but it is management’s responsibility to make things happen. Leaders cannot delegate or outsource this responsibility.

Stick to the Basics
Managers can eliminate the need for silver-bullet solutions to business problems by focusing on the basics; having those hard discussions when necessary; and making sure there is a good reason for making any change at their organizations. Change for the sake of change usually results in an organization without a focused direction. It’s like sailing a boat without a rudder.
 

When changes are contemplated, they should be evaluated for their support of the overall direction of the organization, and for how well they solve a problem by addressing the ultimate causes of the problem.

About the Author
Dominic Cingoranelli, CPA, CMC is a managing member of, and manages the consulting practice for Grimsley White & Company, LLC in Pueblo, Colorado. He assists organizations and managers with group processes, problem solving, and business growth, strategy and performance issues. Dom can be reached at dom4@mindspring.com.