Strategy versus Structure

There has long been a debate when looking at the effective organizational approach to change.  The question is this. For effective change to take place, does one first change the organizational structure and systems and then adapt a strategy (and human strategy as well) to fit the new structure and system, or does one start with the strategy and mindset changes and then adapt the systems and structure to fit it?

Walking the Tight Rope

This is one of those interesting leadership questions because, if you have an answer, you probably believe it is the only logical answer to have. Of course my answer is one of those amazingly frustrating answers for many people. I believe it depends on the change being instituted and the context of the specific leadership and organizational challenge.

In my opinion, it is possible for a full scale and successful change initiative to be instigated by the recognition that current systems, hierarchies and processes are either producing less than desirable results or, more likely, are not creating results quickly enough. This is a carry over from the industrial age that we haven’t quite settled yet. Systems that create efficiency and run at the lowest cost are not necessarily the same systems that create the greatest speed or quality. As I’ve written here before, the obsession with cost reduction has created many organizations that now find themselves able to do things inexpensively, but without innovation or speed to market.

On the other hand, organizations that have flat structures, few complex processes and an innovative mindset are not immune to dealing with change. Many of these innovative companies (Google, 3M, Apple) have come to recognize that their cowboy mindset worked well in good times, but did not prepare them for the more team-oriented approach that may be necessary today. Yes, these companies have had teams forever, but the kind of collaboration that is necessary now is so entirely cross functional and focused that few organizations are accustomed to it. These aren’t organizational design issues…these are internal issues. In these cases, the mindset has to change first, and the design will follow.

I believe what is most important is the manner in which the change process is approached. First of all, we should quit acting as if the “change process” is a unique and perhaps frequent stand alone event. In the current environment, change is not separate from leadership…it IS leadership. Second, for either design driven or internal driven change to work, stakeholders have to be enlisted early in the game. We have become a complex environment and diverse perspectives will provide the framework for understanding what and how change will enable the new corporate.

Finally, we have to get away from believing that there is one way to either make change happen or even to describe the phenomenon that occurs during change within an organization. We have become comfortable with approaches and theories that date back to a much more stable and industrial age. For change to work, leaders have to have open minds and hearts and be willing to understand that they don’t understand.


Manage Conflict or Suffer the Consequences

I know most of you regularly read the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health so forgive me if I repeat something you already know here. (Actually, I don’t read it either…it was a citation in a Bloomberg News story). Anyway, a group of researchers from Sweden found that those who suppress their anger in the workplace are more likely to suffer from heart attack or die from heart disease. Especially among men, the act of simply walking away or trying to ignore an anger-inducing event can be detrimental to long-term heart health it seems. So, of course, those who have reported on this story suggest that rather than walking away, the cause of the anger should be confronted fairly quickly and directly.


This is not the first study that has made this kind of link between concealed strong emotions and stress-related illness. It makes sense. If I am frustrated at work and nothing happens to relieve this frustration, then all of the physiological (and psychological) symptoms of stress will eventually have their toll. However, the point is not to share the fact that you are angry. The point is to deal with, and remove or offset, the stressor.

There is an entire generation or so that believes that health comes from the free expression of emotions. It is almost an entitlement belief—I have this emotion, I have a right to this emotion, and I have the right to share this emotion with you. The problem is that this is a very limited solution and one that has great potential to backfire. Express a negative emotion, whether it is frustration, annoyance, disbelief and the like, is almost guaranteed to provoke a negative response in the receiver. Focusing on your emotion alone creates an environment of blame and, while you may think you feel better in the end, it is rarely productive.

An alternative is to “own” your emotion but express your concern and issue. By owning how I feel about something I am recognizing that it is not YOU who made me feel this way. Your behavior has prompted something in ME that makes me feel this way, but you aren’t the holder of my emotions. You may, however, be the source—or part of the source—of the problem. With productive conflict and respectful confrontation, you can relate to your boss, peers or employees that you are angry or unhappy or upset. But more importantly, you need to address the activities, behaviors or outcomes that are prompting stress for you.

It is easier to describe productive conflict than it is to actually do it, but here is what it looks like:

1. Dialogue rather than debate. The purpose of the conversation is not to win the conversation but to come to a mutual understanding about the issues and the consequences of those issues (for example…your anger, disappointment, whatever).

2. Describing rather than dramatizing. Unleashing emotions is often an attack mode that provokes a defense and personal response. Describing your stressor in terms of what it is or what they do makes it possible sometimes to defuse the highly charged energy around a topic long enough to make headway on getting it solved.

3. Collaboration versus competition. The way we chose to express our concerns sometimes is as if we need to “win” the conversation. Winning usually means the other person has seen the “truth” and admitted that they are wrong. This approach does nothing for changing the culture to one of greater engagement in general. Collaboration, on the other hand, assumes that we are both interested in solving the issue without humiliating each other.
While these ideas are easy to read, they are difficult to put into place if they are not habitual already. The way to start is to decide one thing…for example, collaboration versus competition. Check yourself when you find that you are making a simple matter a competition. Take a minute just to reflect on whether or not this is how it should be. Small changes can make big differences.

Differing Without Dividing

Bill Barrett on Strategy
June 30, 2014



I can’t tell you how many leaders I have worked with who have a self-defeating view that competition solves everything. In a team or a company that values collaboration, competition on its own can be destructive. Stanford’s Bill Barrett provides a little more clarity on how the nuance of competition can work effectively.

Mark Fields Should Make His Own Way

The transition of leadership at Ford  in July — from Alan Mulally to Mark Fields — marks an uncommon event among large corporations: the planned, transparent and smooth succession of the top leader of the organization.

Mulally, Ford Jr and CEO to be Mark Fields

Unlike at GM  a few years ago, at Apple Microsoft or any number of other companies, the upcoming change marks a process so well defined and understood by the organization, the public and the markets, that it is seen across the board as a positive move.

The one concern that some pundits have is whether or not Mark Fields can fill the shoes of Alan Mulally, a well-recognized turn-around artist that took Ford from near bankruptcy to multi-billion dollar profits in 8 years.

In my opinion, not only can Fields not fill Mulally’s shoes, he would be well advised not to try.

Fields’ task is to bring a new direction to a stabilized, but still challenged, organization. (Ford appears to be on more solid footing than recall-riddled GM.) Fields brings different strengths than Mulally. With over 25 years at Ford, Fields has the experience and know-how to lead Ford through some aggressive challenges. He has filled high-level positions in the U.S., South America and, most importantly, Asia — which positions him as an insider with a strong world view.

Fields has also made his vision clear, most recently at the 2014 Ford Trends Conference, that Ford must be a leader in automotive consumer technology. The future Ford is as a “personal mobility” company, Fields has said.

It’s easy to talk about how dealing with issues like these is almost a luxury compared to what Mulally faced in 2006. But that’s the point of planned and thoughtful succession. The leadership needs of Ford today are vastly different than those of 2006.

Fields has nothing to prove in relation to his mentor and prior boss. If he has any luxury, it is the ability to honor his predecessor — who kept the company alive — while Fields attempts to engineer a new vision.

I’m excited to watch Fields in the next few months as he takes on this task.

I first published this article 6/30/14 on It is reprinted here with permission.

CEOs Plan for 2014

It’s an interesting phenomenon that every year the media tells us that American business is suffering.

CEO ResolutionsThey tell us that our leadership is lacking and that the coming year will be worse than the one before for our business leaders and managers.  Yet my experience has been that most leaders see every year as simply a new challenge to be met that may shape their actions to some degree but will not throw them off course.

CEO Resolutions

For the past five years I have validated this experience through conducting a series of interviews with CEOs from companies large and small, public and private, profit and non-profit.  These interviews have created an annual CEO New Years Resolutions report that I publish along with Northwood University and the DeVos Graduate School of Management.

Every year I have found that CEOs are realistic but excited about the possibilities of the future.

In fact, most of them will say that they don’t actually construct “New Year’s Resolutions” per se because they are constantly looking at what’s coming and making commitments for the future. And these aren’t small commitments.

Patrick Doyle, CEO of Dominos told me he is devoted to maintaining momentum. “Most importantly, I will be vigilant that we don’t become complacent with our progress and continue to build a team that is excited to drive change.” This is no small task as Dominos now sits as the second largest U.S. pizza chain and the largest in the world with over 10,000 stores in over 70 countries. He not holding back in 2014…he’s going for it bigger and better than before.

Other interviewees in this year’s report include Melanie Bergeron, CEO of the largest independent moving company in the country, Two Men and a Truck. She wants to encourage other leaders to focus on job creation. Mike Ferretti, CEO of Great Harvest Bread Company wants to create clear communication within his organization by eliminating meaningless buzz words from communication with his leadership team and employees.  Jerry Yeager of SYM Financial Advisors thinks it’s time to payback his employees for their hard work by providing for their retirement planning with the same services they provide for their high-level clients.

If you have a few minutes you should really read the report that you can find here:

Whenever you’re watching the commentators and pundits talk about how pathetic our corporate leaders are, ask yourself if you are hearing the truth or hearing a limited number of examples that create the tension that the news cycle needs. Great leaders focus not just on their personal success but also on the success of others. And there really are a lot of great leaders around us.

Todd Thomas, Ph.D., is a contributing blogger for JenningsWire.

Political Gamesmanship: How to Lose without Really Trying

I have made it somewhat of a rule for myself to avoid writing about political leadership because there are few intellectual discussions on the topic. While in most corporate leadership situations the ongoing problem is that leaders manage only by outcomes, political leadership of late seem to rule without any obvious concern of outcomes. Having said that, and in light of today’s government shutdown, a few of my colleagues have shamed me on this topic, so I’m going to say only one short thing.



If you are a student of game theory you recognize that the current state of governmental affairs is a game with conflicting objectives. To give them credit, there is no “win/win” scenario on Capitol Hill right now. In fact, a win/win solution is a losing proposition for both sides when viewed in terms of the noise that would result from what Republicans and Democrats consider their “base.” A lose/win scenario is considered a win in the current scenario if the players are defined as the politicians and the same “base” that is so noisy. Unfortunately, the outcome of a lose/win scenario for the American people is a loss.




In case you aren’t enraged by the current state of affairs, here’s another tidbit. Congressional salaries are exempt from the shutdown. That’s right. President Obama still gets $400,000 per year and your favorite partisan representative or senator, those speaking on your behalf, will also receive their paychecks. The 27th amendment disallows Congress from changing its own pay. This means thatthey also will not be financially impacted by the shutdown. At a minimum of nearly $200,000 a pop, with 535 congressional members, some making much more, that’s a chunk of untouched change.

I have a solution that I think would work but would never happen because the very players in the current game are the ones who would have to adopt this. (This is also why I don’t write about politics) J

  • For every day of a shutdown, or sequester, or any major failure of Congress to uphold their fiscal duties, all Congress members are fined one week of salary.
  • After fifteen days, a cap is set on re-election budgets by incumbent congressional members
  • After thirty days, incumbents are declared ineligible to run for re-election for the next term

This is a fantasy of course and some of you will feel the need to point out all of the unintended consequences of such a plan. Fine. But unless there is some way to include personal consequence…the going-home-and-explaining-to-your-family kind of consequence that the rest of us face in our professions…I’m not sure the rules of the game will change.

Wait. Here’s another idea. We could all agree to no longer vote a party line but actually research, consider, and think about our voting choices before we make them. Hmmmm. That might work too.