Those of you who are familiar with the theories of group behavior
may have heard the expression "forming - storming - norming -
performing". This expression, in essence, indicates that a group
has life-cycle periods not very different from that of a single
human being.
Remember your childhood? Childhood was all about belonging to
your group, the family. It was about learning the basic skills,
like the language, and it was about trusting your leadership,
your mom and your dad.Then there was puberty. It was time to
challenge that leadership and define your own role within the
family --or on the outside. This transition period was not
without its controversies for most of us.
And finally, you have now reached that adult period in your life
where you live in mutually dependent coexistence with the people
around you. Well, at least in theory :-)
Groups move through the very same stages.
There's a "childhood" stage where the important thing for any
group member is to belong to the group and learn the group's
"language". Then, there's a puberty stage where leadership is
being challenged, and finally, either group members find a way of
dividing roles and responsibilities that help them perform as a
unity, or the group, as it is known, dissolves. As with the human
being, these stages may last for only a brief period in time or
they might just take "forever."
So, what has this to do with the timing of the introduction of a
performance management system such as i.e. a Balanced Scorecard
(BSC) to your organization?
It may very well turn out to be one of the most crucial factors
determining the success or failure of your initiative!
If a BSC concept is introduced at the "childhood" stage of a
corporate leadership team's life-cycle, and particularly if it is
actively endorsed by the group's leader, it stands a fair chance
of becoming the "preferred language" of that team for the
remainder of its existence.
If introduced at the "puberty" stage, however, it risks being
used as a means of control or challenge, thus being considered
dangerous by at least some of the group members.
The chances of a successful implementation at this stage is,
therefore, a lot less probable. This will be due both to active
resistance against the concept as such and to group members
wanting to conceal or pump up actual results (if these results
may be "used against them").
Introducing such a concept in a mature and well functioning group
where people trust and respect each other, and where there's a
mutual understanding of interdependency, improves drastically the
chances of success.
This assumes, of course, that you're able to convince them that
there's more to be achieved by introducing this new tool than
leaving things as they are. This will be the real challenge at
with these guys. Such a mature group will, however, be more
likely to respond positively if facing an important threat to its
existence, such as a major change in the business environment or
flat out poor results.
Just remember that the success of the initiative at this stage
depends on the group's ability to maintain that trust, respect
and unity.
That might just be the greatest challenge.
|
