Your organisation’s ability to function effectively in today’s competitive market depends on a number of crucial factors. The most crucial of all is undoubtedly leadership and without it the organisation is doomed; and this leadership is not just one person – the ‘head honcho’ – for the truly effective leader always create leadership all the way down the command chain. Indeed leadership is diffused throughout the whole organisation. This leads to an important observation: namely, that organisational effectiveness is a people issue, and nothing is more important for success, for longevity and ultimately for making a difference than the quality of people we recruit, retain and reward.
Financial, marketing/sales and operational plans and strategies are also key to being effective, but they in turn depend upon people for their generation and their implementation. Are these people engaged, or serving time? Are these people ambassadors for your organisation or are they secret saboteurs? Are these people motivated or are they apathetic?
To date the only generally accepted way of establishing what the staff think and how they view the organisation is via the annual (or otherwise) staff survey. This is good but it has several drawbacks. First, it is relatively expensive for what it is; after all, you would think that since staff has managers who manage them we might know what staff think and feel from the managers? In small organisations they sometimes do – why don’t managers in large organisations (they are generally paid more!) - know? Put another way, it seems a form of managerial disempowerment. Second, the survey is ‘obvious’ in what it is seeking to know and establish. This means staff can point score, promote agendas, and more generally dis-inform management of the real situation and the real needs. Third, the information by its nature can be fragmentary and not easy to implement and respond to. Indeed, one of the frequent criticisms of staff surveys by staff is that it is done and nothing subsequently happens or changes.
Motivational Maps is different. To address the three points above: it is relatively inexpensive to implement; it is subtle and reveals both specifics and trends; and the information can immediately be acted upon and has a direct bearing on the staff and the teams in a way that no staff survey can – for the Map knows what people really want! And this must always be a matter of grave interest to the effective leader. We have found in fact that it is only effective leaders who want to embrace this technology; weak ineffective leaders are frightened of it.
The individual Map tells us what the individual wants; the team Map tells us what the team collectively wants, and it also points towards potential conflicts – conflicts of energy - within the team that might derail it from its remit; and now the new organisational Map (to be launched by the end of January 2015) takes mapping to another level: it tells us what the teams want, and what collectively the whole organisation wants. One needs to grasp at this point that when a large number of people are profiled the collective effect of the motivators is more or less now equivalent to measuring the ‘values’ within the organisation. Why is this significant? Because we can now begin to see whether the espoused values – and its translation into mission and vision – are really reflected in the aspirations of the staff. If they are not, then a major problem looms ahead, and one which needs immediate attention.
On all three criteria, then, Motivational Maps is superior to the staff survey, and my prediction for 2015 is that once the Organisational Motivational Map is fully operational, then increasingly organisations are going to wake up to this new and more effective reality! Happy New Year to all my readers and followers.