Change Agents

I’m currently reading a powerful and interesting book written by Mark Friedman titled “Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough.” It is based on the premise that much of what we do in the public and private sectors doesn’t produce measurable results or improvements in the lives of our customers or communities. He cites examples of organizations seeking the perfect mission statement, preparing meaningless reports, wasting countless hours in meetings, and relying on outside experts to tell us what is needed. In spite of our well-intentioned efforts, much of what we tout as progress does little to engage people, change their behavior, or improve the quality of our products and services.

Friedman proposes a different approach called Results Accountability. It provides a simple, common sense way of thinking and acting that makes a real difference. I’m not planning to share all of the wisdom in his book – you can read it for yourself – but I do wish to offer some very brief thoughts about the role of leaders as change agents in their organizations.

Business and not-for-profit leaders know that measuring performance is an important way to hold people accountable for results. Friedman points out that our traditional models for performance measurement come out of industrial production, but there is little connection between the inputs and outputs in a factory with those of a service organization. I would add that my own observations and experiences lead me to believe these models don’t always adequately capture the human dynamics of an assembly line environment either, but that is a topic for a future blog entry.

If an enterprise wishes to effect lasting change then its performance measures must be simple – connecting what it does with actual improvements in the lives of those it serves. Leaders in these organizations must adopt a change-agent approach by measuring both the quantity and quality of effort and the quantity and quality of effect. Friedman suggests three questions that provide universal performance measurement categories: How much did we do? How well did we do it? Is anyone better off? By honestly answering these questions we can gauge how well our efforts produce effects. If people or communities are not substantially better off as a result of our work, then we are not really doing our jobs well.

Leaders wishing to adopt a change-agent model have many potential hurdles to overcome. One of these is the need to tell the truth about internal performance. I have addressed truth-telling on other occasions in my writing so you know my position on the important role it plays in revealing the integrity of a leader. Even the simple answer “I don’t know” is a better tact to take than lying to protect one’s ego. It is tempting in every setting and at every level within an organization to tout successes but fail to reveal when established goals or standards are not being achieved. This may be especially true for not-for-profit boards where members prefer to project high expectations on staff while rarely turning the spotlight inward on their own performance.

I long for the day when government, not-for-profit agencies, and the private sector adopt a new model for creating lasting change. While Friedman’s approach is an important tool it will also require a new style of leadership, being a change-agent, to champion this effort. Are you up to the task?