Over time, informal networks mirror the formal structure, which is how silos develop. Restructuring gets people to start forming new networks, making the organization as a whole more creative. ~Freek Vermeulen, Phanish Puranam, Ranjay Gulati

Cholesterol. It clogs your arteries, not quickly, but very slowly. So slowly that you probably don’t even realize it’s happening. It’s even possible to appear quite healthy, but have arteries clogged to the point of near death.

The same thing can be true of organizations. It’s reflected by growing silos, stifling processes and procedures (i.e., routines), and individuals who have amassed influence well out-of-bounds of their position.

The trio of Vermeulen, Puranam, and Gulati developed an assessment, a corporate cholesterol test, to determine if it’s time for re-structuring or a re-org to clear your arteries and get back to a healthy and sustainable organization. I found their questions really helpful. What’s your cholesterol score?

Assessment: A Corporate Cholesterol Test

The quality of communication and collaboration

• Do employees interact only with people from their own group? Y/N
• Are there strong subcultures that align with departments or divisions? Y/N
• Are there breakdowns in communication caused by the formation of silos? Y/N
• Has collaboration between groups decreased over the past five years? Y/N
• Total Yes Answers _____

The capacity to adapt

• Are many people uncomfortable with change? Y/N
• Do people and groups operate according to well-established routines? Y/N
• Has it been a long time since your organization developed a significant new revenue stream? Y/N
• Has the percentage of revenue from new streams decreased over the past five years? Y/N
• Total Yes Answers _____

The balance of power among groups

• Do influential groups or individuals use most of the organization’s resources? Y/N
• Is it difficult for people outside the organization’s central group to obtain resources? Y/N
• Do influential groups or individuals impede decision making? Y/N
• Have the groups or individuals that were influential five years ago extended their influence? Y/N

Final Score

• 0-2 yes answers: There’s no need for change just yet.
• 3-7 yes answers: It’s the perfect time for a change.
• 8-12 yes answers: You’re late already; your organization needs substantial change.

To increase your success rate, double your failure rate. ~Alex Mandossian

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the Thomas Edison quote: “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” Yet, it seems I still benefit from being reminded of that quote far more than I’d prefer. When I heard Mandossian’s quote this week, it once again, hit home.

I think as leaders rise through the ranks in organizations, they believe that their failure rate should decline. After all, they are rising in the organization so that must mean they are getting better at succeeding. However, I think leaders forget that what has likely enabled them to succeed is a long path of failures. Just because you move-up in an organization that doesn’t suddenly cause you to become immune to failure. In fact, we could probably argue that you should be failing more than anyone else, because that will get you [and the organization] to success faster.

John C. Maxwell wrote an entire book on failure entitled Failing Forward. Maxwell said, “The essence of man is imperfection. Know that you’re going to make mistakes. The fellow who never makes a mistake takes his order from one who does. Wake up and realize this: Failure is simply a price we pay to achieve success.”

Vic Johnson, author of the book Dance Until It Rains, begins with the story of a tribe in Africa that confounded all of the anthropologists. It seems that this tribe had for centuries enjoyed a 100% success rate with its rain dance. In comparing this tribe to other tribes who did rain dances, but who didn’t always experience success, the experts couldn’t find anything that differentiated the one tribe. They performed the same rituals, praying the same incantations to the same gods, in the same costumes. Like all the tribes, they sometimes danced for days, even weeks on end. Finally, an astute observer noticed something very telling. The successful tribe did one thing – and only one thing – different than the other tribes who failed. They ALWAYS danced UNTIL it rained!

If you’re holding back because you are fearing failure, then you need to take the Nike approach and “Just do it.” Maxwell provides this advice: “Procrastination is too high a price to pay for fear of failure. To conquer fear, you have to feel the fear and take action anyway. Forget motivation. Just do it. Act your way into feeling, don’t wait for positive emotions to carry you forward.”

I recall hearing Len Schlesinger, former president of Babson College, speak about what differentiates successful entrepreneurs. It all came down to one thing: they take action. That likely means they are failing at a rapid rate. And they just keep going.

We honor many of our early leaders with national holidays. I wish we had a Thomas Edison Day to honor failure. An annual reminder of the positive consequences that can result from doubling your failure rate.

As John C. Maxwell said, “Fail early, fail often, but always fail forward.”

Small, Smart Choices + Consistency + Time = RADICAL DIFFERENCE ~Darren Hardy

Darren Hardy also said, “Your biggest challenge isn’t that you’ve intentionally been making bad choices. Heck, that would be easy to fix. Your biggest challenge is that you’ve been sleepwalking through your choices.”

I’m currently participating in a 10-day online Peak Work Performance Summit and one of the speakers yesterday was Darren Hardy. I was really intrigued by the title of his book, The Compound Effect, and how he used that analogy to illustrate the immense (i.e., compound) impact of our small, daily choices.

He started with this example. If you were offered the choice of receiving three million dollars today, or one penny that is doubled every day for 31 days, which would you choose? Because we focus so much of our attention on the big choices, we overlook the significance of the smaller choices we make every day. Consequently, many of us would choose the three million dollars. In this example, if you were to do the math, that one penny in 31 days would compound to well over 10 million dollars!

What are some of those small, smart choices? It can be everything from choosing to make that one extra sales call at the end of every day, staying just 15 minutes longer at work to plan the next day, substituting sparkling water for soda every afternoon, stopping to greet employees on your way into your office every morning, etc. No one dies from lung cancer because they chose to smoke one cigarette. But the choice to smoke consistently over time will have a compound effect.

While thinking about the idea of the compound effect, Jim Collins’ work of identifying companies that went from good to great, came to mind. Here’s a quote from Jim Collins to describe what I mean. “In each of these dramatic, remarkable, good-to-great corporate transformations, we found the same thing: There was no miracle moment. Instead, a down-to-earth, pragmatic, committed-to-excellence process—a framework—kept each company, its leaders, and its people on track for the long haul.”

I’ve been remembering leaders I’ve worked with who both benefited, and suffered, from the compound effect. I recall one leader, a new college president, who was doubted by many faculty members. The college was in desperate need of a turnaround, and people were looking for someone who could magically create a “miracle moment.” Instead, this president very steadily and consistently made small choices—a framework—that transformed the college to not only a stable, but a thriving institution today.

On the flip side, I can also think of a leader who assumed his role as president ready to transform a large organization (I’ll be less specific here to keep the identity confidential). This leader was less concerned about the small choices. The compound effect: this organization has the highest staff turnover of any organization I’ve work with, and I’ve worked with well over 100.

As Darren Hardy said, “your biggest challenge is that you’ve been sleepwalking through your choices.” What choices might you be sleepwalking through? Are you aware of the compound effect of your small choices?

Productivity is about working smarter and more deliberately instead of doing more, faster. ~Chris Bailey

In order to stay current with workforce trends, I make it a habit to read job postings. How positions, responsibilities, and expectations are described can reveal some general patterns. One of those patterns I’ve recently noticed is the significant number of job postings that include two statements: a fast-paced work environment, and the ability to multitask.

What I find truly fascinating about that pattern is that most organizations I know are also looking for ways to increase productivity and creativity/innovation.

In Chris Bailey’s book The Productivity Project he says that “research shows that it’s easier to think creatively when you’re calm and unhurried.” When was the last time you read a statement in a job posting that said something like, “ability to work in a calm and unhurried environment”?!

What about multitasking? Again Chris Bailey says, “Multitaskers perceived that they performed better, because their brains were more stimulated, but in every single study they performed worse.” If multitasking diminishes performance, then why are we not only including it in job descriptions but listing it as a requirement?

Chris Bailey is not alone in proposing that speed and multitasking conflicts with the outcomes desired by most leaders: productivity and creativity. Best-selling author Cal Newport in Deep Work says, “The law of productivity is: high-quality work = time spent x intensity of focus.” Newport also says, “In the absence of clear indicators of what it means to be productive and valuable in their jobs, many knowledge workers turn back toward an industrial indicator of productivity: doing lots of stuff in a visible manner.”

To add insult to injury, I can think of a number of recent instances where I’ve seen leaders promote or give a salary increase to individuals who were “doing lots of stuff in a visible manner.” We’re rewarding behavior that is actually contrary to achieving the outcomes we want: productivity and creativity.

I’ll admit, I probably have a biased perspective. My personality type is described as “moderate-paced, methodical, thoughtful, etc.” That said, I believe that our culture (U.S.) values fast-paced more so than moderate-paced. After all, we say it’s a requirement in many job descriptions. We’ve convinced ourselves that when our brains are more stimulated, as described by Bailey, that we are more productive, even though the research clearly concludes just the opposite. It’s almost as if a fast-paced environment is like a drug or stimulant, and we crave more, even though it’s not good for us. And what’s more fast-paced than multitasking? It’s kind of like being fast-paced on steroids.

Fast-paced and multitasking is nearly always not deliberate work. Synonyms of deliberate are careful, thoughtful, unhurried, cautious, measured, and purposeful.

Leaders should be modeling, and requiring, deliberate work. If your workplace is a fast-paced environment requiring multitasking, what’s that really accomplishing? The feeling of productivity or real productivity?