Turning Stuff Around

A blog about the grit, grind, and occasional glory of turnarounds.

Tag: business transformation

  • Regression to the Mean Fools the Best Executives

    in

    Regression to the Mean Fools the Best Executives

    Regression to the mean is one of those ideas that sounds academic until you experience it yourself. The theory is simple: extreme outcomes tend to drift back toward the average. For example: A bad quarter is followed by a slightly improved, less bad quarter. A sales team that imploded in April looks somewhat better in May. A support function that melted down last month steadies in the next one.

    The trouble starts when leaders confuse that drift with improvement.

    Consider the following scenario: A business falls apart. Everybody wakes up, pressure rises, activity spikes, and a few obvious fixes get rammed through. Then the next month looks a bit better and people start talking as if the business is turning. “Success!” the executives proclaim, as they start to attach meaning to the mild improvements they’ve made.

    Usually, that isn’t success. Usually it’s the business stopping to be unusually bad.

    Noticing this dynamic matters a lot in a turnaround. Because the whole point is to change what “normal” looks like. You are trying to move the company’s operating mean. You are trying to make better performance routine instead of occasional. And what you don’t want to do is watch a weak system crawl back to its usual level of mediocrity.

    That sounds obvious when written down. Inside the company, it is much harder to see, especially when people are tired and behind plan. A team under pressure will grab at anything to ease the situation. They’ll call targets unrealistic, they’ll frame pressure as counter-productive, or call plans too ambitious.

    The issue is not whether the current pressure feels uncomfortable (of course it does!) or whether the plan is actually wrong (it probably isn’t.) The issue is that the organization is asking you to lower the bar to match what it can currently deliver.

    The request sounds sensible enough on the surface. But buried inside that request is often a much harder truth: The business has not yet been staffed, led, or organized to produce the ambition being asked of it.

    If the market is weaker than expected, if the economics do not hold, or if the strategy itself is off, then adjust. That is just competent management. But if the ambition is directionally right and the team underneath it is too junior, too slow, too dependent, or too politically soft to carry it, then cutting the target becomes a very polished way of protecting the existing mean.

    You get relief immediately when you do that. Forecast tension drops. The room gets calmer. People sound more constructive again. But the machine itself stays where it was. You have not solved the problem. You have simply redefined the problem downward until it fits the current organization.

    That is why modest improvement should make you more analytical, not more relaxed. Ask the hard question: what actually changed? Did execution get stronger? Did decisions move faster? Did accountability land lower in the system? Did the team below the top layer start carrying more weight?

    If the mechanism did not change, you are probably looking at reversion, not progress. And if you mistake reversion for progress, you make very expensive decisions. You lock in weaker targets. You tolerate weaker leaders. You congratulate a business for crawling back to a level that was never good enough in the first place.

    That is how average companies stay average. They misread the bounce, call it recovery, and then sand down ambition until it fits the people and structure they already have.

    In a real turnaround, the job is bigger than getting off the floor. The job is to build a different floor. A new normal. A business that performs at a higher level repeatedly, predictably, without drama.

    Until then, be careful with relief. It has a way of arriving before real progress does. happens, every small rebound deserves skepticism.

    Tags:

    , , , , ,

    Share this post:

  • The Captain Should Not Have to Row

    in

    ,
    The Captain Should Not Have to Row

    There is a specific kind of fatigue that shows up in a turnaround.

    It is not burnout.

    It is the fatigue that comes when the business needs momentum, but too much of that momentum still depends on you.

    Most leaders do not talk much about this part. They talk about clarity, urgency, standards, and accountability. All important. But there are stretches in any serious turnaround where you are simply not getting enough back from the machine.

    The output is thin. The follow-through is uneven. Decisions keep returning upward. Too much still depends on you.

    And your own energy starts to flatten.

    That is not a mood problem. It is an operating signal.

    Low energy is often a management symptom, not a personal failure

    Leaders are often told to manage their energy better. Sleep more. Exercise more. Delegate and protect time. Reset. All good and important.

    But in a turnaround, persistent deflation is often telling you something more specific: the organization is consuming more leadership energy than it is returning in execution.

    That usually means the execution system is leaking energy in one of three places:

    • Too much still sits at the top. Decisions, escalations, clarifications, and momentum keep coming back upward.
    • The team is active, but not forceful. Work is happening, calendars are full, updates are being given, but not enough is landing with weight.
    • Or you are re-driving decisions that should already be in motion. The same issues keep returning. The same handoffs keep weakening. The same commitments need to be re-energized.

    That combination is exhausting because it creates a terrible ratio: high effort, low transfer.

    When that ratio stays bad for too long, leaders start blaming themselves for not feeling sharper, more optimistic, or more motivated.

    But that is usually the wrong diagnosis.

    If your energy is draining faster than the business is moving, the problem is usually not your resilience. It is the execution design around you.

    The mistake is acting stronger than the system

    There is a bad version of leadership here.

    The leader senses the slippage, feels disappointed by the pace, but responds by becoming performatively upbeat. More speeches. More slogans. More “let’s go” energy. More visible confidence meant to compensate for a machine that is not pulling hard enough.

    It rarely works.

    People can feel the mismatch. The business knows when execution is weak. Overcompensating emotionally does not create trust. It often does the opposite. It makes leadership look detached from the operating truth.

    The better move is quieter, harder, and more useful.

    Acknowledge the drag privately. Diagnose it coldly. Then reduce the number of things that are draining you without producing movement.

    What to do when your battery is low

    The wrong instinct is to ask, “How do I get my energy back?”

    A better question is, “What is consuming leadership energy without creating enough forward motion?”

    That shifts the lens from self-management to operating mechanics.

    Start with four moves.

    1. Cut the fake work

    When execution slips, organizations often produce more administrative activity to prove they are serious. More meetings. More trackers. More update loops. More status language.

    Most of it is useless.

    You do not need more evidence that the business is behind. You need fewer rituals that convert leadership attention into paperwork instead of progress.

    Every recurring touchpoint should answer one question: does this create movement, or just visibility?

    If it only creates visibility, challenge it.

    2. Identify where momentum dies

    Turnarounds do not usually stall everywhere equally. They stall in specific joints.

    A decision gets made, then weakens at handoff. A priority gets announced, then diluted in translation. A cross-functional dependency appears, then nobody really owns it.

    Map those points without mercy.

    You are looking for where effort enters the system and dies before turning into execution. That is where your energy is being wasted too.

    3. Stop personally carrying work that should be institutionally carried

    This is the hardest one.

    Strong leaders often compensate for weak teams by becoming the glue. They clarify, chase, connect, push, unblock, and remind. It works for a while. Then it starts breaking the leader.

    If you are repeatedly needed to force the same categories of progress, you are not helping the business scale through difficulty. You are teaching it dependency.

    That has to be interrupted.

    Some things need direct intervention. Fine. But repeated intervention in the same zone is not heroism. It is a structural warning.

    4. Narrow the battlefield

    When your own energy is low, breadth becomes dangerous.

    This is where many leaders make things worse. They keep every initiative alive because all of them matter in theory. The result is predictable: diluted attention, shallow pressure, no real breakthrough anywhere.

    In these moments, narrowing is not weakness. It is how you create force again.

    Pick the few areas where real movement changes the tone of the business. Then over-bias there until output becomes visible again.

    Momentum is an energy source only if it is real.

    When execution is lagging and your energy is flattening, do not default to self-help.

    Sometimes the most useful sentence a leader can say to themselves is this: I am not deflated because the mission is wrong. I am deflated because too much energy is being lost in transmission.

    That distinction matters.

    Treat your fatigue as data.

    In a turnaround, low leader energy often means the system is absorbing too much and returning too little. That is not just something to endure. It is something to diagnose.

    The ship still has to move.

    But it should not require the captain to row.

    Tags:

    , , , ,

    Share this post:

  • The Rise of the One-Person Value Factory

    in

    The Rise of the One-Person Value Factory

    For years, companies have tried to solve the same organizational problem: how do you reduce friction, remove bureaucracy, and get valuable work into the hands of customers faster?

    Amazon had the two-pizza team: no team should be so large that two pizzas could not feed it. Then came the idea of single-threaded teams: one team, one mission, one leader, one clear problem to solve. Netflix and others pushed versions of pods, squads, and cross-functional cells.

    The names differ, but the intent is the same: smaller teams have fewer handoffs, fewer dependencies, and less room for responsibility to disappear into the group. Companies keep trying to create smaller units of execution because big organizations naturally create drag. Anyone who has worked inside a large company knows how this happens. Product sits in one place. Engineering sits somewhere else. Data has its own queue. Legal needs to review. Marketing needs a brief. Finance needs a business case. Leadership needs alignment. By the time an idea becomes something a customer can actually touch, half the energy has leaked out of the system.

    AI changes the shape of this problem.

    AI makes existing teams more productive. That is true, but it is probably the least interesting part. The bigger shift is that AI allows one capable person to do work that previously required a small team. One person can research a market, analyze customer feedback, draft a product concept, build a prototype, test it, review results, and iterate. Not perfectly. Not always. Not in every domain. But well enough and often enough, that the unit of value creation inside companies is going to shrink again: From department, to team, to squad, to pod, and now, in some cases, to one person.

    This is the rise of the One-Person Value Factory.

    By that, I do not mean a freelancer inside the company. I also do not mean a heroic individual bypassing the organization, or someone doing ten jobs badly. A One-Person Value Factory is a person with enough context, judgment, tools, and authority to take a problem from insight to shipped value with minimal dependency on the machinery around them (the key phrase being shipped value).

    AI is going to create a lot of activity that looks like progress: More documents, more analysis, more dashboards, more content. But none of that matters unless it reaches a customer, improves the business, removes friction, saves money, creates revenue, or changes behavior. The One-Person Value Factory is not measured by how much it produces. It is measured by how quickly it turns ambiguity into useful output.

    That has real implications for organizational design. The old model assumes that execution requires coordination across specialties. The One-Person Value Factory model will increasingly assume that execution starts with autonomous value creators, supported by specialists only when needed. Instead of assembling a team around every idea, companies will ask a different question: can one strong operator take this far enough before we involve the machine?

    This is where management will need to change. Managers will not just allocate people to projects. They will need to decide where autonomy is safe, where synchronization is necessary, and where control is slowing the company down. And this is where the hard part begins.

    AI reduces production friction. It does not remove organizational friction. In fact, it may make synchronization harder. If ten people can each move five times faster, the organization does not automatically become fifty times faster. It may simply become ten fast-moving parts creating confusion in parallel. That confusion can show up as duplicate work, inconsistent customer messages, conflicting experiments, brand drift, security gaps, compliance risk, and customizations that do not add up to company progress. The bottleneck will move: It used to be production, increasingly, it will be synchronization.

    I believe this to be the next organizational challenge. How do you let One-Person Value Factories move fast without turning the company into a bag of disconnected experiments? You certainly don’t slow them down. The answer is to be much clearer on the few things that must be synchronized. Strategy must be synchronized, so people know which problems matter. Standards must be synchronized, so people understand the guardrails around architecture, quality, risk, data, compliance, and brand. Customer experience must be synchronized, so the company does not feel like a collection of unrelated products.

    But the work itself should not be over-synchronized. In my opinion, this is where many companies will get it wrong. They will see the risk of AI-enabled autonomy and respond with committees, approval flows, and more governance. They will take a technology that can compress weeks into days and wrap it in a process that turns days back into weeks, if not months. They will take the Lamborghini and hitch it to a horse-drawn carriage.

    We are living through an era where time has become even less neutral. Decisions require movement before everyone is comfortable. They require fast diagnosis, fast action, fast feedback, and fast correction. You do not get to wait until the structure is perfect. You need traction while the structure is still messy. That makes the One-Person Value Factory especially powerful.

    The question becomes: who in the organization can be trusted to own a problem end to end?

    Those people will become disproportionately valuable. Not because they “know how to use AI.” That will become table stakes. They will be valuable because they combine business judgment, customer understanding, execution discipline, and enough technical fluency to move without constant translation.

    The organizational question is no longer only “how do we build better teams?” It is also “how do we design a company where one person can create meaningful value without being trapped by the machinery around them?”

    That is not a small shift.

    The company of the future may still have teams, pods, functions, and leaders. But the atomic unit of progress will get smaller. And in many cases, it will be one person with context, judgment, AI leverage, and permission to move.

    That is the One-Person Value Factory: not a person doing everything, but a person able to move value through the system before the system slows it down.

    Tags:

    , , , , ,

    Share this post:

  • You Don’t Have a Priority Problem. You Have a Consequence Problem

    in

    You Don’t Have a Priority Problem. You Have a Consequence Problem

    One of the more frustrating things about struggling businesses is that they are rarely confused about what matters.

    Ask almost any executive team in a turnaround what the top priorities are and you will usually get a fast, polished answer. They will tell you the business needs to restore growth, improve cash discipline, tighten execution, stabilize delivery, retain customers, or rebuild margins. In most cases, they are not wrong. The problem is that those priorities too often live only in decks, town halls, and leadership conversations. And once the meeting ends, the system tells a different story.

    What you will find many times is that targets are missed. Deliverables slip. Owners come back the following week with explanations, context, and reasons why things did not move as expected. Everyone nods, the item rolls forward, and the business carries on.

    That pattern repeats for weeks or months. At some point leadership starts asking why the organization is not aligned, why urgency is not landing, or why nothing seems to stick. And usually the answer is simpler than they want it to be:

    It’s not a priorities problem, it’s a consequences problem.

    In troubled companies, this distinction matters a lot. Priorities without consequence are just aspirations. They may sound serious, but the organization quickly learns that failing to deliver against them does not materially change anything. And once people learn that, the words coming from the top lose weight.

    That is why I have become increasingly skeptical when leadership teams insist that the issue is a lack of clarity. Most of the time, there is plenty of clarity. What is missing are the mechanisms that make clarity matter.

    You can see this very clearly in weekly operating reviews. The same issues keep showing up. Pipeline quality is not where it should be. A product milestone has slipped again. A major initiative is blocked. On paper, these things are treated as critical. In practice, they are handled as discussion topics. The person responsible explains what happened, leadership asks a few questions, and everyone moves on. Nothing changes in ownership, nothing changes in oversight, and nothing changes in the level of scrutiny. So the organization takes the hint. These priorities may be important in theory, but they are not important enough to trigger action when missed.

    That is a dangerous place for any company to be. In a turnaround, it is lethal.

    Part of the reason this happens is that many leaders misunderstand consequence. They hear the word and think punishment. They think it means public humiliation, aggressive confrontation, or firing people at the first miss.

    It doesn’t.

    Good consequence is not theatrical and it is not emotional. It is structured, visible, and predictable. It simply means that when commitments are not met, something changes. The miss is acknowledged clearly, the reason is diagnosed, and the response is concrete. Oversight increases. Scope narrows. Resources are reallocated. Ownership is reconsidered. The system shows that commitments have weight.

    That is all consequence really is: proof that the business means what it says.

    Without that proof, priorities drift into the realm of corporate theater. Everyone learns the language of urgency, but nobody changes behavior. Leaders start repeating themselves more forcefully, hoping intensity will compensate for the lack of follow-through. It never does. Repetition without consequence only teaches the organization to wait out management’s latest concern.

    This is where turnarounds often stall. Not because the strategy is unclear. Not because people are lazy. But because the operating environment allows underperformance to pass through without enough friction. The business keeps talking about the right things, but it does not create enough pressure behind them to alter outcomes.

    The CEO’s role here is bigger than many realize. In the end, consequence is a leadership choice. It is set in real time, in the moment when someone reports a miss. If the response is vague, overly sympathetic, or endlessly deferential to circumstances, the standard drops. If repeated misses are tolerated without any structural response, the organization notices. Very quickly, people understand whether targets are real or just decorative.

    That is why consistency matters so much. Consequence cannot depend on mood, politics, or who is in the room. If one executive is challenged hard while another is allowed to slide, credibility disappears. Once that happens, accountability starts to feel selective, and the whole thing degrades into politics. The only version that works is the one that is consistent enough to become part of the operating fabric of the company.

    When that starts happening, the culture changes surprisingly fast. Meetings become sharper. Language gets more precise. People escalate problems earlier because they know slippage matters. Ownership becomes clearer because ambiguity is no longer safe. Not everyone likes this shift, of course. It creates discomfort. It exposes capability gaps. It forces harder calls on people who may have been protected by vagueness for too long. But that discomfort is not a sign that something is wrong. In many turnarounds, it is the first sign that the system is becoming honest.

    And honesty is a prerequisite for recovery.

    A business cannot improve performance until it is willing to face performance plainly. Not with drama, and not with blame, but with enough seriousness that people understand results are not optional. That is the piece many leadership teams skip. They spend time trying to perfect the message, refine the priorities, or sharpen the narrative, when what the organization really needs is evidence that missed commitments will no longer dissolve into polite discussion.

    So if you are sitting in a business that keeps talking about focus, urgency, and alignment, but the same issues keep resurfacing week after week, do not start by rewriting the priorities again. Start by asking a more uncomfortable question: what actually happens here when someone does not deliver?

    That answer will tell you far more about the health of the turnaround than any strategy deck ever will.

    Tags:

    , , , , ,

    Share this post:

  • Tenure: A Double-edged Sword

    in

    Tenure: A Double-edged Sword

    Every organization has its ‘village elders’—those long-tenured employees who have been with the company for 10, 15, 20 years (or more!) Their tenure brings a wealth of knowledge, deep trust, and a sense of solidity that can anchor an organization. But what happens when that anchor becomes a weight that holds it back?

    Edge 1: The “Bad“

    Tenure has a tendency to breed stagnation. Over time, tenured employees can develop a resistance to change as they try and keep things “as they’ve always been”. This mindset defaults to the known and familiar, while pushing back on the new and riskier. Fresh ideas may be dismissed too quickly, stifling innovation and fostering a culture of complacency.

    It’s easy to picture this: an aspiring young developer consults a tenured principal. She demos something new, something innovative, only to be advised to use the existing tech. “We’ve always done things this way” she hears. The fire dies out. The idea is lost.

    Edge 2: The “Good”

    But tenure isn’t all bad. Just as it can stifle progress, it can also be one of your greatest assets.

    Beyond being beacons of trust and continuity, tenured employees are also incredible sources of historical knowledge. These individuals often hold key insights that can help you avoid repeating past mistakes. They’ve been-there-done-that, and can provide a historical lens into what’s worked and what hasn’t for the company. Their institutional memory can serve as a safeguard, offering advice that could prevent you from unknowingly stepping onto the same landmines of the past.

    The Turnaround Context

    In a turnaround, both “edges” can make or break your efforts. On the one hand, a turnaround demands agility, fresh thinking, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. On the other, not learning from past mistakes and avoiding known pitfalls can be very costly—almost detrimental—to creating the trust and momentum needed.

    So, should tenure be curbed or promoted? The answer is both! And the key is balance.

    Maintaining the Balance

    Maintaining the balance is not as complex as you may think. First, you will need a good measure of the tenure ratio which, as its name suggests, measures the proportion of tenured people within a given group (a team, a division, or the entire company.) Start by defining the number of years that constitute tenure for your company (this varies by company size, industry, and the organization’s current growth stage). Once defined, measuring the ratio is straight forward:
    For the purpose of the exercise, let’s assume that tenure is reached after 4 years. Now consider a team of 12 developers, of which 7 have been with the company for over 4 years. Your tenure ratio for this team is therefore 60%, indicating a strong concentration of long-tenured employees.

    Applying this calculation to the rest of your teams, gives you a clear picture of tenure concentrations throughout your organization. And from there you can plan your balancing initiatives. Here are a few of those initiatives that have helped me in these situations:

    • Reassign individuals: balance tenure across teams
      The benefits of this are obvious: under-tenured teams enjoy an injection of expertise, and tenured teams are exposed to fresh ways of thinking and new perspectives. The challenge with this initiative is, well, that tenured people resist change (and moving desks), so this needs to be managed carefully.
    • Realign work: mirror tenure with subject matter
      Alternatively to reassigning tenured members, encourage them to become subject-matter experts of critical systems and shift their focus to maintaining them. While maintaining systems may seem mundane, it often involves complex technical challenges that benefit from the expertise of tenured employees. Furthermore, it indirectly supports innovation by giving the rest of the team the room to move faster on other newer initiatives.
    • Reprocess for ideas: purposefully enable fresh perspectives
      Beyond reassigning individuals, and realigning work, be sure to implement processes that encourage questioning of the status quo, exploring new ideas, and overseeing their implementation. Though the initial reaction to the words “process” and “innovation” appearing in the same sentence is often an eye-roll, when they enable individuals to speak up about new ideas and ways of doing things—and be heard—they are good! Especially in more tenured organizations that may require that foundation to break the default thought cycles.

    Tenured employees can be your greatest allies or your biggest roadblocks, depending on how you engage them. Consulting them early and often helps you leverage their wisdom while avoiding past pitfalls. With that in mind, leadership plays a crucial role in balancing tenure. By fostering a culture of collaboration and openness, leaders can ensure that tenured employees feel valued while encouraging innovation and adaptability. The goal isn’t to sideline or discredit their experience but to channel it in ways that drive progress and enable your goals.

    Tags:

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Share this post:

  • Sustainable Profitability

    in

    Sustainable Profitability

    As we all know, there are only two levers you can pull to drive profitability: cost cutting, and growing top-line. In stable times you are constantly pulling on both, aligning investments against forecasted business performance. But in a turnaround, things are not as straightforward. The top-line lever appears, at first glance, to be “rusty” and possibly jammed, while the costs lever often has an all too strong gravitational pull.

    The Cost Cutting Lever

    In a turnaround, launching a cost-cutting initiative may seem as an obvious first step. It’s quick and decisive—you give the order to reduce expenses, say by cutting 10% of the workforce—and manage through the fallout. While it may provide short-term relief—and seem like a quick path to profitability—it rarely is a sustainable solution. The “cleaver approach” will not fix the inherent inefficiencies that often plague organizations.

    For a cost-cutting to be impactful, it needs to consider the bigger picture and align with the long-term, strategic plans. For me, using the zero-based budgeting approach has been more effective in creating sustainable cost structures.

    Zero-based budgeting requires you to build your budget from scratch. For example, instead of saying “We had 100 engineers last year, so we need 120 engineers this year!” (assuming 20% growth), you and your head of engineering start with a blank slate. Together you consider the product plans, the technical debt strategy, new technologies as well as other factors, and appropriately align headcount and investment.

    Ultimately, the biggest benefit of this approach is that it forces you to stop and think rather than make inertia-based decisions. It brings to the surface the hard questions (and decisions) required to set the company on the right path.

    The Growth Lever

    Driving top-line growth is a different challenge altogether. You’re not shedding something you have, you’re building something you don’t. This requires a clear strategy, a strong product lineup, and seamless cross-functional execution. It requires the village. And since, in a turnaround, the village may not be, well, a village, it can take time to materialize.

    That’s why you need a bridging strategy—a way to achieve short-term revenue gains to keep the business afloat while laying the foundations for future growth.

    Some of the tactical initiatives that have helped me in the past:

    • Leverage existing customers. Acquiring new customers is a long-term initiative. This is not to say you should not pursue this, but working with your existing customer-base is often easier and quicker. Focused upselling and cross-selling initiatives can lead to fast, much needed, gains.
    • Optimize pricing. Review your pricing models for adjustment opportunities. Sometimes, incremental price increases or new pricing tiers can unlock significant revenue without major operational changes.
    • Identify and prioritize quick wins. The so called “low-hanging fruit”. Look for underutilized sales channels, untapped market segments, or underplayed products. Walk the halls, talk to people—you’ll be surprise at how many ideas are waiting to be uncovered.

    Keep in mind that tactical growth is about small wins that buy time and prove to your team that progress is possible. It also provides some financial flexibility to fund longer-term initiatives, such as product development, organizational redesign, or a revamp of operations. Lastly, deploying tactical initiatives can help you test business hypotheses that can further help hone your long-term strategy.

    The cost-cutting and growth levers are interconnected. Pulling them effectively provides you the breathing room to sustain the business through the turnaround, while aligning investment plans for the long-term. This creates a stable foundation that drives sustainable profitability, ultimately allowing your people and business to thrive well into the future.

    Tags:

    , , , , , , ,

    Share this post:

  • Silos, Silos, Everywhere!

    in

    Silos, Silos, Everywhere!

    Silos are one of the most pervasive and most persistent barriers to success. Yet, they seem to exist in nearly every organization, big and small, despite the fact they stifle collaboration, breed inefficiency, and often create a “them vs. us” mindset. In a turnaround, addressing silos isn’t optional—it’s critical to driving meaningful change.

    At their core, silos are often an unintended byproduct of growth and complexity. As organizations scale and expand geographically, physical sites are formed, functional boundaries are better defined, and management layers naturally develop. While these structures bring clarity and focus, they also create physical, operational, and cultural divisions within the company—silos!

    The problem with silos is that once they are formed, they are difficult to dismantle. Factors like geography, leadership influence (especially in highly political organizations), or fear of change, often keep them alive. Left unchecked, silos will drain your organization of its full potential.

    Building bridges

    There are two ways to address silos: you can either try and beat them, or you can try and join them… together! I’ve found the latter to be far more effective, productive, and surprisingly easier to achieve.

    Breaking down silos isn’t about dismantling teams or forcing a change to working processes. It’s about creating a culture of connection and shared purpose—building bridges. Though changing (or building) culture may sound like a daunting task, with committed leadership and a clear plan, it can happen faster than you think.

    Here are three key areas to focus on as you build your plan:

    • Nurture a unified vision—a shared goal
      This is by no means the corporate vision statement. But a real reason for being. It’s a call to action that rallies people behind a shared purpose, connecting their day-to-day work with a bigger, more meaningful goal.
      A turnaround is a perfect spark to light that fire (crises usually are.) Don’t be afraid to use it.
    • Encourage cross-functional collaboration
      Once you’ve clearly articulated the problem statement, encourage collaboration by bringing people together—preferably in-person to bridge geographical silos—and empower them to figure solutions out on their own. Most people want to contribute meaningfully, and feel part of something bigger. Your job is to promote this mindset, and make sure your leadership team actively supports it. Collaboration is never forced; it’s enabled.
    • Improve communications across the organization
      One of the biggest factors keeping silos alive is poor communication. When one silo hears one message, and another hears something different, alignment becomes impossible and silos persist. Consistent, and transparent communications are key to bridging silos and creating a cohesive organization. Establish your way of communicating to the broader team and commit to it.

    At my company, I held a global standup meeting every two weeks. We flew teams across geographies for in-person workshops. Leadership actively visited offices worldwide to drive alignment and communicate our shared goal. We transparently tracked progress using a set of OKRs, and even created a hashtag for our internal communications: #BreakingDownSilos. Ultimately, we built strong bridges across the functional and geographical silos we faced. How did we know we succeeded? We saw measurable improvements across all our internal culture survey metrics; Alignment, in particular, was up an impressive 11% year-on-year!

    Silos may form naturally, and are not always “bad”. What matters is that you don’t allow them to define your organization. Breaking them down and building bridges requires persistence, and nurturing a culture that values collaboration. The returns on this investment are huge: a unified organization, ready to tackle bigger and bigger challenges head-on.

    Tags:

    , , , , , , , , , ,

    Share this post: