Why I do what I do

People deserve better. 

It is one thing to tick a box with a risk process in a business to prove that you've met your responsibilities as a leader. It is a different matter altogether to do it in a way that draws people into the conversation and generate the kind of action that properly and sustainably moves the needle on risk and opportunity management.

Take the MIA Strategic Context Review solution for instance. It came about due to a change in the ISO 9001 quality standard a number of years ago, which required clear processes for context relevant risk and opportunity management by top leadership. The Strategic Context Review was the high-level solution MIA created for its clients as part of a risk management process bundle. And sure, this solution and the rest of the bundle have been implemented in scores of businesses, whose system managers could then definitively (and quite easily) prove at their certification audits that the business meets the relevant requirements. Box ticked. 

Is that gold? No, it's not. It is certainly useful as a means to an end, but it's not gold. 

This is the gold: 

Business leaders have a lot on their plate, and they constantly deal with competing priorities. They are aware of the need for clear strategic conversations about risk and opportunity. And even more so, they know they need to not just 'make the words', but also generate the actions needed to practically and properly manage risk, and even more so, turn identified opportunities into tangible gains. They also know they can't do this alone. Staff engagement is critical, both in the moments when they are in conversation with their leader, and all the moments inbetween when they are not. 

Talk to any leader who has a clear vision but is frustrated with the momentum in their business, and you'll likely find a person who is carrying too much on their own. Plus what's the bet their insights and ideas (and likely also those of their people) are not properly finding their way into the systemic habits of the business. That's the key.

So what should be happening? 

First up, strategic conversations need to be captured in a way that makes the next step obvious. And then the step after that. And the next one again. A clear path that unfolds smartly and sensibly, so the solution embeds properly in the business, with everyone's help and support. 

To do that, strategic conversations need to first be actively drawn towards being business-systems-solution-focussed. This stops ideas from being a high-level conversation in a leadership bubble, as can so easily happen in a closed room where being performatively smart might feel like success in the moment. Rather, concerns and ideas should stay firmly connected to the practical reality experienced by people inside and beyond the business, with the focus on what needs to change in the everyday. This takes the conversation from being performatively smart to being practicably smart. Some examples:

• Rather than only discussing the need for greater profitability and pointing to the desired numbers, also talk about what needs to evolve in the business to enable greater efficiency. Consider for instance what is systemically in place to help people understand and engage in project fee structures and resource planning. Consider what they have access to in terms of information, communication and processes, and what needs to be better structured for them to bring their best.  
• Or maybe profitability in the business is good, but there is a constant worry about the risk of errors, the related burden of oversight, and maybe also burnout and high staff turnover rates. If that is the case, consider moving the discussion from individual performance management and incentivisation schemes (the proverbial stick and carrot), to what could be developed to provide smarter systemic mechanisms for inclusion, guidance, learning, oversight and communication flows. 

In addition to being systems-focused, strategic conversations also benefit from an embedded understanding of where each idea will be 'held' next. Literally where and how the idea will be nurtured, to draw the right people towards it, allow sense-making in the practical, and then clearly define programme, progress and targeted next steps. To bring it full circle, leaders also need to already be very aware of when and how that conversation will come past them again for their review and input, so there can be consistent sense-making in a vision-driven way also. Without the latter, it is difficult for any leader to 'let go' enough for their people to bring their best into an initiative. And without the former, it is difficult for their people to be drawn into the process in the first place. Taking care of both, means people can engage at all the key points on a timeline - from idea to design to implementation to maintenance to full result - and then collectively feel a real sense of contribution and achievement. (Camaraderie, anyone?)

This sounds like a lot, but this is why good process design, integrated with good 'surrounding system' design, is so important. It makes what can appear complex and out of reach, highly accessible. 

If a leader definitively knows that all the above have been well structured and supported in their business, and that people are at the ready to help (because they also understand the support and momentum provided in the system around them), how much easier will it not be to properly pour their mental energy into the early solutions-focused strategic conversation? And if their people know that their leaders' insights are not tucked away in a bubble, but actively created with the view to draw them into the process of solving real problems that affect them, how much easier does that not make it for them to step into action, or for middle management to not feel like they're burning out on meaningless busy-work?

Yes, it's a bit chicken and egg. Smart process begets smart process. However, the beauty of smart system and process design is that it gives real hope that better is possible, which then starts to generate impactful action, and then more again. If people (leaders and their employees alike) are introduced to a practical structure which addresses their front-of-mind concerns - most of which tend to be centred around not being supported in initiatives they care about - then embedded momentum can be the next natural outcome without the unnecessary frustration and fuss.

One more time for those in the back: 

Smart system and process design gives hope that better is possible, and then also supports the necessary internal upgrade until 'better' is a fully embedded reality. 

Does the MIA Strategic Context Review process do all of that? No, of course not.  A process doesn't make a system. But it has been designed to be a key step towards a healthier system that supports its leaders in their leadership, and its people in their action. 

********

Management in Action is a boutique consultancy, supporting the health and impact of professional design practices with smart systems and process design. Please do give us a like and follow if you found the above useful. And let us know if you would like to know more. Contact details are on our website. www.miaction.com.au