Seth Godin recently made a post on the question of “Who Is It For?” as a measure of the success of an endeavor. He says that while the concept of “maximizing shareholder value” is often cited, he has never met anyone who has adhered to this precept long term before finding it an empty measure.
I am a little skeptical that he is naive enough to think there are plenty of people who are completely comfortable employing that as a central operating philosophy.
He cites the example of a doctor who is focused on meeting patient needs and managers who reward employees for good customer service as instances when investing extra time is expensive short term, but can result in long term successes.
Godin goes on to detail a familiar debate in the arts world–the question of whether to produce works that engage the interest of visual and performing artists or works that will garner commercial success. He uses the example of visual artists and symphony musicians wanting to do challenging work which hones their craft and follow a creative path and the “audience is just one way to achieve that.”
He contrasts that with”
Others are eager to play crowd-pleasing programs, discovering that audience success rewards them even more than their own definition of artistry.
He doesn’t make judgments about which is the better approach. Rather he says that often the stated values can conflict with the values that are actually practiced which can create confusion and inhibit the effectiveness of the organization. (My emphasis)
The conflict, in any organization, is a challenge. We’d like our team members to use their best judgment, to find the satisfaction they seek in their work. But what happens when these definitions of success don’t align?
Too often, management simply conceals what they really seek, or lies about it. If “employees are our most important asset” then why not act that way?
Let’s be clear about who it’s for and what it’s for. It makes decision making more productive and communication and measurement far more effective.
