Getting the sequence right

This week: Real client stories illustrating common strategic questions.

---

Four Dominoes: Why Order Matters in Organisational Design

This month, I sat down with Sarah, CEO of a mid-sized aged care provider who was completing due diligence on their second large takeover.

"We're happy we’re expanding," she told me, "but my board keeps asking about my plans for restructure. But I’m not sure”.

Sarah's instinct was spot-on – she had recognised a fundamental principle that many leaders miss: organisational growth or transformation has a natural sequence.

And here's the crucial insight: Sarah needs to line up several elements, like dominoes. Each must fall in the right order to create maximum impact.

Strategy comes first. It’s a set of insights from which you build a framework to guide decisions (like who to merge with). It should set out Sarah’s organisation's identity, focus, and desired results.

Only then can she intelligently consider the structure that will deliver on these objectives. I told Sarah, “Asking your old structure to deliver your new strategy is like asking your calculator to run ChatGPT”. It might work, but you should assume it won’t.

Once your strategy and structure are aligned, your leadership team can focus on execution by articulating three things, for each executive area:

1. Their core (BAU) operations

2. Their strategic initiatives

3. Their measurable key results

And, then there’s the last domino that needs to tip: accountability for progress against objectives. One proven way I work with teams to maintain momentum is to ask each executive to prepare a quarterly presentation on the following retrospective and prospective questions:

1. What am I proud of? (Last quarter achievements: quantitative and qualitative)

2. What am I focussing on next? (Next quarter focus of effort)

3. What challenges do I foresee? (Next quarter risks)

4. What support do I need? (Next quarter team cohesion)

Every executive gets 20 minutes in the spotlight, and half this time is their presentation; the other half is their colleagues weighing in on their opinion on the same four questions. It’s a powerful process that doesn’t just build accountability; it builds shared accountability.

These ‘dominoes’ don’t each need to take months, and some parallel processing is possible, but if you stick to the logic, you’ll do way better than the majority of organisations that treat these as separate undertakings.

Question: How might you better achieve your aspirations by approaching them as an orderly sequence of strategy → structure → execution → accountability?

---

The attention economy: Four steps to becoming indispensible

I’ve worked with several research institutes in the past couple of years who all have a common dilemma. In the words of one of their CEOs: “We know we’re doing groundbreaking work, but sometimes it feels like we're shouting into an echo-chamber”.

How, then, should they attract attention?

My business mentor, Alan Weiss, once showed me a shorthand ‘ladder’ of ascending visibility which I’ve modified for numerous research organisations through their growth trajectories. I've observed a clear pattern in how these institutions evolve from obscurity to prominence. Think of it as a four-step ascension to institutional magnetism:

• The Echo-Chamber Stage: When you start out, it’s hard to get attention. How you know you’re at this level: People don’t return your calls.

• The Recognition Stage: Your reputation precedes you. When you reach out, people respond. They know your name and your work. How you know: They return your calls.

• The Attraction Stage: Your expertise becomes a beacon. Stakeholders initiate contact, seeking your insights and collaboration. How you know: They call you.

• The Iconic Stage: You become the definitive authority. In your space, you're not just a choice – you're the choice. How you know: They only call you.

Take a research centre with whom I’ve worked. Five years ago, they struggled to secure meetings with potential partners. Now, after years of systematically showcasing their unique mapping capabilities, they field several inquiries each month from global research partners and private sector funders.

Question: Which ‘magnetism’ stage are you at? How will you get to the next?

---

A producer, or a performer?

Last story for this week: One of my clients is a large global institution with literally dozens of teams, some small (3 - 4 people), some enormous (hundreds of people).

One of their executive directors approached me with a question recently which was this: “How can we shift a senior leader of one of these teams?”

I told him I needed to understand why she wanted him shifted. So I asked three questions :

1. Are there complaints about him from within his team?

2. Do people outside his team regard him poorly?

3. Is he under-performing?

The answers to the first two question were both ‘yes’. But her answer to the third was revealing, and was delivered with a wry smile: “He’s not under-performing; he’s mis-performing”.

Huh?

The executive director went on to explain that this leader was working extensively on other, different measures of success. They expected him to create globally visible health impacts in countries’ populations; instead he was delivering lots of speeches and getting the agency’s name and logo onto lots of papers.

This brilliant concept of mis-performance (as opposed to non-performance) often manifests as:

• High visibility but low core impact

• Strong personal brand building versus organisational advancement

• Impressive activity metrics but weak mission-related outcomes

Question: Do you have people who aren’t under-performing, but are mis-performing?

---

Let me know if any or all of these stories resonate with you, or your direct experience. As always, you’re doing me a favour by clicking the heart, as it keeps the algorithms playing nicely.

This week, ask at least one of these three questions of your teams and see how they respond.

See you next Friday,

Andrew