Archive for July, 2010

Ethical leadership and performance management

Saturday, July 31st, 2010

smartKPIs.com Performance Architect update 30/2010

Managing performance is about achieving desired outcomes, fulfilling the purpose of an entity. Oftentimes it is a complex journey requiring a diverse set of abilities. One of the most important prerequisites of organizational success is strong, committed leadership. And even more important is being guided by ethical leaders. What is an ethical leader though?

Leadership is the ability to mobilise a group and guide them towards the achievement of a shared purpose. Ideally this would be a positive purpose, contributing to the betterment of both the group and humanity in general. However, there are many instances when the outcomes of leader’s actions were negative for both the group lead and the society overall. Even when the purpose followed is positive in nature, the means to achieving it are sometimes in contradiction with the values of the group or the leader, affecting them negatively or even outweighing the value added by the achieved outcomes.

An ethical leader is a leader that is not only driven by the achievement of positive outcomes, but also is employing a set of positive means to achieve them, striving to achieve a balance between the interests of the group lead, the personal interest of the leader and the one of society in general.

Leadership starts with a destination, a desired state in the future that the leader believes in and strives to achieve. To an ethical leader this vision of the future should reflect a wide panorama of images, that reflect not only the state of the group being lead, but also of the various entities that may be affected by the achievement of this vision. If for example the leader of a mining company is interested in expanding the operations by starting a new exploitation, in evaluating the merits of such an enterprise, he should consider not only the potential revenue generated for shareholders, but also the impact of the exploitation on the local community, the habitat, employees and the humanity overall. Such a calibration would ensure that one of the fundamental ethical principles: “the greatest good for the greatest number of people” is followed.

Establishing a destination that is in harmony with the interests of the variety of parties affected by it is an initial step. An ethical leader would follow it by ensuring that the journey towards this destination is completed by following the same principles. It is important not only to reach the destination, but also to get there by following ethical principles and ensuring a rewarding journey. In an organisational context this rewarding journey means, ensuring the members of the organisation not only contribute to the achievement of a shared purpose, but in doing this they grow professionally, learn, feel a certain degree of fulfillment, as they realize that their efforts have meaning and are in line with their values. Showing a genuine interest in all these aspects of the journey and finding a balance between them and the achievement of the purpose is not easy. Leaders face pressure from a number of directions and in dealing with these they have to make difficult decision. This decision making process is a key aspect of what differentiates a leader form an ethical leader. In this process an ethical leader respects not only his values, but also the ones of the parties affected by the decision, and seeks to protect the interests of all parties following utilitarian ethical principles.

A key characteristic of an ethical leader is the set of values that inform his actions. Having a deep respect of nature and its diversity is to me one the most important. Many of the challenges Planet Earth faces today are generated by the humanity. Greed, cruelty, pride, anger and disrespect are all contributing to them. An ethical leader is the one that is not only uncharacterised by them, but actively seeks to eliminate such behavior both within the group lead and in society in general.

Certainly this is a big ask, especially in the business world. This is why perhaps ethical leaders are difficult to find. Nurturing them is challenging in today’s world, however there is hope for the future, especially with a renewed interest in systems thinking that is complementing more and more the command and control thinking that dominated administrative science for centuries.

Another characteristic of ethical leaders is continuity and consistency in living their own values and of the group they guide. Aligning their actions across a variety of roles is important. Such roles cut across various facets of the life: parent, partner, worker, community member and citizen among others. Ethical leaders align their actions across all these roles so that they are guided by similar principles. They might not be leaders in all of these roles, however their behavior should reflect that they know not only to lead, but also to follow, that they are genuine not only at work, but also at home and in the community.

Clarifying what is not an ethical leader would also help in understanding the term better. Is a leader of an organisation that behaves unethically in a business context, achieves great success while doing this and makes large contribution for humanitarian purposes with the revenue generated an ethical leader? What about a leader whose success in an organisational setting is opposed by an unhappy, broken family, disrespect for the community and for nature in general? Sometimes it is difficult to draw a line. Still, the use of the term “ethical leader” should be selective enough to reflect the true essence of humanistic, leaders dedicated to the good of the society and nature overall.

Perhaps the simplest answer to the question is formed of three words: a good person.

Stay smart! Enjoy smartKPIs.com!

Aurel Brudan

Performance Architect

www.smartKPIs.com

Walker, Rob 1992, “Rank Xerox – Management Revolution”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 9 to 21

Over 4200 Key Performance Indicator (KPI) examples on www.smartKPIs.com

Friday, July 30th, 2010

Registered members of the www.smartKPIs.com community can now select their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) from over 4200 performance measures documented and published in the online repository. The team focused over the last few days on publishing examples from the the Hospitality & Tourism,  Non-profit,  State/Federal Government and Local Government sectors.

The functional areas with the highest number of KPI examples are:

The industries with the highest number of documented performance measures are:

Example of a documented performance measure: $ Cost per dollar raised

Registered member experience on http://www.smartKPIs.com

  • Learn: To learn more about performance management and Key Performance Management visit the Resources section.
  • Explore: To explore the library of KPI examples by navigating the functional area and industry directory, visit the Browse KPIs section.
  • Customize: To build your customized KPI library by saving favorite examples for later use, visit the My KPIs section.
  • Contribute: To propose a new example of KPI, visit the Submit KPIs section.
  • Collaborate: To collaborate with other users and to discuss KPI examples, add comments on each KPI description page, ask questions on smartKPIs Answers, or contribute to the smartKPIs Forum.
registered members

Tech marketers’ expectations as return of their investment – Top marketing priorities for 2010

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

The results from the annual Marketing Survey conducted by Unisfair reveal interesting findings regarding what marketers see as top priorities for the year 2010 and what they expect to obtain from their marketing efforts. As the study shows, it seems that traditional marketing goals such as customer retention and brand awareness lose ground in favor of the generation of as much as possible sales leads.

Having an approximate number of 500 respondents, the research investigates issues such as top marketing priorities for 2010, which lead generation tools are to be most used, how marketers see the unqualified leads or, on the contrary, what are the „perfect” leads and how they can be identified (Unisfair 2010).

The top priority for this year’s marketers’ focus is the lead generation (66%), followed by brand awareness (17%) and customer retention (16%).

Important lead generation channels (see chart below) are expected to be the social media (74%), virtual events (39%) and mobile channels (34%):

As for the lead generation tools, the ones for which an increase in spending is intended to  occur are the website, email campaigns, physical events and online advertising.

The lead analysis revealed that marketers consider unqualified leads mostly those that don’t have the budget to purchase in the following period of time, the product doesn’t fit their needs and interests or the contact information is incorrect.

The web meetings are mentioned as the most leveraged virtual marketing engagements, but the place of video conferencing is expected to be taken by virtual business events in the period to come (Unisfair, 2010).

To support the marketers’ need for assessing the return of their marketing investment in online channels and tools, smartKPIs.com contains more than 180 KPIs in the Online Presence – eCommerce area,  that can be used to measure the performance of email marketing, online advertising, SEO and more.

References:

Unisfair 2010, The Future of Tech Marketing 2010, available at: http://www.unisfair.com/survey (accessed 16 July 2010).

Metrics reflecting the health insurance coverage in the U.S.A.

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

The Gallup Daily tracking analysis, Health Insurance Coverage Varies Widely by Age and Income, underlines the wide degree of variability in 2009 in health insurance coverage across U.S. population segments, based on age and income. Health insurance coverage is one of the most important Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to track the health of the national healthcare system (smartkpis.com, 2010).

Source: Newport, 2010

As indicated by the graphic above, the health insurance coverage is generally lowest in Americans’ mid-twenties and strongly related to income, ranging from a low of 44% among 35-year-olds making less than $24,000 a year to 100% among seniors in their 70s making more than $24,000 a year (Newport, F 2010).

An average of 16.2% of American adults lacked health insurance coverage in 2009, increasing up from 14.8% in 2008. The analysis indicates that lack of health insurance coverage is due to two main reasons:

  • voluntary decision to do without
  • economic circumstances, including lack of access to employer-paid insurance.

Source: Mendes, 2010

An average of 39.9% hispanics  lack healthcare coverage, this representing more than double the current national average. This level of the indicator makes hispanics the most likely demographic segment of the adult population to be uninsured. From 2008 to 2009, the percentage of uninsured low-income Americans, Hispanics, and blacks increased by 2.9 percentage points (Mendes, E 2010).

The results of the analysis are based on telephone interviews with more than 353,849 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Jan. 1-Dec. 31, 2009.

Resources:

Newport, F 2010, Health Insurance Coverage Varies Widely by Age and Income, available at: http://www.gallup.comhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/126143/health-insurance-coverage-varies-widely-age-income.aspx/poll/126143/health-insurance-coverage-varies-widely-age-income.aspx (accessed 19 July 2010)

Mendes, E 2010, More Americans Went Uninsured in 2009 Than in 2008, available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124973/Americans-Went-Uninsured-2009-2008.aspx (accessed 19 July 2010)

smartkpis.com 2010,  % Health Insurance Coverage, available at: http://www.smartkpis.com/kpi-key-performance-indicator/Health-insurance-coverage-2668.html (accessed 20 July 2010)

Healthy People 2010 – Leading Health Indicators at national level

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health represents a statement based report of the U.S. national health objectives, designed to provide a framework for healthcare prevention regarding the most important health national threats.

The report covers 28 focus areas and a set of 10 leading health indicators, used to measure the health of the nation over 10 years. The leading health indicators reflect the major public health concerns in the United States, being chose based on their ability to motivate action, the availability of data to measure their progress, and their relevance as broad public health issues.

Each indicator is first analyzed through its past 10 years performance, and afterward, objectives are set to monitor progress for the next 10 years. For example, one leading health indicator concerns physical activity. The participation in regular physical activity is analyzed between 1990-1999 through the graphic below.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000

The two objectives selected to measure progress among adolescents and adults for this leading health indicator are:

  • Increase the proportion of adolescents who engage in vigorous physical activity that promotes cardiorespiratory fitness 3 or more days per week for 20 or more minutes per occasion.
  • Increase the proportion of adults who engage regularly, preferably daily, in moderate physical activity for at least 30 minutes per day (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000)

Since 1979, Healthy People has established and monitored the United States national health objectives to meet a broad range of health needs. Healthy People 2020 report is currently being developed, aiming to present assessments of major determinants of health and wellness, and emerging issues related to the U.S. health preparedness and prevention at national level.

For further examples of performance indicators, explore the Government State / Federal – Healthcare KPI examples section of the library of KPI examples available on smartkpis.com (smartKPIs.com, 2010).

References:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2000 , Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health, available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/pdf/uih/2010uih.pdf (accessed 21 July 2010)

smartKPIs.com (2010), Government State / Federal- Healthcare KPI examples, available at http://www.smartkpis.com/kpi/industries/government-state-federal/healthcare/ (accessed 21 July 2010)

Separating strategy formulation from execution questioned in Harvard Business Review

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

smartKPIs.com Performance Architect update 29/2010

One of the surprise articles in the July-August 2010 edition of the Harvard Business Review (HBR) is ‘The Execution Trap‘, written by Roger L. Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and Professor of Strategic Management at the same school. Its publication comes as a surprise as traditionally, HBR has been favoring articles promoting strategy execution and the separation between formulation and execution. The support of the publication in promoting Kaplan & Norton’s ideas over the last 15 years was an important contributor to the ascent of strategy execution as a “buzzword”.

The article clearly states the author’s position right from the tagline: “Drawing a line between strategy and execution almost guarantees failure”. It reviews the recent history of the separation idea, mentioning names of proponents such as Jamie Dimon (now CEO of JPMorgan Chase) and Larry Bossidy (former AlliedSignal CEO). The phrase that encapsulates best some of the challenges in today’s management thinking is: “…[the] doctrine…is as flawed as it is popular. That popularity discourages us from questioning the principle’s validity.”

The pressures of concept marketing in today’s management thinking are illustrated by tracing back the integration idea to 1971, when Kenneth Andrews wrote in his book, ‘The Concept of Corporate Strategy’: “Corporate strategy has two equally important aspects, interrelated in life but separated to the extent practicable here in our study of the concept. The first of these is formulation; the second is implementation.” Gradually the push of the paradigm that separates strategy formulation from execution has gained grounds, pushed not always by sound data from the field, but also by marketing hype.

Two metaphors are used to illustrate the opposing views regarding strategy execution. The mainstream approach is built around the metaphor of the role the mind has in coordinating the human body. Similarly in organizations “thinkers” come up with the strategy and doers “execute”. The alternative metaphor proposed by Martin is the one that compares the organizations with a white-water river, where choices cascade down from upstream to downstream in the organizational hierarchy. This approach would enable more freedom to adapt decisions to the specifics of the environment in which each organizational level operates, all within a larger framework and direction given by the strategy (the river). To me these two opposing views can be associated with mechanistic, command and control thinking in the case of the military execution paradigm and with organic, systems thinking in the case of the interrelated, integrated view of strategy.

A second idea that emerges in the article is recursiveness, the replication of the same structure and approach at a lower level, of the component of the larger system:

“The employee is now not only the brain but also the arms and legs of the organizational body. He is both a chooser and a doer. Workers are made to feel empowered, and the whole organization wins.”

Other elements of systems thinking and the importance of learning can be traced in the article:

The choice-cascade model has a positive-reinforcement loop inherent within it. Because downstream choices are valued and feedback is encouraged, the framework enables employees to send information back upstream, improving the knowledge base of decision makers higher up and enabling everyone in the organization to make better choices.”

Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to the debate surrounding the benefits of employing a strategy execution paradigm, either at lexical level or management theory level. Due to its constructivist nature, management theory is continuously reshaped by such debates. What stimulates progress is challenging popular beliefs and assumed truisms by continuously analyzing them in the context of contemporary environment characteristics. To me, organizational performance management and performance architecture are more neutral integrating concepts that reconcile the differences between preponents of strategy formulation / execution separation. By raising questions about ideas considered as given, articles such as this one open the door to a reshape of thinking that marked strategy management literature for the last 20 years or so. Martin’s final thoughts at the end of the article are eloquent:

“It’s time to revisit and revise our upstream theory. The business world may be utterly convinced that better execution is the path to greatness, but in truth, a better metaphor would be much more helpful.”

Indeed, it is time.

Stay smart! Enjoy smartKPIs.com!

Aurel Brudan

Performance Architect,
www.smartKPIs.com

References

Andrews K. R 1971, The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Homewood, Ill., Dow Jones-Irwin.

Bossidy L, Charan R 2002, Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done, Random House, Crown Business, New York, New York.

Martin R. L. 2010, The Execution Trap, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp.64-71.

Walker, Rob 1992, “Rank Xerox – Management Revolution”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 9 to 21

Evaluating executive performance – global ranking of top performing CEOs

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

The Best-Performing CEOs in the World represents the first global ranking of the CEOs based on company performance during their tenure. Developed by INSEAD Professors Morten Hansen, Herminia Ibarra and Urs Peyer, the ranking is based on a global data set regarding 2,000 CEOs of 48 nationalities and from companies in 33 countries (INSEAD, 2010). The CEOs were chosen from the S&P Global 1200 and S&P BRIC 40 lists since 1997.

Source: INSEAD, 2010

The performance measures used for the ranking are:

  • % Industry-adjusted total shareholder return (TSR);
  • % Country-adjusted total shareholder return (TSR);
  • $ Market capitalisation.

The ranking generated some unexpected aspects, such as:

  • High-performance is fairly spread out across countries, industries and economic swings;
  • No particular context was identified to have a monopoly on exceptional performance;
  • The results indicate the importance of using objective, long-term measures to assess CEOs and to inform succession planning (Hansen, M, Ibarra, H, & Peyer, U, 2010).

References:

Hansen, M, Ibarra, H, & Peyer, U 2010, ‘The Best-Performing CEOs in the World,’ Harvard Business Review, Published January-February 2010, available at http://hbr.org/2010/01/the-best-performing-ceos-in-the-world/ar/1 (accessed 20 July 2010).

INSEAD 2010, The 200 top-performing CEOs in the world, available at http://knowledge.insead.edu/top-200-CEOs-091218.cfm (accessed 20 July 2010).

2010 Peter Drucker Challenge essay contest

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

Peter Drucker Society of Europe has launched the Continuity and Change – Balancing Innovation and Time-Tested Practices essay contest. The competition is open for participants under 35 and it “calls” for the young professionals with interest in anticipating the changes that are expected to shape our society in the years to come, as well as the opportunities that will emerge.

The prizes for the best essays consist in the opportunity to participate in the  Global Peter Drucker Forum 2010, held in Vienna, Austria. The complete details of the competition are available at: http://www.druckerchallenge.org/.

About c

Without doubt one of the most innovative personalities of the past century, Peter Drucker has had a crucial contribution to the development of Management as a discipline – the Man Who Invented Management – as he was once named by the New York Times (Lewis ,1998).

He has left behind a valuable collection of books that set the foundations for a great number of management concepts and described a suite of upcoming changes in the society, as they have been anticipated with great accuracy by Drucker. Among his most important titles are the following:

  • The End of the Economic Man (1939)
  • Concept of the Corporation (1946)
  • The Practice of Management (1954)
  • Frontiers of Management (1986)
  • Peter Drucker on the Profession of Management (1998)

References:

Lewis, M 1998, ‘The Man Who Invented Management,’ New York Times, Published 11 January 1998, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/11/books/the-man-who-invented-management.html?pagewanted=1 (accessed 20 July 2010).

Note: The photo was retrieved from the Austrian Embassy at Washington, D. C., website. Copyright © 2007, Austrian Press and Information Service, Washington, D.C.

The Quest for Quality and Improved Performance – an initiative of The Health Foundation

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

The Health Foundation, the independent charity working to achieve high quality healthcare for people in the UK, has celebrated this year the conclusion of one of their main research programs: Quest for Quality and Improved Performance (QQUIP).

The research has been conducted during 2005-2010, to provide independent results about the quality and performance of the healthcare provision. Its purpose is to provide answers to three questions regarding healthcare, considered fundamental (The Health Foundation 2010):

  1. What is the current state of healthcare and performance?
  2. What works to improve quality and performance?
  3. Is value for money obtained from what is spent in the National Healthcare System (NHS)?

The program has had three different streams of research, as shown below:

Source: The Health Foundation, 2010

The Quality Enhancing Interventions were identified as six main areas where efforts should be put so as to improve quality and performance:

  • Patient focused interventions
  • Regulatory interventions
  • Incentives
  • Data-driven and IT based interventions (which was broken into Performance Reporting & Accountability and Information & Knowledge Management)
  • Organizational interventions
  • Healthcare delivery models.

Source: The Health Foundation, 2010

During the time interval of the research, several outputs in the shape of reports were produced, studying issues such as:

  • Patient and public experience in the NHS
  • Value from money in the English NHS
  • Regulation and quality improvement
  • Costs and benefits of health information technologies
  • Safe and risk management in hospitals.

For more about the QQUIP initiative, visit The Health Foundation’s webpage, or directly download the research reports.

References:

The Health Foundation 2010, Quest for Quality and Improved Performance, available at: http://www.health.org.uk/current_work/research_development/qquip.html (accessed 3 July 2010).

The Health Foundation 2010, Quest for Quality and Improved Performance Brochure, available at: http://www.health.org.uk/document.rm?id=1178 (accessed 3 July 2010).

Over 4100 Key Performance Indicator (KPI) examples on www.smartKPIs.com

Monday, July 19th, 2010

Registered members of the www.smartKPIs.com community can now select their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) from over 4100 performance measures documented and published in the online repository. The team focused over the last few days on publishing examples from the the Utilities and Government sectors.

The functional areas with the highest number of KPI examples are:

The industries with the highest number of documented performance measures are:

Example of a documented performance measure: # Customers affected by repeated unplanned gas supply outages

Registered member experience on http://www.smartKPIs.com

  • Learn: To learn more about performance management and Key Performance Management visit the Resources section.
  • Explore: To explore the library of KPI examples by navigating the functional area and industry directory, visit the Browse KPIs section.
  • Customize: To build your customized KPI library by saving favorite examples for later use, visit the My KPIs section.
  • Contribute: To propose a new example of KPI, visit the Submit KPIs section.
  • Collaborate: To collaborate with other users and to discuss KPI examples, add comments on each KPI description page, ask questions on smartKPIs Answers, or contribute to the smartKPIs Forum.
registered members

Marketing Performance Management: the Net Promoter Score® (NPS)

Sunday, July 18th, 2010

In a context where marketing practitioners strive to measure the performance of their efforts, the search for new, innovative and simpler, measures that would not only lead to relevant results, but would also require less complex approaches, is of topicality.

Introduced by Fred Reichheld (Ritson, 2009), the Net Promoter Score® (NPS) promises to be one of the most popular and employed approach to measuring performance in marketing.

Its calculation is based on comparing the promoters (people who are likely to recommend the product or the company) to the detractors (people, who, on the contrary, would make a negative word-of-mouth).  It is also known as the Willingness to Recommend metric and, along with level of customer satisfaction, it is suggested as a highly relevant leading indicator of future purchase intentions and loyalty (Farris et al., 2006).

Table: Net Promoter Scores for the airlines companies operating in Australia (Ritson, 2006)

In a practical context, its measurement would involve a customer survey, consisting of a simple question (“How likely is that you would recommend the product/company to a friend or colleague?”) with an 11 point scale answer, from 0 – not at all up to 10 – extremely likely (Ritson, 2006). The answers are divided into three categories: promoters, neutrals and detractors. While neutrals are left aside, further on the volume of promoters and the volume of detractors are extracted as a percentage from the total respondents, and the difference between the two percentages is the NPS.

Despite its increasing popularity due to its argued simplicity and ease in computing, the NPS is not exempt of criticism, coming mainly from behalf of market researchers.

In a 2010 Customer Loyalty Forum held in Boston, several limitations of the NPS method were outlined, such as (GreatBrook, 2010):

  • Possible legal issues, due to the private copyright over the concept (from Satmetrix Systems, Bain & Co., Fred Reichheld);
  • The issue of using scales with different points for the answers: some suggest 11, other use 10 and other use 5, which might alter the relevance in comparing results;
  • Using incentives to increase the response rates, that might impact upon their subjectivity.

However, as we see it, the main issue of measuring the net promoter score would rely on the WHAT NEXT question. Moreover, this is an issue that would impact not only the NPS method, but any of the survey measurements investigating customer loyalty, satisfaction, content and so on.

Imagine that you obtain a NPS of 10%. What does this mean to you, how will you know that these 10%, which are the net difference between the promoters and the detractors, or the promoters themselves, will actually recommend your product? How will you know that there won’t be more detractors, people that will actually make a negative buzz on your product? Just knowing that you theoretically have more promoters than detractors does not say much on the future purchase intentions or other customer actions.

A possible solution would be that of doubling the measurement of possible intentions (what the NPS does) with a measurement of actual actions. Thus, maybe a more relevant question would be, for example:

Have you recommended our product to a colleague or friend at least once in the last 6 months?”.


References

Farris, PW, Bendle, NT, Pfeifer, PE & Reibstein, DJ 2006, Marketing Metrics: 50+Metrics Every Executive Should Master, Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

GreatBrook 2010, Net Promoter Score® Discussion at Customer Loyalty Forum, available at: http://www.greatbrook.com/net_promoter_score_criticism.htm (accessed 25 June 2010).

Ritson, M 2006, Net Promoter Scores Australia – Independent Research, Melbourne.

Ritson, M 2009, Net Promoter Score Defined, available at: http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2009/07/net-promoter-score-defined.html (accessed 25 June 2010).

Featured products

$99 USD
 
$99 USD
 
$183 USD
 
$99 USD
 
$45 USD
 
$289 USD
 
$35 USD
 
$1800 USD