Leaders commonly are tasked with too many priorities and too many things to deliver. They ask their teams to engage on so many fronts and issues, it is often hard to know what is truly most important.
Fair point. "Need to knows" and NDAs do exist for multiple reasons. Those of us on the frontlines will mentally juggle basic operations. Our bosses (and their bosses) will continue to use jargon like multitasking and optimism, while individuals leave the troubled departments/organizations...
As a country (often) we seem to make sure the layoffs are done, while ensuring our C-Suite employees get to keep their parachute...Maybe it's cause I am just your average Joe, but a lot, if not all, of it smells wrong (definitely unethical).
Whatever happened to temperence and justice?
I'm open to any ethical and pragmatic suggestions.
The main focus is on a disciplined approach to pursuing less, rather than more. I do not recall reading anything about that. That sounds like a combination of common sense and business "need to know."
Narrowing the focus of a company/team has been a counterintuitive concept for me, especially running a service business where near-term revenue is at stake when we walk away from a client or project that is slightly outside the swim lanes. However, the prioritization and strategic clarity have accelerated the areas we have chosen to focus on by letting go of the non-essential pursuits. It feels dangerous when revenue is at play, but it is a hesitance worth leaning into. Great post and reminder!
Good points. essentialism by Greg McKeown gives some great tips on this practice.
Now we just need our C-Suite Leaders and customers to get the memo;).
Thank you for your time.
Maybe... but senior leadership might not be in a position to publicly admit it.
The same way good leaders tend to not announce their choices outside of the team?
Fair point. "Need to knows" and NDAs do exist for multiple reasons. Those of us on the frontlines will mentally juggle basic operations. Our bosses (and their bosses) will continue to use jargon like multitasking and optimism, while individuals leave the troubled departments/organizations...
As a country (often) we seem to make sure the layoffs are done, while ensuring our C-Suite employees get to keep their parachute...Maybe it's cause I am just your average Joe, but a lot, if not all, of it smells wrong (definitely unethical).
Whatever happened to temperence and justice?
I'm open to any ethical and pragmatic suggestions.
Thank you for your question and time.
Sounds like, by the way this entry is written, that the NDA-like communication is suggested for just the one team.
Hi, Joe. Does the McKeown book discuss the idea of not announcing the decision outside of just your team too?
The main focus is on a disciplined approach to pursuing less, rather than more. I do not recall reading anything about that. That sounds like a combination of common sense and business "need to know."
Narrowing the focus of a company/team has been a counterintuitive concept for me, especially running a service business where near-term revenue is at stake when we walk away from a client or project that is slightly outside the swim lanes. However, the prioritization and strategic clarity have accelerated the areas we have chosen to focus on by letting go of the non-essential pursuits. It feels dangerous when revenue is at play, but it is a hesitance worth leaning into. Great post and reminder!
It's a common argument around a leadership table, Josh... that near-term revenue can be an ever-present distraction.