An Abundance of Professionals ≠ A Professional Organization

To what degree does ‘professional’ describe your organization?

That’s a question that I frequently ask of senior leaders. Naturally, they’ll bend into a pretzel to answer in the affirmative.  After all, the answer reflects on them—for better or worse.

Most of the senior leaders justify their affirmative responses by the nature of the service or product that the organization provides (or attempts to provide).  In other words, the senior leader considers their organization ‘professional’ because, at the end of the day, it delivers an innovative technology or sage business counsel.  You know, these are organizations with big-brain scientists, highly-trained marketers, time-tested engineers, etc as a core part of their staff. Some are considered experts. In other words, the senior leaders justify their affirmative answer because of what the organization ultimately produces (e.g. a serum, sophisticated advice, a bridge).  It’s true that specialized expertise was required to produce each—specifically technical expertise.

But what’s not so obvious was that the serum was late to market (beaten out by a competitor who was first to market by six months). This development ultimately undermined the serum’s competitive advantage in the marketplace. The bridge was 30% over budget and took twice as many internal resources as once thought. Heads rolled as a result of the cost over-runs and client dissatisfaction.

Let’s look at it from the trenches.  If people inside the organization…

• Don’t know what the organization’s priorities are (e.g. ever-changing or unclear priorities)
• Can’t count on internal resource commitments to be honored (e.g. downward pressure on budgets become commonplace…decision surrounding budgets become capricious)
• Have lost confidence in the organization’s ability to meet production deadlines (e.g.  the unwillingness of management to stick with commitments is often the culprit here)
• Have become accustomed to whimsical decision-making on management’s part (e.g. “Just hold tight.  Wait five minutes, things will change.” )
• Don’t know what’s going on in the greater organization (e.g. inadequate or ineffective communication)
• Don’t understand what business they’re in (e.g. yes, this really happens!)
• Haven’t fully bought-in to the current initiatives advanced by management (e.g.  the case for why these initiatives warrant special attention and support has been ineffective by management.)
• Realize that customers/clients are being disadvantaged (e.g. the bill gets maximized, client value doesn’t.)
• Don’t see their management defending the organization’s professional ideals (e.g. explicit or implicit)
• Don’t feel connected to their colleagues (e.g. they may as well be strangers in the night)

…few will say that the word ‘professional’ describes their organization…even if their organization delivers sophisticated products or services…even if they employ ‘big-brained’ people who have advanced training….even if their individual specialists exude superior technical proficiency.

This may seem counter-intuitive and even painful to hear. But consider David Maister’s experience. David, now retired, was once the world’s leading authority on the management of professional services firms.  He observed, “I rarely meet individual professionals who believe their firm, as an institution, is built on such [professional] principles.”

Most people define an organization (white collar or not) as ‘professional’ not by what the organization delivers (technical stuff developed by really smart people) but by how they go about their business. This is outlined in great detail in Chapter Two of The Power of Professionalism. And make no mistake, how they go about their business is a by-product of their mind-sets.

In the end it’s about confidence and trust. So when I hear senior leaders say, especially in the face of great chasms of trust, that the word ‘professional’ describes their organization I realize we’ve still got a ways to go.