Improving the mental health of organizations

Most of the business problems we face daily come without instruction. Worse, the information at hand is generally incomplete. Solutions – decisions – depend on our ability to fill in the blanks of what we know with what we believe; to paint a picture of what might come next by studying the details of the photo of the past; and to trust our instincts by having learned from our mistakes.

The questions can be big (market expansion or acquisition?) or small (single-serve coffee dispenser or ten-cup brewing for the kitchen?). They can involve bricks-and-mortar (new or remodeled space?) or process and policies (can I trade my unused vacation for cash?). But they all involve people; and it is the presence of people that increases the uncertainty.

Like the student actor who in encouraged to understand a character’s motivation in order to play the role, a manager must have the same insight to have a chance at making the right decisions. Most successful companies have been able to operate at the intersection of their market mission and personal ambition; one fueling the other for a better bottom line and higher self-esteem among employees..

But people are not as consistent as brick, mortar or a ten-cup coffee pot. We are mercurial and easily offended, we are ambitious and susceptible to flattery; we are smart and naive and we want the support of our colleagues even as we act in our self-interest. It all makes successfully managing a group of people to a business goal -- over a long period of time -- the hardest job on the planet. What works at any given moment may lead to chaos in the next.

Consider the fine line between independence and indifference. It seems clear that companies need to cultivate the willingness of their employees to make the right decisions. The kind of over-the-shoulder oversight that can create organizational confidence may chafe at some people yet be seen by others as support. Ultimately, when given the chance to operate more freely, most are energized, but some will feel abandoned.

Knowing who falls into which group can propel a company. Miscasting will close any play early in its run. High stakes; few instructions. It falls to a company’s managers to know enough about their colleagues to make only an occasional mistake; but not to know so much about any one employee so that decisions become personal or, worse, made not at all.

Avoiding or delaying correcting the mismatch of people and assignment has greater effect on a business than does making the mistake in the first place. The psychology of a workplace and the economic value of a consistent culture can be unhinged if it appears a bad pairing is allowed to persist. It becomes no longer a small problem, but a big one; casting doubt on every decision.

It can also instill the unwavering belief that there is quite a lot that can be read between the lines. And, when cracks appear in the culture of a company or it acts, in the eye of its employees, counter to its mission, these blanks are filled in more with what is believed than what is known.

As many companies, politicians and institutions know, it is easier to squander a reputation that it is to rebuild it. What many don't know is that un-doing a bad decision can have a more positive effect on the bottom line than making the right decision out of the box. Not because it is harder to do (it is) but because it is a show of respect for the good work of everone else.