The Delphic maxim, attributed to Apollo via the oracle and well present in Socrates' thought, is also applicable in the business world; both at the individual level (to attend to the continuous improvement of our capabilities with a sufficient dose of self-criticism), and with regard to the company as a group (to improve its competitiveness).
This rigorous knowledge of itself - unavoidable for the company - is not, however, easy to achieve. There are very different points of view about it within each organization, and the synthesis is difficult; Often, it all comes down to economic indicators: everything is going well, if the numbers go well.
The figures are unquestionably important, fundamental, and even vital, in the course of the company. Go ahead the truism. They are the daily concern of Senior Management and, to a large extent, a concern of all managers and employees. They become the «hard» in the management of the company. When the numbers go wrong, there is not always enough serenity to tackle the soft (future vision, process improvement, teamwork, internal communication, development and professional satisfaction of employees, empowerment…).
But when the numbers are improving or doing well, we may be tempted to let our guard down. Although we are doing things reasonably well and obtaining good results, it is perhaps more inexcusable then that we take advantage of the situation to stretch the muscles of the organization, provide it with greater agility and efficiency, cure and prevent its possible diseases and, in short, anticipate the future, which is becoming more opaque and forcing more and more changes. In all this there are more than words: there is meaning.
It is not just that companies periodically self-evaluate according to the emerging postulates of business excellence models; This is undoubtedly healthy, but there is a risk, among others, of leaving everything again in numbers. In-depth knowledge that seems advisable to us would seem, in itself, an end; but it is, above all, a means that aims to ensure that companies strictly define their presence in the market; to have a sufficient awareness of their reality, that is, of their position, their potential, their resources, the viability of their purposes… Up to a certain size of companies, many managers have a sufficient idea of the strengths and weaknesses However, some of them confess that they are not always present.
In large companies, the knowledge that managers can obtain from them is logically limited in depth. Senior Management receives the information transmitted to them by managers at the next hierarchical level, always attentive to showing the efficiency and contribution of their departments. But when it comes to making improvements and changes, it is necessary to know - among other things and in sufficient detail - where you start from and what difficulties you will encounter. (And where do you want to go).
As we are?
What are we capable of with our own means? And with foreign aid? What do our clients think of us? And what do they tell us? What do we understand by "quality"? What values and qualities are promoted in managers? And in the workers? What percentage of our employees' hours is spent repeating things badly done by themselves or by others? What activities or intermediations are dispensable? What crucial tasks are done without due rigor? How many intermissions do the tasks that require concentration suffer? To what extent are people's capacities or abilities being used? What percentage is obtained from orders over offers? Where are the keys to improvement?
Let us continue: What percentage of decisions are made due to fatigue or are left undone? How many management problems are inextricable? Is it true here that stress produces stupidity? How is authority exercised? Is institutional self-criticism practiced? What future does a critical employee have? Who really are our competitors? What moves us the most: a job well done, or looking good with the boss? Why do our clients choose us? Do we learn from our experiences? Do we have good databases? Is the information flowing well? Another break.
Let's continue: How is the patio (working environment)? What are our supplier relationships like? How do viruses get to the local network? Why are you buying pens that do not write, even if they cost two pesetas less? Why do we have so many meetings? Why are responsibilities diluted and nobody is guilty of anything? What is most common to the worker: submission or loyalty? Is feedback well practiced? Is stroking done well? Mentoring? Benchmarking? Coaching?
But go on, we could go on: Is there pamphyllism, pusillanimity, immobility, slowness, or some other classic disease of organizations? Are there cultural contradictions? How are we walking with deadly sins and cardinal virtues? How do you get to boss in this company? Does the buddy work a lot, to avoid the procedural formalities? What are internal communication plans for? Who reads the corporate newsletter? Who are the queen bees?… Do managers and managers in general have answers to all these questions and to some more profound ones that have not occurred to us here?
AND?
If the answers are available, it is not always easy to translate them into correct conclusions, aimed at improving productivity and competitiveness. Because this is what it is all about: improving productivity and competitiveness, at the same time attending to the professional satisfaction of people and having an agile, versatile, flexible and harmonious organization. Let everyone always know who is who, know what they have to achieve, and know what they have to do to achieve it: even if the answers change periodically, depending on the conjunctures.
There are already several business consulting companies that include among their services, diagnoses of diverse taxonomy and scope. Just as work climate studies (more frequent at the beginning of the decade) were commissioned by specialized consultants, excellence diagnoses can be more rigorous if they are commissioned by specialists capable of identifying or defining, in addition, the areas for improvement, the sequence of the corresponding plan, the special care to observe, the possible feedbacks, the indicators of progress… But, with or without external help, each organization must know itself; know where you are and where you want to go.
When the diagnosis of a crisis organization is easy to do (because the problems are well visible), the solution is usually difficult to apply. But if the health of the organization is regularly monitored, the advisable corrective or preventive measures are more easily applicable. Often, when speaking of changes in companies, it is emphasized that to build, you must destroy.
It does seem, of course, that organizations must be shaken to undo flawed links and neutralize resistance; But both must be done - destroy and build - with due caution and restraint: changes in the desired direction have not always occurred. There are cases in which some cost reduction decisions, for example, are taken in a hurry and end up generating subsequent increases in them, or noticeable deterioration in the image of the company.
conclusion
The executives usually put great emphasis on the definition of their strategy and they usually do it to the satisfaction of all the agents: shareholders, clients, employees… But it is not always successful with the tactic, and when, on some occasions, they commit themselves large or small Everyday errors, these usually have a lot to do with insufficiencies in the knowledge of the organization, on the part of the decision makers. Let us attend to the delphic mandate: let us know ourselves better as individuals and as an organized collective.
