Strategic Business

After 25 years of speaking with companies about the work associated with positions and about improving the productivity and other metrics associated with those positions, I continue to be intrigued by the on-going conversation about the number of “jobs created or saved” by various economic stimulus initiatives in the United States. I continue to hold the position that people in Washington DC either have no idea what they mean by the phrase “jobs created or saved” or they mean something entirely different than most people I talk to in the private sector.

A job is the work somebody does to earn money. On the surface getting people jobs appears to be a good thing. Get people to work. Get them paid for doing work. Get the money into the economy to pay for other goods and services. In the short run, creating work for people to get paid for doing may be necessary and appropriate. Longer term, however, shanghai job creation may not be sufficient.

One challenge with job, or work, creation by the federal government is that the sustainability of the work may rely on the continuation of funding by the federal government unless the work created has its basis in the underlying economy. Ideally, for a federal government job creation program to be sustainable and, in the long run, a good thing, the created jobs should fill sustained needs within the respective communities. Jobs associated with a stimulus-funded construction project may be a good thing short term, especially for the individuals hired by the firm, but when the project is complete what work fills the new void for those individuals?

The other challenge associated with the current “jobs created or saved” is that it generally does not seem to consider whether the people doing these new jobs were employed doing something else before coming into the new position. Combined with reports of miscounting, the credibility of the reported results is questionable. On the other hand, if self-reporting of “jobs created or saved” the only metric available for a quick assessment of progress, then that metric should be used with care and with the recognition that the perceived improvement may be short term at best.

As for the sustainability factor, we eventually need to get community leaders, elected and non-elected, looking at long-term community needs and long-term solutions. It seems surreal to be using economic stimulus money, for example, to be addressing long-standing issues associated with the disruptive change experienced by the auto industry and the steel industry in Michigan, Ohio, and elsewhere. Using stimulus money may help people short term, but a short-term infusion of cash cannot remedy 20 years or more of troubled economy. Leaders in long-suffering regions need to identify industries that can be sustainably stimulated, not just jobs. While some argue that “clean coal technology” is unattainable, it is an example of the type of industry that may be needed to sustainably stimulate the economy. While fixing a few roads may provide short-term relief, for longer-term impact somebody might want to look at how to fix roads better or to build roads that need fewer repairs, if at all.

Conflict takes multiple forms. An obvious form is when people take up arms against one another. I recently completed a doctoral dissertation looking at perceptions about leadership that may be useful when Northern Uganda emerges from conflict. While I am accustomed to expressing my own opinion on various topics, one challenge of my dissertation was to address the perceptions of leaders in the Acholi sub-region of Northern Uganda without injecting my personal views. I found many points of consensus and lack of consensus among more than 50 leaders in that part of the world; one hope of mine is that the leaders of the region can build on their areas of consensus and take steps to seek consensus, or an agreement to disagree, on those points where consensus did not emerge.

Businesses also find themselves in periods of conflict and post-conflict. Periods of change are one source of perceived conflict. Change can be driven by market forces, by competitors, or by strategic change such as bankruptcy, merger, or acquisition. One observation, based on 25 years as a business consultant, is that organizational leaders must somehow build on points of consensus and address points of non-consensus in order to sustainably emerge from comparative conflict toward a sense of progress, if not peace.

Some who find themselves in positions of leadership, whether in a nation, a region, or a business, will find that their historic leadership practices and roles are somehow less suited for the new context in which they must, or may, lead.

Leadership in Post-Conflict Business
Businesses emerging from bankruptcy, mergers, acquisitions, and significant strategic change may exhibit symptoms similar to geo-political regions emerging from armed conflict. Leaders may need to help colleagues and constituents define new roles and responsibilities. Leaders may need to mediate skirmishes over turf. Leaders will need to clarify and reinforce a new vision and help constituents buy into the new vision by using tools and techniques to engage the constituents in the development of strategies and action plans to achieve the new vision.

Leaders in businesses emerging from conflict may need to help their colleagues reconcile with one another and with new realities. In conjunction with their reconciliation role, leaders may need to be intentional about verifying the end to historic conflicts so that an emerging period of peace is not interrupted by a resumption of conflicts that never were fully resolved.

Just as sustained economic development may not be possible in regions emerging from conflict until there is a cessation of violence and until effective leaders emerge to champion peace, growth in the wake of periods or episodes of conflict in a business may not be possible until leaders take appropriate steps to secure the peace and pursue a plausible vision for the future.