A VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS | Call or text now for a FREE consultation: +1 (770) 765-3692 | 
Corporate Cultures – Why Policies Don’t Match Actions
Too often, corporate policies are the ‘little white lies’ no one likes to talk about. Philosophically, corporate policies should reflect the expectations of company leaders and drive management’s decisions and employee actions. Upon closer examination, however, management’s decisions and employee actions are anything but aligned with documented expectations; with few seemingly concerned about the discrepancy.
Hi there! Gain access to this article with a StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription or buy access to the article itself.
| Subscribe to the StrategyDriven Insights Library
Sign-up now for your StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription for as low as $15 / month (paid annually). Not sure? Click here to learn more. |
Buy the Article
Don’t need a subscription? Buy access to Corporate Cultures – Why Policies Don’t Match Actions for just $2! |
No organization can do it all. Resource limitations drive leaders to choose from those activities that will maximize the benefit derived from the assets the organization does possess. What is not commonly done, however, is the discontinuation of some ongoing activities not deliberately selected for funding. Consequently, these activities draw precious resources away from the more value-adding activities thereby diminishing the organization’s overall effectiveness.
Every decision involves risk, with time underlying all mitigating factors. Some decisions occur too late, resulting in the forfeiture of a situational opportunity, competitive advantage, or adverse outcome avoidance. Other decisions are made too quickly, unnecessarily increasing risk because of diminished data gathering and contemplation that better informs the choice.
Feedback mechanisms serve as a reflection of an organization, business unit, department, or individual’s performance. At times, these mirrors reveal exceptional performance; in other cases, good or satisfactory performance; and in some instances poor or unacceptable performance. Too often, the individual or group holding the mirror, whether a performance metric, an internal self-assessment, or a third party audit, is blamed for the performance indicated. Regardless of who provides the performance report, this person or group should not be attacked for identifying instances of success or failure.
Change is difficult. Value illusive. Implementation of new organizational performance measures represents both change and sought after value, either of which can render the time and resources spent creating the new measures worthless. Consequently, it is incumbent upon those seeking to introduce the new measures to effectively test for acceptance and value contribution before committing the significant time and resources required for their development and implementation.
Business Programs