 |
The Result
The behavior that resulted was predictable. The Centers of Excellence staffers acted first to
protect their areas of accountability by:
- Presenting themselves as the ultimate authority and decision maker;
- Dictating to business units what the units can or cannot do;
- Saying “no” without carefully examining the “what”; and
- Developing new enterprise initiatives without regard for whether they would help the business
units achieve their goals.
When the Centers of Excellence representatives displayed this attitude, business unit managers
started referring to the Center of Excellence people as the “corporate cops.” Needless
to say, there was little value-added from this relationship.
Place Your Bets on Centers
of Acceleration
We found that when our clients freed the Centers of Excellence from enterprise-wide accountability,
they could thrive. Some of them also positioned the centers as Centers of Acceleration, wanting
the concept to emphasize that the groups support individual business units in a way that helps
the units move forward.
We have found that Centers of Acceleration succeed when they serve at the will of the business
units who pull them into their business concerns as needed and who look to them to expedite
and accelerate their progress towards specific outcomes through their expertise.
Centers of Acceleration representatives succeed when they are empowered to behave in a way
that reflects an intense desire to understand
|
|
understand the needs of the business unit; to aggressively find
a way to support that need; to work “in the dirt” with unit managers to build the
solution; and then afterwards to get out of the way, letting the business unit take the credit
for its success.
In retrospect, the term Centers of Excellence seems a little passive for today’s
business climate. We at The Clarion Group recommend you go with the more aggressive – and
effective – approach we call Centers of Acceleration.
An intention gone wrong:
A corporate HR Department – a Center of Excellence – has a compensation
expert. This person is equipped to develop complex executive compensation schemes,
considering tax law, regulatory concerns, internal equity, external competitiveness,
and the specific behaviors and outcomes the business is striving to reward. So far
so good.
But then the problems start. First, when the business unit has a specific compensation
need, like an incentive plan for their sales force, this expert is not available
to help because the enterprise-wide initiatives take priority. When she finally is
available, her top priority is overseeing how the corporate incentive plans are administered
by the business units. The helpful expert has morphed into the person who approves – or
disapproves – of how the business unit has implemented the corporate program.
Suddenly the helper has input into the business unit’s evaluations, and the
evaluations of the individual managers. The dynamic has changed. The business units
quickly move into the mode of figuring out how to please the corporate visitor while
at the same time scheming around the person and/or program to create something under
the table that better addresses their needs. While the CEO may appreciate that corporate
control is being exercised, the reality is that the business unit is making less
progress, not more.
|
<< go to page 1 | go to page 3 >>
|
|
Privacy Statement