Simon Sinek: Purpose should be prioritized over metrics
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 01. 2020
- During the seminar 'Purpose Driven Leadership' Simon Sinek answers the question: Can purpose be kept in a metric? Being purpose led is not the absence of metrics - it's prioritizing the purpose before the metrics. The organizations that do this will, over time, demonstrate better metrics.
More information: denkproducties.nl/experts/simon-sinek
What I love most about the peer review process Simon shares near the end is how it's designed based on principles. Those principles inform the design of the systems and processes. And it treats those systems and processes as products meant to serve the multitude of people who are connected to them.
@caldwellcreative - can you elaborate? What principles are you referring to? Thank you.
Such a nice word salad that literally means nothing.
Peer review is very essential to career growth and development. I really like the approach presented.
a very simple, yet efficient approach we used to get a metric for "trust": a scale from 1 to 10. 1: I'll quit, at best tomorrow. 10: i don't need money for this kind of work. every x weeks the teams are asked to put a point on that scale. First anonymously, later (as trust was growing) everyone told this at the team meeting. 2 sentences, a number on this scale, and a tendency (up, stay, down). This helped a lot avoiding layoffs and identifying problems early. Also, 2 sentences about personal situation, because there's an interdependence.
10 is not “I’ll do it for free “ it’s “I would die before letting you down”
Can you define "trust"? There are so many ways we can/can't trust a coworker. When I hear someone constantly talking badly behind a coworker's back, I can't trust them and will not share ANY personal information about myself.
The part about the Navy Seals' preferences in the performance/trust matrix is spot on, but there is one MASSIVE factor which is overlooked: the Navy Seals are not an organisation whose primary goal is profit. Businesses may claim to put people at the center of their action, to be working in service of grand ideals, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of companies works with one main goal and one main goal only: as much money as possible, as soon as possible.
Thank you Simon.
Outstanding analysis. This really helps me
I love this notion of Peer Reviews. we have two reviews a Mid-year and End of Review. I am going to make the suggestion of this
I feel that people get very angry when they know the feedback is wrong or misleading. When the feedback is right and they know, they can fake anger but cannot feel angry. Self realisation will not allow them to. So when somebody is really angry about a feedback, probably there is a problem with the feedback. But they should try to ignore it, rather than being angry.
It’s always great to get peer review!!!
So you are teaching people how the DOD looks at performance reviews. Easy. I like it because I'm used to it. Great and honest method if you don't have a motive behind it.
I need to learn to talk like this guy. I need to see what happens when someone makes him angry
A good reminder in today's grind culture and everything have to have quick results and having people burnt out.
The performance vs trust is always very eye opening
It’s very hard to give and receive constructive criticism!
Clearly the seminar is in Holland. Just because of the questions.
How would you measure the trustworthiness of the people?
On a binary scale?
I would think this is only achieved by peer information.
Ask coworkers, clients, customers, suppliers, ...
People tend to have an exaggerated self-reflection when it comes to personality traits and skills (can be both in the positive as well as the negative sense).
So like Simon said, 360° reviews.
I also think it's important that the people that are asked those questions also know why these questions are asked. If people are asked a question on how a co-worker is performing, they need to know what's hanging in the balance.
Is it a chance for promotion, is it to know who is pulling the team, who is most knowledgeable about a subject or who is being a jammer in the team.
Those people in term should also be reviewed, because they could also have a hidden agenda to falsely supply information for their own benefit. But if you ask enough people, your data should give you an idea on how the situation is.
I've been in a company where they did 360° feedback but the manager didn't believe the result. Guess what happened to that employee...
I've been in 2 companies where they did no such thing, didn't check in on the team on what the disrupting factor was, or even knew what (or who) caused the disruption. Those companies lost several employees leaving because of it, and only after the right source was found, stability followed.
HP LT is dangerous to have in your presence be it at work or even in your personal life.
I work the late shift and there are only 4 of us in our group. We build marketing campaigns. Before we submit them to QA we have each other look at them for advice and to make sure we do not make any errors to hit our QA. We have a higher percentage of a QA over this. The other side of this coin. Our phone call QA is done by people who do not and cannot do our job. Because it is too subjective in how we handle customer service. So they merely require ticking boxes that mean nothing to the client experience like reintroduction, asking if there is anything else. Matter of fact if you do as expected you can only get 96% You must go ABOVE AND BEYOND to get 100%. Meaning as expected is not even enough by the people who have no idea what that even means. I havestarted deleting any non perfect QA without signing them. That is where our resentment is. IT is that bad.
🤯🤯
“It’s the momentum… the way I measure success is if the trend is going like this…” sounds a lot like Dave Snowden with “more like this less like that” and in valuing direction of vector as opposed to strictly quantities.
Purpose unifies the whole experience. It definitely relates to what’s in the metric if it’s convincing, but it’s life more than projection. What’s the story, morning glory? The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
🐇 ❤ 🌎
Ah, the myth of absolute precision in metrics. Useful, but not the only one thing.
Trajectory > Target
The problem is that company 2 (red line) will be a full 1 year behind company 1 after only 6 years.
For the sake of arguement, he's claiming one is on a growth trajectory, while one is on a stagnant one. six years out the bottom one doubles if not more because the culture is strong and you won't plateau at the top from the inconsistent customer service of company 1. I understand your point however, it's just not viewed as a growth mindset.
@@danielcongleton2878 that’s his theory, in practice most all companies push short term goals and succeed in doing so year after year for many years.
@@knpstrr agreed, however we must remember the average lifespan of a fortune 500 company is less than 18 years, and that at a certain point it's about sustained consistent growth for investors rather than pure capital earned. Let alone that the amount of risk assumed by these companies accrued as they grow in size and capital. They value their leadership, culture, and branding more than capital, since it is inherently more valuable.
@@danielcongleton2878 the average life of a corporation as it is may be 18 years. But if they merge that doesn’t mean it was a failure even though it would technically go out of existence.
Also, monopoly and anti trust rules only allow a corporation to grow so big. So there are even limits to growth and often times to unlock more growth legally corporations must be split up into smaller entities. A “demise” that has nothing to do with the supposed stress of short term goals this would happen even in his preferred method of leadership if it grew large enough
This is exactly the pitch someone would give for 360 reviews if they've never experienced them in practice. In practice the feedback is weaponized by management to destroy the morale of direct reports that they wish to push out of the organization.
He is effectively advocating Earl Nightingale's great Definition of "Success". ... "Success is the Progressive Realization of a worthy ideal or goal." It is a JOURNEY, NOT a Destination.
Sinek misses Napoleon Hill's Real point on WRITTEN (quantified) Goals / Targets. It's to SMASH the self-imposed barriers of Fear and Doubt. If you cannot set a written / quantified Goal, (or make excuses / procrastinate), it is a bad sign. A symptom that you are In Denial. You are just fooling your own conscience. Internally, you are harboring doubt the goal will succeed. Then, that negative expectation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You shoot yourself in the foot, and sabotage your own success.
Additionally, that goal is 2 more things: 1. A tangible thing to "visualize", or drive the "affirmation" in Hill's Auto-Suggestion. 2. It provides the "dash-board", or Brian Tracy's "Focal Point". For measuring the PROGRESSIVE Realization. Each action moves the needle up-scale or down. Feed-back. It's how nature teaches us to learn from our mistakes.
Peer review has been around for decades. My hospital doesn't use them because they are stuck in the 1970's approach to workers. Work your shift, keep your mouth shut about the poor pay and please your manager. Why I'm happy to leave next week.
Metrics another blah blah word
I still can't feel any authenticity from this guy. It feels like a textbook presentation but lacking depth in real life experience. It's all about talking about someone's else experience but his own.
Big difference between a guy who have done real transformation compared to just doing a millenial program (which is a junior level). Bigger difference if you integrate the senior leadership team in a transformation, rather than just a fraction of the organisation. Yes, you have demand but encompassing enough.
As a former leader of the United States Armed Service I can 100% tell you he is telling an authentic truth. Leadership is not different no matter what organization you are talking about. Whether it is a boardroom or a battlefield the metrics for what makes a solid leader people can trust stays the same.
Businesses just let profits cloud their judgement.
@@thegame346 Are you referring to trust of the leader or team members trust for each other?
@@MNP208 when the team trusts the leader and feels as though the leader has their back and best interests of the team in mind before their own the team will almost always trust each other.
A strong leader makes all the difference
Senior leadership almost always falls pray to the fallacy of their personal success. Very few truly understand the lucky moments that led to their position, and thus assume that their personal path is 100% reproduceable.