[/caption]
In a prior post I used a sports metaphor as an analogy to describe the efforts at establishing and reinforcing fundamentals within an organization. At the risk of over-extending my sports metaphor, I think a worthy accompanying thought to my prior message would deal with an organization’s leadership.
I see many sports organizations consistently, year after year, playing to win – as opposed to playing to not lose. They will make the extra effort to ensure they have the right players are in place, but much more than that they will ensure the management talent is in place. They will have extensive recruiting networks, deep management talent at all levels (both at the professional and feeder teams), and cultivate a culture of success throughout the organization. In short, they have made the conscious decision to “play to win.” These teams enter training camp with the attitude (and every person on the team knows it) that the season will only be considered a success if they win the championship.
It should also be noted that this is not related to finances as many people believe. George Steinbrenner was known as spending fearlessly (and some say foolishly) to win at all costs. He was not the wealthiest of the owners, not even close. He played to win. Mike Illich, owner of the Detroit Red Wings hockey team, does not spend anywhere close to what Steinbrenner did with the New York Yankees (now he is prohibited to with the NHL Salary Cap), but he has build an organization which from top to bottom is the envy of all. He has spent more on management than most, brought in the best management talent (from general management, to coaches, to farm teams) he can find, and developed an organization that superstar players will happily play for at a reduced salary. He plays to win. Many people put Arte Moreno, owner of the Anaheim Angels (I refuse to call them the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim) in the same category.
Acknowledging that every organization defines success differently, different at different points in time, and different based on the backdrop of current internal and external issues being dealt with. With E2.0 being less tactile than many initiatives an organization undertakes, the definition of success would be even more varied. If we use positive movement in primary and secondary business drivers as a starting point for definition of success, then what does “playing to win” mean for organizations undertaking E2.0? What are the critical decisions which must be made? What are the questions organizations must ask and answer of themselves? What would the ideal management team look like? Does E2.0 tie directly to corporate strategy and boardroom initiatives and therefore would often have its own funding source, or does it grow from the grassroots (or both)? Framed another way, if on the cover of Business Week three years from now was the face of the CEO who had demonstrated “playing to win” in E2.0, what would the in-depth article outline he done from his executive’s post?
I’m interested in your thoughts.
I completely agree with the above comment, the internet is with a doubt growing into the most important medium of communication across the globe and its due to sites like this that ideas are spreading so quickly.