Orgs Should Attach Themselves to Things

I get the feeling that you view an organization being very transparent and something that adds value not by adding value let’s say in the traditional Porter sense of building blocks and we add to this and put this together and everything, but more of something that attaches to things. Instead of building blocks, maybe more like a Venn-type structure or something that is just kind of — I don’t want, to say a big mess, but something like that. Am I right? Am I interpreting your book right or can you build on that a little bit? – Joe Dager

Shawn Casemore:    Sure. Well I think, your first statement, I think an organization should be very transparent: I don’t know that many are. But if you go back to Porter’s idea, his model around the value chain was really built around functions and roles that are necessary to deliver value. My philosophy is it comes back to the three components I mentioned earlier, which are employees, suppliers and customers and value transcends these three different components.

For example, employees in a company offer value to a customer. That could be from the product that they’re building, the service they’re delivering and go even deeper; that could be from how tightly the person in shipping wraps the product before it ships out the door, to ensure that it doesn’t get damaged or fall over in the truck on the way. I mean you can take it as deep as you want. But in turn, the customer provides value to the employee. Obviously, from a standpoint of if we’ve got customers and revenue that an employee receives compensation for a job, but also the customer themselves. I’ve had a situation where customers have sent notes and thank you’s and great feedback for employees that had different roles in the organization. So what we want to realize is that value transcends across all three of these different groups, and we need to start to approach them from that perspective, which means creating closer connections.

When I do strategy work with clients, one of the things we do is I go out and get information from the frontline employees on how the business is doing, what they think the challenges and opportunities are for the business moving forward, and then I talk to some of the key customers. How’s the company doing from their perspective? And now I bring this into the strategy session, and sorry, I also talk to key suppliers, the third component. I get feedback from all three areas. We bring that in, and that’s a launching point for the strategy session.

I think from one hand, there’s a school of thought that says your vision for the future of the company and your mission should be developed solely by the company. But I’m a fan of saying why would they develop a vision and mission if my customers don’t want it and don’t care about it. I need to create something that aligns with my customer’s need both today and tomorrow and that meets with the capabilities and understandings of my employees both today and tomorrow and the only way — and as well as the support of my supply base, my supply chain, so the only way to do that is to get their feedback and incorporate that in the strategy, to ensure that when we put this together, it’s a future that is going to sustain our company and offer continuous value to the customer, the employees and the suppliers.

Related Podcast and Transcription: Empowering Operations

This discussion centered around Shawn Casemore’s new book, Operational Empowerment: Collaborate, Innovate, and Engage to Beat the Competition. Shawn  is a consultant, speaker, and author investing significant time studying top performing organizations around the world,