What does organizational change have to do with spaghetti?
You remember the old spaghetti test. Throw a strand at the wall and if it sticks, it's done. Unfortunately, some leaders approach organizational change with the same haphazard method.
Tired of managing a team that goes through the motions? You’re not alone. This year’s global trends confirm that leaders understand the value of human performance for enterprise strength as well as business success. How can you unlock the true potential of your team to create a powerhouse of innovation and engagement?
Why is it that most organizational change initiatives tend to fall into one of the following categories:
- It is slow to launch
- Are recycled from previous efforts that did not achieve intended outcomes
- Never realize their full potential
In 2020, Carmen Klein, VP Organizational Effectiveness and Systems (HR) at Cadillac Fairview graciously shared her thoughts and experiences using ALULA's Performance Coaching and Feedback as an enabler for their OneCF Culture.
Cadillac Fairview is one of the largest owners, operators, and developers of best-in-class office, retail, and mixed-use properties in North America, valued at over $32B. Their real estate portfolio also includes investments in retail, mixed-use, and industrial real estate in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.
Cadillac Fairview’s employee engagement ranks in the Global Top 25% Most Engaged Companies. The firm has received accolades for their OneCF Culture, including Waterstone Canada’s Most Admired Cultures and Achievers Most Engaged Workplaces in North America.
The company’s journey to make its people and culture a competitive advantage began years ago, when company CEO John Sullivan made this observation: “Cadillac Fairview’s success is partly defined by the results we achieve (EBIT, returns, growth). But our success also is defined by how employees achieve those results, and the mindset and behavior of every employee. Behavioral leadership is key.”
Audits tell us whether employees are following safety procedures, right? Not necessarily.
Audits don’t always tell the whole story. I’ve seen cases where well-trained employees looked good on the audit yet had a troubling number of incidents on the job.
I’ve seen situations where companies have an admirable history of safety practice yet still experience fatalities—and in one case, two-thirds of the deaths occurred in high-risk areas.
How is this happening when their audits looked so good?
Conversation