When a large organization that mobilizes a collective workforce to focus on key objectives, sales goals and other performance metrics and it pounds the hell out of that to their employees day after day till they have everyone pointed and marching in the direction they want them to go, do they risk marching straight off a cliff?
Any organization somewhat changes their focus on what is important from time to time, but it generally falls to generating revenue and keeping a healthy growth pace on revenues. Why does it seem like a major frustration for senior managers to get everyone on the same page?
Soon everyone is pointing fingers and looking to chop heads, and this doesn't make the situation any better, nor does it appear to really fix anything. They might plug a hole in the dike with one finger, but soon more holes will pop up, so they are constantly moving their fingers to plug other holes. Senior managers are constantly firefighting on their talent going from one hot spot to another, but the forest will continue to smolder and never really achieve a peaceful growth period where you aren't playing whack-a-mole on people.
Does it ever get to that point that everyone gets on the same page? I only hear this happening in small teams, especially closely knitted small teams that rely on each other to make the machine run, but the larger the organization gets with ever increasing employees, it becomes a different human resource to manage. It is better to run everything in small teams? What is considered a right number in a team dynamic? When does a tally of humans working together go from closed knitted to everyone for themselves? There must be a threshold and maybe that is worth figuring out.
Maybe the way to get everyone on the same page is to have small teams work as words on a page, each doing their part in their small way, each acting as a complete word and each word then brings out the message of the page, and therefore everyone is on the same page, together.
