That sense that the organisation is both good and bad, encouraging and disappointing, recovering and stagnating, all at the same time. Close to success but also not far from failure. The organisation is both good and bad, often at the same time.
We are encouraged to think of organisations as good or poor, as improving or coasting as successful or failing but it’s rarely that simplistic. There are isolated islands of excellence even in failing organisations and there are worrying examples of bad/dangerous/unethical practice in organisations that are seen as excellent.
It should be possible to praise the good stuff without being accused of complacency. In fact praising the good stuff is the best way to ensure it doesn’t remain isolated. Calling out or challenging poor performance is not naming and shaming it simply drawing attention to the fact that in similar circumstances others are doing better so what can we learn from them. It’s about taking the unhelpful emotions out of the equation. What is often refers to as the blame culture. It’s about being an ambitious organisation but realistic.
It’s not making excuses to ask that special circumstances be taken into account in any assessment of performance. Performance for a range of reasons is cyclical, excellent progress is often followed by a period of sluggishness or even backwardness either because of a change in circumstances or simple exhaustion. When this happens it’s not unreasonable for the leadership to ask for time and a little understanding. But what really counts is an organisation’s resilience or bounce back ability because this will determine how long it takes to get out of the down side of the cycle.
