Across the 20+ years I've been working, two concepts were told to me as "stories" that explain every challenge you will face in an organization.
3 Envelopes
While at The Campbell Soup Co., one of my favorite Sr. leaders shared the "3 Envelopes" story with me, as it had been shared with him. Over the years, I’ve learned that there are variations in the details of the story, but the overriding concept is the same. Here’s how it was told to me - a new Sr. leader joins an organization. To better understand the lay of the land, the new Sr. leader sets up a lunch with the person they're replacing. The lunch meeting is short. The outgoing leader shares:
You're joining an interesting and unique organization
The culture is challenging
The people are great, but the leadership is misaligned
I've left you 3 envelopes in the right side top drawer of your desk
The envelopes are numbered 1, 2, and 3
These are the same 3 envelopes left for me, by my predecessor
As you encounter challenges, open the envelopes, as needed, in numerical order
The new leader is puzzled. Envelopes?
6 months into the new role, the new leader is struggling. The leader is perplexed and stuck about what to do next. Remembering the conversation with the outgoing leader, the new leader opens the drawer, pulls out "envelope 1", and opens it. There's a single word on the piece of paper in the envelope - "re-org."
Of course! The leader spends the next few weeks developing a new organizational design and presents it to peers, other leaders, and of course the leader's manager. See, the issue is that these people aren't reporting to these people. And these roles/resources are over there when they should be here. If, we could get this function to be more connected to that function things would be more efficient. And, lastly, we need more layers/fewer layers so that there's more structure/closer proximity to the work/customer.
The master plan is unveiled. Things seem a bit better. But 6 months later, things have stagnated. Well, last time the envelope had the answer; let's return to the drawer and open envelope #2. This time, the paper says, "re-brand." Now why didn't I think about that? We fixed the inside of the house with the new organizational design. But, we need to fix the thing we're selling/offering. We need new packaging, new messaging, a new narrative, new research, better tools, and of course a new agency/partner.
And so, after a lengthy year of activity, things improve somewhat. But, again - a period of stagnation occurs. Back to the drawer with the envelopes. The leader eagerly opens the last envelope. This time there are 2 lines of words, with each line containing 5 words, on the paper. The first line written out is, "Look for a new job." And, on the second line written out is, "Start writing 3 new envelopes."
And so the current leader, who was once the new leader, understands what the old leader meant. Sometimes, it doesn't matter if you change the org design or the packaging. If the Sr. most leaders persist, the culture remains, and other institutional factors perpetuate, you can never be successful.
So, reading this, you might think, "Well that's an overly simplistic way to blame everything else except the person." And that's why I said I have two concepts told as stories.
3 Divorces
Now this one was a teaching fable/story I learned from my partners at Accenture while working at Walgreens. Bob, by all accounts and on the surface, seems like a great catch. He's smart, wealthy, funny, cultured, well-traveled, philanthropic, hard-working, easy on the eyes, and every other off-the-shelf descriptor for a more than suitable relationship prospect.
Bob, marries Jane. A few years into their marriage, they announced intentions to divorce. Friends family, and other bystanders whisper questions. What? How could that be? Why? It seems unfathomable. But, these things happen. Sometimes things don't work out. The whispers become conversations that assign some blame to both Bob and Jane. He could have/should have/needed to/etc. And Jane could have/should have/needed to/etc. You might say they were equally at fault.
Well, a few years later, Bob marries Sally. And, a few years into their marriage, yep - divorce. Those whispers after Bob and Jane divorced are a bit louder. Not quite shouting. Not quite a whisper. It's more normal conversation-audio levels. And it's not questions that are asked with surprise. The questions are more pointed, and mixed with speculation. Well, she had to know...did he really think that...I think we all wondered if...Bob isn't exactly...etc. The grace Bob was afforded the first time he divorced isn't offered this time around. You might say, that while there's blame and accountability for both Bob and Sally, Bob is definitely more at fault here.
So, a few years after Bob's 2nd divorce, he meets Mary. And yep, you guessed it, they get married. And then yes, you guessed it, a few years later they get divorced. Well, now we don't have whispers. And we don't have conversation-level audio. And we don't have questions or mild speculation. Nope, when it's your 3rd divorce, the fingers come out. They are specific and pointed. The surrounding dialogue becomes more jaded. Well you know, Bob could never...he was always going to...you know, he was such a...I can't believe she married him, etc. You might say, it's fairly clear, maybe Bob is the problem.
Epilogue
If the story about "3 Envelopes" left you wondering, wait, it can't always just be the organization's fault; where's the personal accountability? Then, hopefully, "3 Divorces" offers a view from the other side of the coin.
The truth is probably someplace in between those two stories. It's never 100% the organization and all its components. And it's never 100% the person. But, we often characterize things as very black and white, when the reality is we operate in a thousand shades of grey.
I've been in organizations where it's clear what "leadership" said they wanted, wasn't actually what they wanted. For example, do you remember Julie Roehm, the former head of Marketing at Walmart? This Ad Age article from 2006 is a walk down memory lane. But, here's the key passage:
"She just didn't fit in with the culture there," said one executive close to the imbroglio. "She was not right for that world." Ms. Roehm, in an interview, didn't seem to disagree: "The history books are littered with companies who sought change and then decided they didn't want it. That's their prerogative. I still don't know specifically what happened there."
Her story, and the circumstances around her joining and subsequently departing are a great example of "3 Envelopes" and "3 Divorces" are not mutually exclusive. Some versions of both can be right. History has shown us that, and yet we are often poor students of that history. Here's just a quick list of examples:
Ron Johnson and JC Penney
Scott Forstall and Apple
Antonio Conte and Tottenham
Helena Helmersson and H&M
And this could go on and on and on. In sports, in business, and in family - the situation is never as simple as it might seem. There's nuance, and we need to remember that.