This book is also based on the notion that RAND and its researchers have developed important insights into what is important for high performance.
At least some of these insights were collected through an Internet survey of 126 senior R AND researchers during the summer and fall of 2002. Of the 300 researchers invited to participate in the survey, 160 visited the
password-protected Internet website and were asked how much they knew about how organizations work. Of the 160, 126 said that they had learned either a great deal or a fair amount and were allowed to continue.
The final sample was both educated and experienced. All of the partic- ipants had an advanced degree, two-thirds had a doctorate, and three-fifths were over 45 years of age. The sample also represented a wide range of research interests—62 percent said that their work focused on defense and national security, 25 percent said science and technology, 24 percent said health, 17 percent said international policy, 14 percent said education, 9 per- cent said social policy, 8 percent said labor, 6 percent said justice, 6 percent said transportation, 4 percent said environment and energy, 4 percent said child policy, 2 percent said population, and 18 percent said “other,” all of which adds up to two research areas per participant.
The sample also drew upon a deep reservoir of organizational infor- mation—98 percent of the participants said that they had gained their organizational knowledge through their own observations and experiences, 74 percent by doing research on questions involving organizational perfor- mance, 70 percent by reading the literature, and 66 percent by solving orga- nizational problems for clients.
As a group, the participants initially agreed that high-performing organizations should do it all. Asked to think about all the high-perform- ing organizations they knew, not any organization in particular, 92 percent said that the words innovativeand resilient described those organizations very or somewhat well, 87 percent said the same about the word disciplined, 79 percent about rigorous, and 71 percent about entrepreneurial.
However, when pushed to identify the most important features of high-performing organizations, the participants coalesced around innovation and resilience. Overall, 38 percent said that organizations should be innova- tive, 21 percent said that they should be resilient, 19 percent said disciplined, 16 percent said rigorous, and just 3 percent said entrepreneurial.
The group had the same initial opinions about the leaders of high- performing organizations. Asked to think about the leaders of the high-per- forming organizations that they knew, 96 percent said that it was very or somewhat important for those leaders to be decisiveand honest,86 percent said the same thing about being innovative,71 percent said the same thing about being trusting, and 63 percent said the same thing about being charis- matic. In other words, leaders should be “all of the above.”
Yet, when pressed to identify the most important characteristic of leadership, 66 percent said that leaders of high-performing organizations should be honest and trusting, 21 percent said that they should be decisive,
9 percent said that they should be innovative, and just 4 percent said that they should be charismatic.
When the two sets of preferences are combined, a majority of the RAND participants favored organizations that were innovative, resilient, or disciplined and leaders who were honest, decisive, and trusting. Overall, 63 per- cent of the participants put innovative/resilient/disciplined organizations together with trusting/honest leaders, 20 percent put innovative/resilient/
disciplined organizations with decisive leaders, and just 10 percent put inno- vative organizations together with innovative leaders.
Translated into a simple recommendation, these researchers might urge organizations to put their faith in innovation and resilience at the middle and bottom, and to ensure trust, honesty, and decisiveness at the top.
Some RAND researchers believe that these particular characteristics apply to any professional organization, be it a think tank, a law firm, or a consulting company. As senior researcher Tora Bikson said about her expe- rience at RAND:
I suspect we believe that innovation does and should come from the interactions among the researchers—and we probably wouldn’t buy a top-down innovation no matter how charismatic its proponent. What we do want is honesty and transparency—
kind of like having a level playing field for the intellectual mar- ketplace (fairness, no hidden deals or agendas, no pressure to tune the research to woo particular clients, and so on). Maybe honesty is all the more salient in the climate of corporate scandals, although RAND doesn’t offer the kind of big bucks temptation to be found in parts of the for-profit world. Of course it doesn’t hurt if the top guy is likeable.9
Paul Davis agreed: “We do not have ‘political whining’ in the hallways, nor any discussion of ‘how we sold out on that one, but we did what we had to do.’ Instead, the self-image is that we’re quintessentially straight-shooters.
Although it’s also very nice if the top managers are very smart, innovative, etc., integrity and competence come first.” James Dertouzos seconded the need for honesty at the core of a professional research enterprise: “Most RAND researchers believe that organizational performance is mostly about the sum of individual contributions. If that is the case, then good leader- ship is really mostly about hiring, motivating, and retaining a high-quality workforce and creating a healthy work environment that encourages risk
taking, allows a large degree of autonomous decision making, and provides the resources and support so that individuals can be successful. Honesty and trust are essential.”
Even as they talked about RAND’s own culture, many researchers also viewed the combination of innovation and honesty as essential for high performance more generally. “The RAND culture tries to use analysis to deflate the influence of personal charisma, so it is possible that there would be a natural lack of affinity for charismatic leadership,” Frank Camm wrote.
“RAND also tries to develop recommendations that work whether people involved in them are exceptionally good or not—the ‘no heroes’ approach;
RAND tries to counter the common belief in the Defense Department, for example, that good people can make any process work—that is, that the best solution to any problem is to hand it to your best person and not worry the process details.”
John Dumond offered a similar explanation to me about companies that have used quality management to rise to the top:
They recognized the need to get buy-in and ideas from all the workers. They set up “quality councils” of leaders who were hon- est, and made use of “quality circles” of employees to generate ideas for improvement. Our efforts with the Defense logistics community have mirrored these ideas—an important coalition at the top, filled with honest leaders and fed by process and site improvement teams with ideas for change. The Army leaders we encountered were willing to see how poor the performance was—being honest—because they knew that the organization had to start somewhere. It’s rarely the single individual that possesses all the wisdom, skill, and knowledge to move an organization from mediocre to high performing. One person might bring tre- mendous domain knowledge, but lack leadership skills; another might have management skills, but lack other talents.
Finally, at least some senior researchers view the findings as being characteristic of high-performing organizations. “I personally don’t want all organizations to behave that way,” Davis said of the innovative/honest combination:
I think that definitely makes sense for organizations in which inno- vation is crucial—high-tech companies, research and development
companies (military and non-military), etc. The military is a more interesting example. To the extent that our military is becoming a “high-tech company,” it is experimenting with mak- ing lower-level decision makers much more autonomous. That’s a radical switch from what has worked for militaries since Roman times when the hierarchical organization was founded, and I think the jury is still out on its long-term survival as an organizational concept. That model also fits with the general
“learning organization” concept in the business world—another instance where the jury is still out.”
Although the rest of this chapter deals with the characteristics of the single organizations identified by each of the 126 respondents, it is important to note that RAND does not deal with just any organization or problem in its work. Given RAND’s history of questioning the questions, its client base tends to be composed of organizations that worry about the future. There- fore, the winnowing process described here is less about organizations in general, and more about the kind of organizations that RAND researchers get to know well.