I've spoken with hundreds of executives, CEOs, and business leaders about their organizational challenges. Across all industries, many of the problems are the same. We need more sales/revenue/members. We need more innovation from our employees. We need to reduce costs. We need to reduce attrition (of customers/employees). Sound familiar?

You've actually likely heard them many times over, possibly each and every year as the company sets its "key objectives" for the upcoming business season. If it's so crystal clear these are the problems, why haven't they been solved? Because these aren't really the problems.

Strategy is a term bantered around a bit too much. We apply it to almost everything within business to subconsciously create an aire of legitimacy and value to our actions. Creating a marketing plan? No, it's a strategic marketing plan. Designing a hiring process? Hell no - it's a strategic hiring process. But the real question is - are these things actually strategic?

Our memories are time-bound - we often look back on something that we learned or experienced and frequently consider it to be fact, rather than examining if the circumstances have changed. This can significantly limit not only opportunities for growth and change but more importantly, getting organizations out of the status-quo cycle.

Doesn't getting something done feel good? Getting that checklist completed (or almost completed) at the end of the day? Oh, it's a joy. Yet, we can easily get swept up in this perpetual motion, which can inhibit the generation of new ideas, impede change, and cause burnout - especially within organizations.

But first, why do we prefer doing something over doing nothing?

You've likely heard of Meatloaf - the American singer and actor known for his powerful, wide-ranging voice and theatrical performances. In 1993, he released one of his most popular songs, "I'd do anything for love (but I won't do that)". While there's a bit of ongoing discussion about what Meatloaf won't do for love, the song title actually has applications in the ways we think about and manage change.

A friend of mine shared a story where she brought some important data to light to her C-Suite leaders. She had uncovered some concerning trends and felt compelled to bring up her concerns. However, the response was less than stellar:

"Let's focus on where we are doing well rather than [focusing on what] we are doing poorly..."

Really? I mean, really?? While I felt for her, this is not an uncommon response. Many leaders (often beholden to shareholders) are driven to keep positive messaging alive at all costs. But is this focus on positive messaging really good for the health of the company?

Your CEO announces it's strategic planning season. Every department head is asked to develop and deliver their strategic plan and budget for the coming year. Because they all have proprietary subject matter expertise, each one brings their vision to the table. The presentations are reviewed, some superficial tweaks are made (often in the area of budget) and approved. Then the year continues on, with the CEO checking in periodically to make sure everything is on track.

But strategy isn't a function over which to preside. Presiding instead of engaging in the creation of organizational strategy is a major leadership mistake.

Job interviews are mostly nonsense. According to Ron Friedman, a psychologist and author of “The Best Place to Work", 80% of people lie during their interviews — so if that's the case, the information you’re hearing is likely fiction, or at best, inspired by real-world events. Job interviews mean you may hire the best actor on the day — not the best candidate. So don’t do them.

I had a conversation with an organization who was needing to grow their membership numbers, and they were struggling to find ways to get things moving forward. They had just restructured their organizational processes, with a strong focus on performance metrics for each and every department. The thought was, with more transparency, they'd have more insight as to whether everyone was working together to 'move the needle'.

However, tracking activities of departments is very different from measuring those things which directly influence and impact the goal of increasing membership levels. The organization was tracking things like 'number of social media posts weekly' and 'number of newsletters sent monthly' - both of which presumably intended to increase potential member engagement, but the problem was, these activities weren't doing anything to change membership numbers. Why?

What's your job? Does it match the description? Does it make the best use of your skills and talents? Does your job diverge dramatically from the role you actually do to generate value for the organization? Here's the question - do we need job descriptions? More specifically, do we need job descriptions in the way we construct them today?