SEVEN CHRONIC PROBLEMS
                          by
            Dr. Stephen R. Covey, Publisher
         Executive Excellence, February, 1989


Every day we're bombarded with advertisements promising
fast, easy and free results or relief.  What we often
forget is that most "wonder drugs" work only on acute
symptoms, as opposed to chronic problems.

What is an acute illness?  It is one that causes us
immediate pain.  Chronic illness is the persistent,
continuing disease which underlies the acute pain.

Most people are into solving acute illnesses and
problems.  They want the sharp pain to be relieved now. 
They want broken relationships to be instantly repaired. 
They find, however, that the more they apply quick fixes
and attempt to apply some gimmick, some technique that
seems to work for someone else, or that seems to have
instant appeal, the worse the chronic problem becomes.

For instance, if I am chronically fatigued - that is, if
my reserve capacities are depleted; if my working style
has put me into a situation of management by crisis; if
I am always overexerting or pressing myself to do more
than I should do; if my emotional life is a function of
other people's opinions of me to the point that I am
always trying to become all things to all people; or if
I am just stressed out - I could develop a chronic case
of mononucleosis or some other disease.  This would
become manifest in certain symptoms, and I might try to
treat these symptoms with some medicine that promises a
quick solution.

But the promise is deceptive.  There is no quick fix to
chronic problems.  To solve these, we must apply natural
processes.  The only way we can bring the harvest in the
fall is to plant in the spring and to water, weed,
cultivate and fertilize during the long summer.  We seem
to understand that fact of life when working in a
natural system; however, when it comes to social
systems, we often practice quick fixes.  For example,
how many of us crammed in school?  How many of us got
good grades, even graduate degrees by cramming? 
Inwardly we know we didn't get the best education
possible because we didn't pay the price day in and day
out.  Rather, when we were hurting in one area, we
worked on that immediate hurt.  Then, when another
crisis broke out, we ran to that.

That lifestyle breaks people down and burns them out,
and then their capacity to relate well with others,
particularly under stress and pressure, is reduced to a
minimum.  Their life becomes a function of what is
happening to them.  They become victimized by it all.

I once visited a friend who is the head of surgery at a
hospital.  He allowed me to observe about 20 different
operations.  I also assisted him in an open-heart
surgery.  I held the instrument that kept the chest wall
open while he replaced three blood vessels.  I felt
those vessels; they were stiff and brittle because they
were filled with plaque, a cholesterol substance.

And I asked, "Why don't you just clean them out?"

He said, "For a while, you can reverse the process, but
over time, the plaque, the cholesterol, becomes the very
content of the wall."

I then asked, "Now that you have corrected these three
places, is the man clear?"

He said, "No, it's through his whole system.  He has a
chronic vascular problem, a heart disease problem.  I
can see that he exercises because some of the
supplementary circulatory system has been developed, but
he hasn't changed other aspects of his lifestyle.  He's
got a chronic problem.  I'm only working on the three
most acute things that might cause a heart attack or
stroke because of the lack of oxygen flow to those parts
of the body."

The one thing people don't want to change is their
lifestyle, but people generally must change their
lifestyle if they want to deal with the chronic nature
of their most serious problems.

Chronic Problems in Organizations

Individuals comprise organizations.  Even though we try
to exercise more discipline in our professional life,
our personal tendencies are carried with us into our
organizations.  There we continue to look for a quick
fix around the symptoms, rather than deal with the
chronic habit patterns built into day-to-day operations.

Chronic individual problems become chronic
organizational problems as a "critical mass" of people
bring these problems with them through the gates each
day and as social values encourage instant gratification
and quick solutions to deep and difficult problems.

While this is particularly true in America, I would say,
from my international experience, that to some degree,
the following seven problems are universal - that they
apply to many other cultures and organizations, even
departments and individuals within organizations.

Problem 1 - No shared vision and values:  either the
organization has no mission statement or there is no
deep understanding of and commitment to the mission at
all levels of the organization.

    Most executives don't realize what's involved in
    creating a mission statement that truly represents
    deeply shared values and vision at all levels of
    the organization.  It takes patience, a long-term
    perspective and meaningful involvement - and few
    organizations rank high in these virtues.  Many
    organizations have a mission statement, but
    typically people aren't committed to it because
    they aren't involved in developing it;
    consequently, it's not part of the culture. 
    Culture, by definition, assumes shared vision and
    values, as represented by a mission statement put
    together and understood and implemented by all
    levels of the organization.

    My experience suggests that if you don't have a
    corporate constitution and govern everything else
    by that constitution, you will likely have the
    other six chronic problems in your organization, in
    spades.

    To be most effective, your mission statement should
    deal with all four basic human needs:  economic or
    money need; social or relationship need;
    psychological or growth need; and spiritual or
    contribution need.  Most mission statements do not
    deal with all four needs.  Many leave off the
    psychological, or the need for human growth and
    development.  Some lack wording on win-win
    relationships, equity in economic compensation, and
    the commitment to a set of principles or values and
    to service and contribution to the community,
    suppliers and customers.

    The first chronic problem is like the unseen part
    of an iceberg.  If the company has a "mission" of
    sorts, the problem is not clearly evident -
    executives may not see that the mission is not
    deeply shared.  But the lack of shared vision and
    values is the seed bed of almost all other
    problems.

Problem 2 - No strategic path:  the strategy is not well
developed or it ineffectively expresses the mission
statement and fails to meet the wants and needs and
realities of the stream.

    In recent years, the best strategic thinking has
    changed from a "road map" to a "compass" model
    because we are in a wilderness - the stream, the
    environment is so unpredictable that road maps are
    worthless.  People need compasses that are fixed on
    constitutions (the mission statement with its set
    of principles and values) so they can flexibly
    adapt to the environment.

    The old strategic planning model was called Ends
    (where we are going), Ways (how we are going to get
    there), and Means (how we organize the resource). 
    The new model calls for people to use a compass, a
    set of principles and values, and create ways to
    achieve the ends.

    The natural tendency of most organizations is to
    forecast by extrapolating trends and to call it
    strategic planning.  The leaders of these
    organizations never really ask the question, "Where
    do we want to be in five years?"  "What kind of an
    organization do we want to have?"  Instead, they
    become very reactive to the environment, to the
    stream they operate in.  So, while the strategic
    plan reflects the stream, it doesn't reflect the
    vision.  Other organizations become so mission or
    vision-driven that their strategy does not reflect
    the stream.

    Good strategic planning reflects both vision and
    stream.  Make sure your strategic path leads from
    your mission statement and reflects its vision and
    values and also reflects the environmental
    realities, the stream, so that you are not
    producing obsolete products and services.  It's
    tough to create and maintain that balance.  It
    takes tremendous judgment and wisdom.  It takes a
    social radar with regard to the stream.

    It also takes a deep commitment and conscience with
    regard to the value system.  If you don't have a
    deeply embedded and shared value system at the
    center of your organization, you will likely lack
    internal security, and so you will seek it from the
    outside.  You then vacillate and become subject to
    all the fickle forces that are playing on the
    outside.

Problem 3 - Poor alignment:  bad alignment between
structure and shared values, between vision and systems;
the structure and systems of the organization poorly
serve and reinforce the strategic paths.

    The alignment problem is prevalent everywhere.  Ask
    yourself:  "Is our mission statement a
    constitution?  Is it the supreme law of the land? 
    Does every person who comes into the organization
    make a commitment of allegiance to that
    constitution?  Is every program, every system, even
    our organizational structure subject to the
    constitution?"  If your answer is "no" - and it
    usually is - you have an alignment problem.

    If you don't have a shared value system, you don't
    have an inner source of security.  So, where do you
    get the security?  In rigid structure and systems. 
    Why?  Because it gives you predictability, a sense
    that the sun will come up tomorrow.  By having a
    rigid structure and systems in place, you have a
    sense of predictability.  But you have very little
    flexibility to adapt to the stream - and it can
    kill you in a hurry, as many American companies and
    industries can attest.

    Many American companies are being managed on a span
    of control of one to six, one to seven, maybe up to
    one to 10.  All of a sudden, they have competition
    out there with a span of control of one to 50 - and
    a totally different cost structure.  They know that
    unless they restructure, they can't possibly
    compete; and yet, some companies keep the same old
    structure, simply because "that's the way things
    are done around here."  Other organizations are
    downsizing because the stream is forcing them to
    simplify the structure and systems.  And it is
    causing great consternation; people are fearful. 
    They are looking for a new structure while they are
    still dependent on the old.

    Many executives say they value capitalism but
    reward feudalism.  They say they value democracy
    but reward autocracy.  They say they value
    openness, but they behave in ways that value
    closeness, hidden agendas and politicking.

    The acute symptoms of this chronic problem are
    interpersonal conflicts and poor interdepartmental
    relations (turf wars).  And the "quick fix" is to
    come up with cosmetic solutions - i.e., a new
    temporary training program on communication skills
    - but the trust is shot so it means nothing.  The
    next cosmetic solution might be to rearrange the
    compensation system in an attempt to get some
    temporary motivation.  But then people feel ripped
    off because management is messing around with their
    rice bowl, and they no longer know what is going to
    happen tomorrow.  The new compensation system may
    force them to increase productivity through
    competition, even if the governing values are
    supposed to be teamwork and cooperation.

Problem 4 - Wrong style:  the management style is either
incongruent with shared vision and values or the style
inconsistently embodies the vision and values of the
mission statement.

    In a sense, this chronic problem is even more
    fundamental than the other three - because most
    people get their style from their upbringing, from
    early mentors, either in their family or in their
    schools or business.  Our early mentoring has an
    enormous impact on our style because our emotional
    and psychological need for acceptance is very
    strong when we are highly dependent.  Whether we
    like it or not, an authoritarian father, even an
    abusive father, may be our only link to survival,
    and so his style becomes our style.

    When we encounter a style that is very different
    from our own - an abrasive, abusive or confrontive
    style, for example - we may be shocked.  For
    example, my eight-year old son, Joshua, was shocked
    to hear in the news of a boy his same age who was
    abandoned by his parents.  He was shocked for two
    days.  He asked, "How could that happen?"  He
    couldn't even see that to be an option - because
    the action was so foreign to him.

    When people find themselves in a new stream with a
    new value system that is inconsistent with their
    particular style - be it authoritarian, permissive
    or democratic - they must have a new birthing. 
    They must get so deeply involved in the new value
    system that they get reprogrammed by it.  It must
    become the new constitution to their own personal
    life.

    The style of staff people is strongly influenced by
    the style of senior executive mentors; and most
    people are mentored toward management, not toward
    leadership.  Consequently, they think efficiency;
    they think things; they climb ladders leaning
    against the wrong wall.  They don't think people;
    they don't think principles - because they weren't
    mentored that way.

    With so much diversity and mobility in our society,
    it's often a challenge to make your style congruent
    with the vision and values of your organization. 
    You may need to adapt your style to some degree. 
    That's why principle-centered leadership is so
    vital.  If you're principle-centered, you can be
    very flexible, very fluid on the surface of your
    life, as long as the style is congruent with those
    principles.

    Some may wonder if it's possible for senior
    managers, old dogs, to learn a new style or trick? 
    Some may contend that our styles - whether we be
    vocalists, comedians or managers - are so deeply
    imprinted that by the time we turn 10, 20 or 30,
    they're indelibly etched in stone.  I think that
    while it is very difficult to adapt or change our
    style, it's not impossible.  As Ken Blanchard says,
    our leadership style can be "situational," but
    before we're able to make a change, we may require
    new mentors and models.

    One of the on-going debates is whether managers are
    made or born.  I believe most are reborn, through
    some kind of mentoring - learning, and applying
    correct principles.  That's why great leaders serve
    as mentors and help bring about a whole new
    generation, a total transformation.  But the
    personal price of doing it is tremendous - you may
    have to pay a "fourfold," that is, you may have to
    suffer tremendously to make significant changes.

    An organization can tolerate many different styles
    as long as people are anchored in the same
    governing principles.  Still, it's wise to try to
    find an environment that is compatible with your
    style.  Your style will fit better in some
    organizations than others.  You need real wisdom in
    deciding where you best fit, and whether your style
    is congruent with the organizational style,
    recognizing how hard it is to change.

Problem 5 - Poor skills:  style does not match skills,
or managers lack the skills they need to use an
appropriate vision.

    Sometimes I find that people want to shift to a
    different style but that they simply lack the
    skills.  They don't know, for example, how to set
    up a complete delegation; how to use empathy to get
    the other person's point of view; how to use
    synergy to create a third alternative; or how to
    work up a win-win performance agreement.  Now,
    lacking knowledge and skills is not as deep a
    chronic problem because through education and
    training, we may solve those problems.

    For instance, beginning skiers soon develop a
    certain style, skill level and comfort zone on the
    slopes; however, they lack the skills to
    effectively negotiate the hill under certain
    conditions.  Their style and skills may be suited
    to only one kind of snow, terrain, or weather
    condition; they would not be prepared for whatever
    comes.  Even if they have the desire, motivation
    and physical ability, they still need improved
    skills to negotiate effectively.

    By developing their skills, people may also develop
    their desire, even change their style.  For
    example, when people get a new time management tool
    and the skill training to go with it, they often
    make some major changes in their lives.  Or, when
    people start to learn and apply the skills of
    empathy, they may find that the development of
    these skills enhances their style.  Carl Rogers
    claimed that if you really want to help people
    change, empathize with them.  Gradually, they gain
    new insights and start to realize new potential; in
    a sense, the very process starts to change them.

Problem 6 - Low trust:  staff has low trust, a depleted
emotional bank account, and that low trust results in
closed communication, little problem solving and poor
cooperation and teamwork.

    Trust determines the quality of the relationship
    between people.  And in a sense, trust is a
    chicken-and-egg problem.  If you attempt to work on
    building trust, at the exclusion of other chronic
    and acute problems, you will only exacerbate your
    situation.  For example, one of the best ways to
    build trust is to work on the mission statement and
    to work on alignment issues.  But then, if you try
    to do this while keeping a closed management style,
    your people will always be walking on eggs without
    much trust in your words.

    Low trust spoils communication in spite of skill
    training.  For example, in low-trust cultures,
    managers usually come up with performance
    agreements, job descriptions and mission statements
    that people don't buy into, and then when they
    don't buy into them, they don't use them as a
    constitution; instead, they try to set up policy
    and procedure manuals to preserve their jobs and
    build their pyramids.

    The trust level - the sense that "I can trust you"
    or "you're a trustworthy person" or "you're a
    person who if you make mistakes you admit them" or
    "you're approachable" or "you're open and
    teachable" or "if you make a promise, you keep it"
    - that kind of gut-level sense really undergirds
    the rest.  If you're fundamentally duplicitous, you
    can't solve the low-trust problem; you can't talk
    yourself out of problems you behave yourself into.

    Trustworthiness is more than integrity:  it also
    connotes competence.  In other words, you may be an
    honest doctor, but before I trust you, I want to
    know that you're competent as well.  We sometimes
    focus too much on integrity, not enough on personal
    competence and professional performance.  Honest
    people who are incompetent in their area of
    professed expertise are not trustworthy.

Problem 7 - No self-integrity:  values do not equal
habits; there is no correlation between what I value and
believe and what I do.

    If a person lacks integrity, how is he or she going
    to build an emotional bank account?  How is he or
    she going to be trustworthy?  How is he or she
    going to adapt his or her style to match the
    demands of the new stream?  How will he or she
    create a culture where there is genuine trust?

    And if a company lacks integrity, how is it going
    to satisfy its customers?  How is it going to keep
    its best employees?  How is it going to stay in
    business?

    A person who fails to live by his or her value
    system probably doesn't have a mission statement. 
    Without a clear statement of values, our habits
    will be all over the place.  Of course, we may have
    a mission statement but fail to live by it.  We are
    then hypocritical or duplicitous.

    Corporate duplicity is much the same, only
    compounded, since the corporation is made up of
    individuals.  That's why, when we detect one or
    more of the seven chronic problems in an
    organization - and when the senior executives want
    to blame everybody and everything else for those
    problems - we have them look at themselves in the
    mirror to identify one of the primary sources. 
    They need not look at anyone else or ask any
    question except one: "Do I have an integrity
    problem?"

These seven chronic problems are curable.  I'm confident
that enlightened leaders can cure these seven chronic
problems, not just treat the symptoms, and create better
societies.  But to dot that, they've got to change
hearts, build trust, revise the structure and systems. 
Most leaders are trying to create a profitable,
informed, skilled, productive, cooperative, quality
organization.  And they are beginning to value people,
the top line, as much as they value profits, the bottom
line.