How much does engagement matter?

We’ve talked about “engagement of people” as a fundamental Quality principle, and at a superficial level it sounds obvious. Disgruntled employees are distracted by being unhappy, so they are likely to turn out bad work; happy employees are not distracted, so they can focus on what they are doing and turn out good work. On the other hand, the world is full of simple formulas that sound right but don’t stand up to empirical investigation. What about this one? Is it true? Or is it just an agreeable fairy tale?

In fact, the correlation between employee engagement and business outcomes has been the subject of fairly extensive research over the years. Last month I ran across a recent study by the Gallup organization, called “The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes: Q^12® Meta-Analysis: 11th Edition” This report dates from 2024, and it is part of an ongoing project by Gallup. There are references in the notes to how the results have shifted since the previous edition. (Answer: not much.)

Briefly, what does the report say?

• The authors define a way to measure employee engagement, and then they identify eleven different ways to measure business performance. 
• They review a whole lot of companies, covering over three million employees. 
• And they find a consistent correlation: the companies whose employees feel the most engaged also have the best performance.

Why do you care?

• I’m glad to see the correlation with performance. Yes, I expected it. But it’s nice to see that it’s true.
• I like the way they measure employee engagement, because the metrics are actionable. I’ll explain what I mean in a minute.

Tell me about the method

Sure. The research pulled together 736 studies across 347 organizations in 53 industries, located in 90 countries; in total they reviewed 183,806 working groups, containing 3,354,784 employees. [See p.4 of the report.] This paper itself is a “meta-analysis,” a statistical method to combine studies of different sizes in order to filter out any idiosyncrasies and make the results comparable. The study establishes correlations but does not directly address causality. [See p.17.] In some cases, the authors deliberately omitted data from 2020, when effects related to COVID-19 clearly overwhelmed the effects that they were studying. [See p.18.] Overall, the findings “show high generalizability across organizations…. [M]ost of the variability in correlations across organizations was the result of sampling error, measurement error or range restriction in individual studies.” [See p.28.]

Fine, what were the numbers?

The study rated organizations based on their employee engagement scores. Then they calculated their business performance on each of eleven measures. Then they compared the business performance of those companies with high engagement against the business performance of those companies with low engagement. And they calculated the percent differences in the two sets of rankings. Here is the key table of results: [See p.5.]

Median percent differences between top-quartile and bottom-quartile units were:

• 10% in customer loyalty/engagement
• 23% in profitability
• 18% in productivity (sales)
• 14% in productivity (production records and evaluations)
• 21% in turnover for high-turnover organizations (those with more than 40% annualized turnover)
• 51% in turnover for low-turnover organizations (those with 40% or lower annualized turnover)
• 63% in safety incidents (accidents)
• 78% in absenteeism
• 28% in shrinkage (theft)
• 58% in patient safety incidents (mortality and falls)
• 32% in quality (defects)
• 70% in wellbeing (thriving employees)
• 22% in organizational citizenship (participation)

The paper spends many pages explaining the method and the calculations, but this table is the payoff. Companies with high engagement have 78% less absenteeism than companies with low engagement? Wow. Where do I sign up?

Wait—how do they measure employee engagement?

I thought you’d never ask.

The metric is something developed by the Gallup organization over years. It’s called Q¹², and it is based on a list of thirteen questions which the employee rates from 1 to 5. Twelve of these questions are very specific and concrete; one of them is a general evaluation. Here is the list: [See p.12.]

• Q00.  (Overall Satisfaction) On a 5-point scale, where 5 means extremely satisfied and 1 means extremely dissatisfied, how satisfied are you with (your company) as a place to work?
• Q01. I know what is expected of me at work.
• Q02. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.
• Q03. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
• Q04. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.
• Q05. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
• Q06. There is someone at work who encourages my development.
• Q07. At work, my opinions seem to count.
• Q08. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.
• Q09. My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work.
• Q10. I have a best friend at work.
• Q11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress.
• Q12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.

I said above that I like this way to measure engagement, because nearly all of these points are actionable. The Gallup organization deliberately chose to ask about issues that individual managers can correct! So if someone carries out a Q¹² survey at your place of work and your department scores low in this or that area, mostly you (if you are a manager) can do something about it. Make sure your people know what is expected of them; make sure they have the tools that they need; make sure they are doing work they are suited for; praise them when they do well; and all the rest. These are part of your job as a manager anyway. The use of this metric means that if you carry out all these tasks conscientiously, you can overcome any bad score related to engagement. You can improve. And we have already seen that quality in management is a critical benefit to the whole organization. 

And in other news ….

Meanwhile, for those who thought the whole point was obvious from the beginning, take heart. In other news, researchers have carried out an expensive study to prove that the best bait for mice is cheese.*      

__________

* “During a six-month period in 1973, The New York Times reported the following scientific findings: A major research institute spent more than $50,000 [$377,390 in 2026 dollars!] to discover that the best bait for mice is cheese….” From Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (New York: Quill, William Morrow and Company, 1978), p. 53.

           

Auditing a system that uses AI

We’ve talked before about some of the Quality issues related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, but mostly in an incidental kind of way.* But the adoption of AI by many companies seems not at all incidental. So it is fair to ask how the introduction of AI is going to affect core Quality functions. How will AI change—say—auditing?

It's a good question, and there have been a couple of attempts to answer it in the past year. Last October, Elisabeth Thaller and Jorge Bravo Carreño wrote an article "When the QMS Thinks for Itself" for Quality Progress. Then just last month the ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group published a formal guidance paper on "Auditing a Quality Management System that uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems." It is perhaps not surprising that the article and the guidance paper repeat the same basic points,** and they are pretty much the same points you would make if someone asked you about the same topic. Nothing here is unexpected.  

What makes this consistency possible is that ISO 9001 is structured to apply to any kind of work. So the basic questions are always the same. What are your processes? What are your risks? What are your training requirements? And are you getting the results that you want?

The article in Quality Progress identifies five main thoughts to keep in mind when planning an audit in an organization that uses AI, and the sugges­tions in the APG guidelines can almost be mapped directly onto the same list. The five main thoughts are these:

1. Identify where the organization is actually using AI. ("AI may be hiding in plain sight.")
2. Use the process approach to identify inputs and outputs in the normal way. ("The process approach still applies—even when the process thinks for itself.")
3. Identify risks. ("Risk-based thinking isn’t optional.")
4. Identify training needs, responsibilities, and authorities. ("Competence and oversight are essential.")
5. Identify results and look for objective evidence. ("Focus on evidence, not the shine.")

And while I'm certainly not going to quote all ten pages of the guidance document in a blog post—you can download the whole thing for free by using the link above—let me quote just a couple of items that fit under each of these five headers, to show you the overlap.

Identify where the organization is actually using AI.

• When preparing the audit, the auditor should:
• Identify whether the organization uses any AI system type for any of its processes within the scope of the QMS.
• Determine the specific function(s) of these processes within the QMS, and
• Recognize assigned responsibilities in relation to these processes. [§2, p.4]

Use the process approach.

• Where AI system(s) are used within operational processes, has the organization ensured that their use supports the achievement of intended results?
• Are such processes monitored, and are changes related to the use of AI system(s) controlled?
• How does the organization ensure the consistency, correctness, and reliability of AI outputs? [§3, cl. 8, p.7]

Identify risks.

• Has the organization considered the implications of the use of AI system(s) when determining its internal and external issues?
• Has the organization identified statutory and regulatory requirements in relation to the use of AI systems, such as those related to data privacy and information security? [§3, cl. 4, p.4-5]
• Has the organization determined and addressed risks and opportunities related to the use of AI system(s)? [§3, cl. 6, p.6]

Identify training needs, responsibilities, and authorities.

• Are adequate resources available to maintain and update AI system(s), including access to technical expertise, data quality management, and cybersecurity support?
• Is the organization able to demonstrate that personnel who use, manage, or oversee AI system(s) meet the determined competence requirements? [§3, cl. 7, p.6]
• Does top management take accountability for ensuring that the AI system(s) within the QMS support its effectiveness and achievement of intended results? [§3, cl. 5, p.5]

Identify results and look for objective evidence.

• Are customer satisfaction trends evaluated for potential impacts arising from AI-enabled processes or interactions?
• Is internal auditing addressing the effectiveness of AI-influenced processes?
• Is information related to the performance and effectiveness of AI systems an input into management review? [§3, cl. 9, p.8]
• Are nonconformities or complaints involving AI system outputs recorded, analyzed, and addressed? [§3, cl. 10, p.8]

There shouldn't be anything shocking in this list. One of the strengths of ISO 9001 is precisely its flexibility. And that flexibility comes from seeing all kinds of work through a lens that highlights certain common features. AI is just one more topic viewed through the very same lens. This is why I said above that you would have come up with the same points if you had taken the time to work through the standard in detail.

But most of us are too busy with our day jobs to do that, so it's convenient that the Auditing Practices Group has done it for us. The next time you have to audit an organization that uses AI in its management system, check out the guidelines document to see if any of the suggestions help you. 

__________

* In this post, I asked what the word “Quality” really means in the context of AI. In this one, I discussed how AI tools might be able to enhance training records. 

** Partly this outcome is unsurprising because the same person—Elisabeth Thaller—was the lead writer for the article and the chair of the committee that wrote the guidance document. Chris Paris published an article taking the APG committee to task because most of them have no special background in AI. But it appears from her LinkedIn profile that Thaller does have at least some background.        

           

Sampling bias

A friend forwarded this cartoon to me a couple of weeks ago. It seems to come from the website Sketchplanations, drawn by Jono Hey. You can find the original here.  

Of course statistics are central to the Quality discipline, so we need to understand how sampling works. And I think the cartoon makes a serious point in that regard, rather deftly.

It's also funny, and high time too!

            

Can you be TOO optimized?

There's an old story about a wise man that has some relevance for bloggers as well.

Once upon a time there was an old man renowned for his wisdom. Whenever a discussion got tangled and tempers rose, he always told a parable that resolved the question perfectly. Finally a little boy asked him, How could he unfailingly pull out a story each time that summarized the issue so well? "Ah," said the old man, "you don't understand my method. I don't ransack my brain looking for a parable to match each new conversation. Rather, I introduce a topic of conversation for which I already have the perfect parable."

Blogging is a little like that. We bloggers are sure we have the right answer, whatever the question. And by the time you read a post all the way to the end, we've usually made the point pretty convincingly. It almost looks like we're right about everything. (Or I hope it does. 😃) But then, ... who picked the topic for the post in the first place? We did! So of course we're going to pick topics where we think we can win the argument.

But I've been thinking recently about a plant I encountered a few times during my career, where things seemed slightly off-kilter but I could never tell why. I didn't work there, and they weren't part of my normal responsibilities. But I visited a couple of times, to support audits or for other reasons. The audits turned up findings, as audits always do; and the findings were always addressed in the usual way. Somehow, though, I never got the sense that we uncovered anything more than surface issues. It felt like there was something more basic that we were missing.

This plant was located in a town I'll call Riverville, so I can refer to the place as the Riverville plant.

Recently I've been formulating a hypothesis that might account for part of the situation there. So I want to describe the hypothesis, and ask whether you think this could pose a problem in real life? I won't go into a lot of details about how things were at Riverville, if only so that I don't identify it too plainly. But let me know if you think the circumstances I describe could cause some related mis-fires.

Then if it turns out that I'm all wrong, I can go back to questions where I (think I) already know the answer in advance. 😀  

The Riverville plant

Visiting and auditing

The Riverville plant had been in operation for many years. The people were deeply competent, and committed to their work. Also, because these things happen, the plant had undergone multiple changes of ownership throughout the decades it had been in business. Sometimes the new owners ran it as a standalone operation. But occasionally the new owners wanted it to integrate into a larger ecosystem of other businesses that they had also acquired. When I knew them, Riverville had been recently acquired by Octopus Enterprises (not their real name).

Despite the acquisition, though, the plant never felt like the other Octopus plants that I had seen. When visitors started to quote a lot of the normal Octopus manage­ment terminology, I thought I could see the Riverville old-timers smile to them­selves, as if to say, "Sure, we'll play along until you go home. But that's not how it really works." When I audited, I kept turning up forms that I'd never seen at any of the other Octopus plants. "Don't you use the standardized Octopus forms?" "Oh sure, sure, ... mostly we do. But that one's an exception because of the special way we handle [topic] here. It's authorized, though. Let me show you the procedure document!"

And there was always a procedure document to back it up. There were so many procedure documents, in fact. Sometimes I thought it would be an interesting project to collect all of them and paste them together, to try to get a picture of how the whole plant functioned. But of course I couldn't. As I said, I never worked there regularly, so in the normal course of things I would have had no business even raising the question. And in the absence of a total breakdown of their system—which never happened during the time I was familiar with the plant—I could never have made an argument to justify the time and effort. Besides, mostly the folks at Riverville were able to provide the right management deliverables back to Octopus headquarters when asked, and mostly they were able to get their regular work done in a routine way.

Fully optimized

As for those forms? Oh, the forms were awesome! Someone had put a lot of time into these. There were links to data sources on the internal network, so that when you needed to fill in fields 5-15 you just clicked a button on the form. Then you added a little more data by hand and clicked another button, and right away the form routed itself to the next person in line. None of this was managed by some overall data management tool. It was all hard-coded into the forms with URLs that pointed to archive repositories where project information was stored in suitably-structured Word and Excel files. 

Rebuilding the engine in flight.
This is not recommended.

In fact, the forms were the key to my recent hypothesis. I think the Riverville plant was too optimized to change! They had worked together for so long that they had optimized every single transaction in a large and diverse factory. But they optimized them all according to the outlines of the old Riverville management system. If a new owner let them run themselves, and just showed up at the end of the year to collect the profits, there was no harm done. But when Octopus Enter­prises tried to make them integrate with the Octopus manage­ment system, the only way they could do it was to run two systems in parallel. They couldn't stop using the old forms, because everyone relied on them. They couldn't stop using the old data­bases, because the forms pulled data from them. They couldn't stop working in the old way, because everyone in the company depended on every step of the old system. To replace the old Riverville system with the new Octopus system would have meant rebuilding the airplane engine in flight. 

I was never able to dig deeply enough to prove that the Riverville personnel were running two systems in parallel—I mean, as opposed to adapting the Octopus system by adding "just a couple" of the old Riverville forms—but it would make sense of my general observation that somehow things were a bit off. As we discussed last week, running the Octopus management system as a Potemkin system would have been a perfectly natural response, if the Riverville management felt that they were being forced to make changes that didn't help them any. 

The problem, of course, is that working in two parallel systems takes twice as much effort as working in one. Also, if you have data in two places, it is almost impossible to keep them both consistent. Whatever options Riverville faced, this one cannot be called The Easy Choice.

End of the Bronze Age

My thinking about Riverville has been supported in an interesting way by an article that appeared in LinkedIn around the end of March. The author is Marco Nutini, a risk-management expert from Brazil, and the title is "1177 BC Called. We're Not Listening." 

It's a fun article, and not long. Read it, if you have a few minutes. Nutini starts off summarizing his thesis with admirable brevity:

In the late Bronze Age, the Eastern Mediterranean was a marvel of interconnection. Egypt, the Hittites, Mycenaean Greece, Ugarit, Cyprus — linked by trade routes, diplomatic marriages, and supply chains that moved copper, tin, grain, and luxury goods across vast distances. It was, by the standards of the era, a globalized world.

Then it collapsed. Not from a single cause, but from all of them at once.

His point is that the highly interconnected world of the late Bronze Age was optimized for current circumstances. Assuming that the world stayed at peace, that the rain fell reliably, and that no major population centers were wiped out by earthquake or volcano—assuming all that, the world ran just fine. But when those assumptions failed—when drought, famine, and earthquake came, when cities revolted and the Sea Peoples were landing on every shore—the finely-calibrated economy of the late Bronze Age could not withstand the shocks. It fell apart, collapsing into the Greek Dark Ages. Optimization for normal times is not the same thing as resiliency in trying times.

Admittedly, having your factory bought by Octopus Enterprises shouldn't be as devastating as having your seacoast raided by pirates, or your island explode. But either way, I think there is a risk that over-optimization can make you fragile and unable to adapt when circumstances change.

If I'm wrong, feel free to tell me so! 

            

"The absence of alternatives ...."

We've talked at some length about how companies learn to improve. But in many ways it sounds like a difficult process, requiring a lot of persuasion over a long period of time. So it must be tempting to wonder if there is anyway to shorten the exercise. 

Can you force a company to get better?

Henry Kissinger, of course!

You can certainly supply strong motivation. Years ago I worked for a small startup that had no special interest in certification. We knew our technology was good, and that's where we focused our attention. Then one day our largest customer told us that they had adopted a new policy: after January 1 of the next year, they were going to cancel all contracts with any supplier that had neither ISO 9001 certification nor a solid plan to get it. I remember our CEO announced to us in a Town Hall meeting that our new strategic plan required us to work towards certification with all deliberate haste. As he laid out the details, he quoted Henry Kissinger: "The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously."

Grigory Potemkin: Don't
let him plan your ISO
9001 implementation!

Does it work? Well, we got our ISO 9001 certification, although by the time we finally achieved it our market had changed and we no longer relied so heavily on that one customer. (The tech market is notorious for turning on a dime.) But there's a risk to this kind of forced compliance. If you are not very careful with the implementation of the new measures—ISO 9001 regulations or whatever else they might be—your organization could settle for a superficial or "Potemkin" compliance in which the new methods are used to create an overlay over top of the old ones. One day every year, at the time of the audit, everyone follows the new methods and uses the new terminology; then for the next 364 days, work is done like it always was before. This is not an effective approach.

We've talked about this risk before (for example, in this post and this one) and it is always real. When Robert Cole summarized research on American companies adopting Japanese quality methods in the 1980's and 1990's, one study in his pool focused on six second-tier automotive suppliers who were required by the major OEMs* to adopt Total Quality Management (TQM). Of those six, only one adopted the methods in a way that made a lasting difference, or that was fully integrated into the normal way of working. Four suppliers adopted the new approach "rather mechanistically, with the methods not being used regularly or to their greatest potential." And one supplier did nothing at all. Cole describes this nearly-perfect statistical distribution dryly as "a full range of outcomes," and points out that in many cases it was only years later that these suppliers finally put in the effort to upgrade their operations.** 

Naturally this is only one study. It doesn't prove that if you try to force improvements on your suppliers, you'll have only one in six odds of success. But it does remind us—what we already know—that improvement is never easy. It does suggest that if you want your suppliers to improve in some respect, you should work with them, stay engaged, and support them on their journey. As we've seen, external support always makes a difference. And in the long run that support may be more effective than giving your suppliers an offer they can't refuse.    

__________

* OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer. In this context, it means General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, and so on. 

** Robert E. Cole, Managing Quality Fads: How American Business Learned to Play the Quality Game (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp, 127-128.       

           

Know your own procedures!

Who needs to understand the procedures in your department?

Well, I suppose you do, for a start. The other people in your department should understand them too, or anyone else doing the same work. The people who interact with your department should understand enough that they can work with you. If you work with the public, then they need to know enough to do their part: the Information desk is here, and the Returns counter is over there.

How about your boss?

Of course. The boss established all the procedures, so of course he understands them.

How about his boss? How about top management?

Umm ... I guess. Maybe not in detail, but overall. Why? What's your point? 

You'd be surprised.

In a sense, maybe it shouldn't be a surprise when top management doesn't know the procedures that run their own company. Most of their day is spent doing other things. Still, it can be awkward. These are the people, after all, who decide on the company's strategic direction. But what if the new direction points somewhere that the procedures aren't designed to go?  

It sounds like a frivolous or captious question, but it has been known to happen. Robert Cole tells the story that in 1983, Ford's CEO instructed the company to improve relations with their supply base, as a key to improving their suppliers' performance.

"Based on this, [L. M.] Chicoine [Ford's vice-president for purchasing and supply,] publicly called for increasing the number of long-term contracts (greater than one year) with Ford. To his surprise six months later, he found there was no change. Because Ford rules called for extensive bureaucratic approval for any contract greater than one year, no supplier was interested in tackling that."* 

Sometimes the disconnect between management direction and corporate behavior is more subtle. Another story from Cole tells of ongoing discussions in the early 1980's between Intel and one of their major suppliers, the Japanese firm Kyocera. Intel argued that they got poor service and poor terms from Kyocera, compared to Kyocera's other customers. 

"The Japanese managers responded with a riddle to Intel queries: 'To Kyocera, the customer is always king. But reliable kings have reliable servants.' The Intel managers finally figured out that the point of the riddle was that although the customer (Intel) might be king, it nonetheless had to act in certain ways to produce reliable supplier behavior. Above all, that meant no order cancellations, level production, and an overall predictable environment for suppliers."**

In the story about Ford, top management genuinely did not understand what steps were required by their own procedures. In the story about Intel, top management did not understand how their normal behavior was perceived by others. But both cases represent a kind of disconnect between the strategic direction that top management wanted to go, and the organization's ability to get there.

I have tried to think about my own experience, and can't recall any disconnects as significant as these ones. But I have certainly seen how easy it is for top management to miss realities on the ground, because the people around them shield them from inconvenience. Once I worked for a company where the management held periodic Town Hall meetings, to get feedback from those of us in the trenches. At one of these meetings, someone complained that the IT department needed more resources, because whenever his PC broke it took three weeks to get it fixed or replaced. The vice-president who fielded the question genuinely didn't understand the issue: he explained that whenever he had a problem, IT always fixed it the same afternoon!

This phenomenon—this disconnect—is why it is so important for top management to get out of their offices and understand how the work is done. It is why John Seddon says that his first step when working with a new client is to send the management staff out to the front office to watch a single order come in, and then to track that order through its whole life-cycle. It is why Taiichi Ohno invented the Gemba walk.

The terminology differs, but the basic idea is the same. Before you can make decisions about what to do next, you have to understand what you are doing today. And that's not always easy. 

__________

* Robert E. Cole, Managing Quality Fads: How American Business Learned to Play the Quality Game (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 112. 

** Ibid., p. 113.       

           

Management by travel

Last week I wrote about Florida Power and Light learning Total Quality Control from Kansai Electric in Japan, and I mentioned that "FPL and Kansai set up an extensive program of travel and visitation, so that personnel from each company could build personal contacts with their counterparts." It was a single bullet-point in an article largely about other things, so many readers might have missed it. But the technique is a powerful one.

Years ago, I worked for a Bosch subsidiary called ETAS. ETAS had run as an ambitious startup for some years by then. They were beginning to expand, with sales and development offices outside of Germany. But they wanted to preserve the unique company culture that had brought them their early success. Now, culture requires communication, and the most effective communication is always in-person. Nothing else replaces being there. So the company made a strategic decision for several years to invest in business travel.

This meant that the office in California where I worked had regular visitors—from the other ETAS office in America, and from the home office in Germany. We had workshops to bring together our engineers with their counterparts from other product lines. Likewise for the sales force; likewise for the customer service team. The global Process Owners for each of the business processes in our Quality Management System visited regularly to check how the systems were working for us. Nor was the travel all in one direction: there were events held in Germany by this department or that one, and our people were regularly invited—expected—to attend.

The organizational structure was international, as well. For some years my immediate supervisor sat in Germany. (I was still in California, so we were separated by nine time zones.) Three key positions in our office's management structure were filled by ETAS personnel who relocated from Germany. On the other hand, ETAS's Global Director for Operations and Finance was an American. International conference calls were routine, and so was the travel.

Not my passport. I downloaded this
picture from Wikipedia.
But you get the idea.

One of my topics in the Quality department was internal audits. The ETAS program assumed that for each internal audit there should be at least one auditor from somewhere else, to avoid the risk that a local auditor might get jaded by familiarity and stop seeing nonconformities. So I routinely led audits in our other American office, and in Germany; and we routinely invited my German colleagues to come audit in California. I didn't realize quite how routine the travel had become until one day the Passport Control officer in the Stuttgart Airport had to search for a blank page to stamp and finally told me, "You come here a lot."     

So did it work? Yes! It worked very well.

The net result of all this travel is that we really were able to work with our colleagues from other offices and other countries as if they were just down the hall. It was not unusual for me to chat with one of our engineers and hear him casually reference recent conversations with our German top management—referring to them by first name. We discussed common concerns, asked and gave support on common projects, all as if we were working in the same building. Of course there were occasional misunderstandings arising from imperfect translation or differing legal backgrounds; but they were easily managed, because we had built up friendship and familiarity by working together.

Ultimately, as the company continued to mature, we got to the point where it was no longer as critical as it had once been to reinforce the cultural framework; and we no longer poured quite so much money into travel. The savings certainly made a difference: there is no question that our travel-based management strategy had been very expensive. At the same time, it is also unarguable that it helped tie together a collection of far-flung offices into a single operating unit. 

Do I recommend the same strategy for every company? Well of course it depends. Not every company has multiple offices in different countries; of the companies that do, not all of those need their offices to work together seamlessly. As a result, many companies don't need anything like this approach. And I'm sure that some companies which might otherwise benefit from it, can't afford it. If the margins in your industry are too narrow, that limits what options are available to you. 

But it is still true that the best communication takes place in-person. It is still true that no electronic tool ever quite takes the place of being there. That's what makes travel and visitation such powerful tools for building a culture and binding a company together.