Chad, as I recall, success was defined as substantial performance turn arounds, but through engaged employees getting aligned and understanding why the changes were necessary and contributing substantially. Not ‘on top of’ the employees, but ‘through’ the employees.

And accountability was largely through transparency, on all accounts. It’s a bit hard to recall as I’m finishing the second book and they’re getting munged up in my mind (as our minds like to do) as there is considerable overlap in ultimate outcomes though very different approaches to talking about what happened.

And I think the value of the premortem is in making Cassandra play an official role in the process so as not to be dismissed. :)

Thanks for the post. In the Scaling Up Excellence book, how do the authors define successful companies? Is it based on company performance (profitability, stock performance, etc.), or the happiness and engagement of employees?

In what ways are people held accountable at these organizations? I agree that accountability is a key factor, but it’s also a concept people don’t formally learn in school, so I think talking about accountability to new hires can often lead to blank stares and a lack of understanding as to how this actually works.

The pre-mortem concept is an interesting one as a formal practice. I think some people already do this at a number of firms, in terms of warning of potential outcomes, but such Cassandras are often dismissed as merely being negative rather than predictive.