Results in Organizations


The top four results that companies report from our trainings are:

  1. Increased confidence and well being on the part of leaders, managers and employees

  2. Increased creativity and innovation

  3. Decrease in employee turnover

  4. Improved productivity and sales

The results of bringing these seminars into business can be dramatic. Corporations that we work with frequently report a decrease in employee turnover, marked reductions in the cost of poor quality, and programs that were failing becoming very profitable. Employees who had looked to their supervisors for solutions become innovators; leaders suffering from stress and burnout regain their inspiration and creative edge. Executives we coach report increased leadership effectiveness as their mental state becomes less distracted and their creative abilities more consistently available to them.

“Before my intensive, I sometimes had difficulty making some of the tough decisions that my job involves – finding different jobs for people who weren’t suited for what they were doing, for example. I learned that ‘truth is truth’ – that when I follow what I know is right, it works out best for everybody. I’ve become a much better manager now too because I’m playing to people’s strengths – I don’t have to do the work for everyone anymore.”

– Cathy C – Waltham, MA

Published Findings

Two recently published dissertations doucment the results of  a small group practice bringing this approach into an 800-person division of a very large company over a seven-year period; “Leadership Training, Leadership Style and Organizational Effectiveness”, Bond, Boston University, 2007, and “An examination of the Principle-Based Leadership Consultations of a Group Practice”, Roy, Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, 2007. Here are some of the results reported in these dissertations:

Company Culture

Formerly, there were very combative relationships between groups; now there is more interest in group success. Before, if a program wasn’t going well, there was yelling and screaming. Now, the leadership teams are calm and seem to want to help rather than punish1. The culture changed from one where people experienced high levels of stress, made promises they couldn’t keep and were unhappy, to one where they felt respected and valued, were proud of the company missions, and worked together to solve problems.

“Before the introduction of SOM [state-of-mind] training, leadership behavior was characterized as harsh, arrogant, and frenzied; and those behaviors had become accepted as the norm. [By the end of this study,] all four values changed appreciably in a positive direction.”

Other behavioral changes the leaders noticed in themselves and their colleagues were increased self-awareness and respect for understanding others. These changes contributed to improved interpersonal communications, teamwork, and morale. There was a noticeable decrease in arrogance and an increase in listening. The leaders became aware of their particular habits of negative thinking such as being hard on themselves, getting defensive, or become stuck in a cycle of worry. They also became more cognizant of when others were in a low mood and were more patient and understanding. Overall, the group noted a shift in typical state of mind from more anxious and distracted towards calm and insightful”2.

[Another change] in the work environment was the manifestation of working together toward the greater good. The petty squabbling and infighting that had characterized some parts of the business were replaced by an increased commitment to teamwork and building better interpersonal relationships”3.

Interviews with company employees who had been introduced to these principles indicated Six Themes that emerged as a result: A Shift out of Victim Mentality, Greater Humility, Enhanced Creativity, Increased Levels of Trust and Rapport, Greater Self-Awareness, and Seeing the Connection between Mental States and Business Success4.

Impact on the Bottom Line

According to Bond, the company was struggling before the introduction of this principle-based approach5. Many programs were running in the red, and they were losing customers. The high stress level at the company resulted in inefficiency among workers and a high cost of poor quality. During the period when this approach was used, sales and profit increased almost every year. Every year the performance targets for sales were increased and every year they were exceeded6.

Employee Turnover decreased from between 10% & 20% to 2%7. “The sizeable decrease in voluntary terminations also impacted the bottom line because it can cost as much as $60,000 to recruit and relocate engineers and other professionals such as those employed by [this company]8.

Cost of Poor Quality, reflecting the organization’s efficiency, decreased from nearly 9% to less than 1%; the target for this industry is 3%8.

Employee Surveys showed that while overall in the company 58% of employees would ‘Recommend it as a good place to work’, 90% of those who had been introduced to this approach said they would recommend it8. Similarly, 73% of those introduced to this work said that “a good level of trust, honesty and openness exists in my business area,” whereas overall in the company only 39% of employees felt that this was so.9

1 (Bond, p. 82) 2 (Bond, p. 103, 104) 3 (Bond, p.80) 4 (Roy, p. 156) 5 (Bond, p. 99) 6 (Bond, p.99)
7 (Bond, p. 100) 8 (Bond, p. 110) 9 (Bond, p.96)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments on this entry are closed.